"Wealthy materialists end up embracing leftism... teaches that money and power are the most important"
Since when... isn't the predominant theme that you hate in the left Socialism? Sharing what you have and being your brother's keeper, helping the widows and orphans, etc as instructed in the bible.

Isn't it telling that the left is the best educated and best paid...
Would you rather be in with the more ignorant and less successful crowd?

God forbid maybe that "librul" education not only allowed them to be a success in the current economic reality but helped them form a compassionate worldview so that they channel that success to help their fellow man...
I know it's not the every-man-for-themselves/ bootstrap BS Republican method... but then I see that as a good thing (that apparently works better too).

"If you want to think Marxism actually makes economic sense, you'd be much better off absorbing the rantings of a professor of liberal arts than asking a farmer."
Another random thought of my own... Haven't Republicans lead the way in subsidizing the crap out of agriculture since way back when? That farmer ought to be able to tell you plenty about Marxism huh...
Last I checked, at least the teacher never got paid to Not teach anything.

Well, first, Mr. Cobalt, the bigger question is whether liberals actually are helping anyone. As far as I can tell, their policies keep people dumb and poor.

Second, I've met plenty of teachers who get paid to not teach anything (c.f. tenure). That, in fact, is why I dropped a class years ago in college on Milton. It turned into a class on Duke basketball. Kinda made me mad since I was paying for it.

However, back on to my original snark. Could it possibly be that the wealthy are feeling guilt and that's what drives their policies? Especially since there is no worse fate than being poor to a leftist. (I tend to disagree, since 'poverty'* made a pretty good person out of my wife...) However, strangely enough, this guilt isn't enough to motivate them to go out and do something themselves, but rather to have other people do stuff with other peoples money. I guess it takes away from whatever post-graduate nonsense they're working on. (Amazing how the detachment from reality increases with increasing certification.)

* - in quotes because poverty in this country is nothing compared to many other places.

Something tells me that critics would have a different set of criticisms if the left were mostly poor and less likely to have advanced degrees.

Of course, I'm guessing that the majority of people who identify as "liberal" don't identify as Marxist, even if they occasionally incorporate some Marxist ideas into their worldview.

cobaltbluemoon - There are a significant number of conservatives who believe strongly in "being their brother's keeper." They just don't think that the government does a good job of it compared to private charity.

Michael - However, strangely enough, this guilt isn't enough to motivate them to go out and do something themselves

I'd suggest that you're overgeneralizing terribly. I could easily cite a few counterexamples from my own life, people who have gone through material deprivation (one woman with either a masters or Ph.D. I forget, earning ~$10,000 a year so she can do work she sees as important.) I don't know what the mean and variation for this type of behavior is, and I think it's hard to quantify ( disregarding effectiveness, how do you rank someone going door to door evangelizing compared to someone handing out fliers for an activist cause if both go unpaid?)

I disagree with the gist of "cobaltbluemoon"'s comments, but I thought his last comment was great:

Last I checked, at least the teacher never got paid to Not teach anything.

As a political opponent of yours, I want to admit, flat out, that that line, on it's own, was a wonderful retort. (Mike's comeback, notwithstanding.) Thanks!

God forbid maybe that "librul" education not only allowed them to be a success in the current economic reality...

I'm not opposed to "success" at all, if it involves creating or doing something productive. (Not, say, bringing lawsuits which destroy whole industries.) You mistake my complaint: I'm not a leftist, opposed to people being wealthy. (And I'm glad you're apparently not opposed to that either -- how refreshing.)

Instead, I simply find it ironic (and entertaining) that the people who are fond of denigrating their opponents as "rich" and "greedy", and mostly made up of the upper-crust elitists, are in, in fact, the ones who more resemble the stereotype they project.

And I tend to believe that those who focus on a "liberal" education tend to lean more to the left, and also produce less economic value, than those who specialize in the hard sciences (and engineering, and business).

...but helped them form a compassionate worldview so that they channel that success to help their fellow man...

You're simply wrong there: religious people, at all socioeconomic levels, on average give much more than their secular and left-leaning counterparts. Study after study has shown this, to the considerable ire of many.

So, again, the surprising hypocrisy: secular Democrats often accuse conservatives of being "every man for himself", but the hard facts are are that they're more like the stereotype they insist on projecting onto others.

Those who live in glass houses...

I know it's not the every-man-for-themselves/ bootstrap BS Republican method...

But, you see, it's NOT a bootstrap. It isn't that people shouldn't be helped at all (as Ryan points out), it's just that we prefer private charity over government-run charity (much more effective, in my experience) -- and also believe that people have to PARTICIPATE in their own recovery and improvement.

My girlfriend, for example, teaches damaged people to walk, and helps people overcome devastating injuries. She pours her heart out over these patients, prays for them and worries about them after work (She even has gone to visit them in their homes, when she knows they're lonely, in her spare time -- sometimes bringing them gifts.)

But she's noticed that those who get the service *free* frequently treat it as though it's *worthless* -- and refuse to co-operate, taking valuable resources away from those who both need and *want* them.

So we both agree they need to have an investment, a cost -- even if just a token one, whatever they can afford. It could be thirty minutes of encouraging other patients, or one dollar -- anything. That would screen out those who don't want to improve (and don't improve anyway, they just waste resources, stubbornly refusing to participate, and often blocking out countless appointments for which they don't show) -- or instead might even change their mind and make them appreciate and work with those trying to heal them.

But if we tried fixing the system, I know full well every newspaper would offer the exact same arguments and distortions you just made: it's "cruel", and a "bootstrap" to expect anything of people (including even just their own co-operation) when trying to help them medically, or economically.

For shame!

Another random thought of my own... Haven't Republicans lead the way in subsidizing the crap out of agriculture since way back when?

Yes, they *certainly* have. But all you're doing is arguing that they're a lot like Democrats in that way (and I'd agree completely) -- not saying that's good, or that Democrats aren't even worse.

(And the last bunch of Republicans actually finally cut farm subsidies, to their credit.)

Michael: I pretty much agree and resonate with your experience. As usual. So you get this boring response from me.

Ryan:

Something tells me that critics would have a different set of criticisms if the left were mostly poor and less likely to have advanced degrees.

Nope: I don't dislike nor criticize the left for being rich. As pointed out above: it's the hypocrisy. My primary beef with the left is over their policies. The rest is incidental and secondary -- but still amusing.

Of course, I'm guessing that the majority of people who identify as "liberal" don't identify as Marxist...

Actually, Ryan, in my experience, most people who are liberals often hold deep pockets of conservative values. They just vote for people who promote the opposite policies.

(Similar to, or perhaps the mirror of the farmer, above, who might not be a Marxist, but who is perfectly happy to receive pork.)

But I wasn't saying that Democrats overtly subscribed to Marxism. Just that higher education made one more liberal, because many of the professors buy into lit-crit, cultural relativism, Marxism, socially-constructed gender, etc, etc, etc.

People don't overtly say: "Oh, I believe this", but we do subtly absorb it, and it does change our thinking.

[To Mike:] I'd suggest that you're overgeneralizing terribly...

I'd agree he's overgeneralizing, but I wish it were "terribly". There are, of course, charitable and kind people on the left -- and stingy religious and/or conservative people. But the whole point of a "generalization" is to deduce or describe larger trends -- without generalizations, we could never learn anything.

And I'd have to say, as data apparently does, that Mike's right about the larger trend.

... how do you rank someone going door to door evangelizing compared to someone handing out fliers for an activist cause if both go unpaid?

I know you asked Mike, but I'm chiming in anyway:

Assume both have a similar demeanor and impact. (I.e. they're both equally effective at converting people to their cause.)

In terms of impact if one believes a relationship with God is the most important thing to have in life, then of course, one would have to vote with the evangelist. (Unless the activist chould be shown to save a disproportionate number of lives by converting people to her cause.)

If not, then, not -- you'd have to suggest a specific cause... but all you're doing is asking about the values of the one doing the rating.

Regarding their motivations? Who knows -- I have no idea! I don't know these two examples and can't read their (partially hypothetical) minds. But they're certainly equivalent in the sense that both are living out their religious convictions.

but all you're doing is asking about the values of the one doing the rating.

To be clear, I was just discussing people's willingness to sacrifice (time, money or opportunity) and how it's measured, divorced from the actual value of that sacrifice to others or society. If a person gives up a job, say, working at a beer company for some kind of ethical reasons and takes another for half their salary, that sacrifice is unlikely to show up in most surveys. Likewise, a wealthy person who votes for social services that they won't receive is (whether they are effective or not) engaging in a type of collective altruism. They're "spending other people's money," true, but also disproportionately picking their own pockets.

And I tend to believe that those who focus on a "liberal" education tend to lean more to the left, and also produce less economic value, than those who specialize in the hard sciences (and engineering, and business).

I tend to agree that liberal arts majors produce less economic value than some other major (and lean more to the left). But I'm at a loss to calculate the economic sacrifice of someone who pursues a Women's Studies major (or enters the preisthood) even though achievement tests indicate that the individual were capable of pursuing an engineering degree.

Theoretically, you could possibly use correlations between IQ and wealth, and then ask how much a particular occupation raised or lowered those projections to calculate economic sacrifice.

p.s. Sorry if my second to last post was a bit unclear at the end. I was posting at the end of a break, and in a hurry.

I was posting at the end of a break, and in a hurry.

Working the night shift, Ryan?

To be clear, I was just discussing people's willingness to sacrifice (time, money or opportunity) and how it's measured, divorced from the actual value of that sacrifice to others or society...

In a way, that's sort of touching on the elephant in the room, here. The real debate here (not between you and me, but the larger once outside that) is one about intentions and impact.

Specificly, the charges that conservatives must be "greedy" or "uncaring" (which surfaces here in the allegations of a Darwnian "every man for himself" attitude that cobaltblue helpfully imputes, right on cue). That is, that conservatives have bad character or bad inner motives.

But what they're talking about, and what you're asking about are what I'd call a religious valuation, since the criteria are, as you say "divorced from the actual value of that sacrifice to others or society."

We can attempt to measure value to others and society. We can't accurately measure what's going on in the mind, and any attempt to judge it involves bringing one's values (i.e. unprovable primary moral assumptions) into play. If you're asking about something "divorced" from impact to society, you're basicly appealing to a higher, transcendant set of values.

A number of religious people will simply say: "That's God's job, not mine" when asked such things.

For example, a serial killer might actually believe that the people he murders are members of an invading alien force, bent on destroying humanity. In his confused mind, he's actually working to save the world. He's sacrificing time, money, and effort (and risking his very life, if his state has capital punishment) to bind, gag, and kill, and dispose of bodies of these "evil aliens".

Meanwhile, another serial killer does the same thing, but for the pure pleasure of watching people die.

One has extremely good motives, one has bad ones. Both are a detriment to the world around them, though. Only God knows what's going on in each's mind for sure. We can guess, and we can talk about larger trends, but we're not absolutely sure, ever.

As a Christian, I believe that the work God wants from all of us is, first, to acknowledge who Jesus is and what he did. (John 6:27-28) I do honestly believe that when God asks an accounting for our lives (Genesis 9:5), such questions will be extremely important.

But I also have a concern for the better worldly good of all people -- and that I partially channel into "politics", which is to say, deliberate actions taken in the public square which affect us all. And in that area, I want to see suffering reduced, more people happy, less people dead, etc.

So I judge political goodness by those measures: does the policy make people happier, in the long run? Does it kill people, or cost them limbs? Etc.

In this regard, an evangelical Christian who is an ardent socialist is my practical opponent, even though he might claim to hold the same religious values I do. And in this regard, an angry atheist like Christopher Hitchens might be somewhat of an ally, even though he also believes I'm "poisoning" everything I touch. (Poor guy.)

(But I don't think, in the long run, one's politics and religion can remain divorced. I think at the core, the hypothetical socialist Christian and I, if he remains one for a long time, probably actually will be found to have differing assumptions about God as well. Perhaps even a member of an entirely different 'religion', at the core. And those with what I'd tend to think of as "good" religious values (Judeo-Christian ones) often turn out to be those who do the most worldly good too, as far as I can see. I don't think that's an accident.)

(Also note that you can hold Judeo-Christian values while having another religion. Many atheists are ardent about quite a number of JudeoChristian values, whereas many "liberal" Christians reject not a few.)

So to recap: when we're discussing good intentions, it doesn't persuade me much. It doesn't count for much in this life (except secondarily, where I think it will eventually come into play in ways we can see more clearly) -- and God will take care of the next one.

(Oh, but you know, the Nazis had good intentions, they were trying to make a better society... Blah.)

That's a lot at once. Sorry.

If a person gives up a job, say, working at a beer company for some kind of ethical reasons and takes another for half their salary, that sacrifice is unlikely to show up in most surveys...

Yes, but you're neglecting how surveys work. If I do *anything*, it's unlikely to show up in surveys. ANYTHING. But the point is that I'm part of a large mass of people who behave in similar ways I do, and relatively small samples can tease out the general trends without checking each case.

That person who made the sacrifice, let's say they're a Missionary Baptist who thinks Beer Is Evil (I know some, for example). Okay, you might not be able to measure that sacrifice, but a life is not just one moment or decisions -- a person with that attitude probably will do other things which will show up. And they're probably part of a group which encourages that same attitude (they weren't just dropped from an asteroid, after all), and even if THAT person isn't being measured, another similar one, from the same group or a similar one, will show up on the radar.

Look, either surveys can work or they can't. (And of course there an be invalid methods.) But you can't show a counterexample might exist, and thus throw out one particular conclusion. There are always counterexamples. But that doesn't negate the utility (nor reality) of recognizing larger trends.

(Which is one of the reasons I'm so opposed to the sob-story method of journalism. The economy will be roaring and, if there's a Republican Governor running for second term, it will be time to take that once-a-decade trip to a homeless shelter to try to find someone being "left behind" by the new, cruel, and Darwinian improvements in the state economy. But the fact that Edna Smith got laid off last week doesn't mean that most people aren't doing better -- or that the socialist policy the journalist wishes we had would be more helpful overall. Hard cases make bad law.)

Likewise, a wealthy person who votes for social services that they won't receive is (whether they are effective or not) engaging in a type of collective altruism...

Not necessarily. They might be doing it to impress their friends with their "progressive" cred, or they might be doing it to bolster their own self-image as a "caring" sort of guy.

There is such a thing as social capital, Ryan.

Say as a hypothetical example (using a real person) it looks to me like Bill Gates started giving because a lot of other people applied pressure to him to be "good" with the money he had. If so, why is he giving? In response to social pressure? To be liked? To improve people's view of Microsoft, and thus decrease public support for anti-trust measures?

If so, I consider the outcome good, but, if that's the motivation (I'm just guessing here, who really knows? (answer: Melinda, Bill, God)) then I'm not so impressed with the soul behind it. But again, that would be Bill's problem, in either case, not mine. This was just a hypothetical.

Gotta run!

Tim - I agree with the importance you place on impact. I was just responding to Michael's comment that; "However, strangely enough, this guilt isn't enough to motivate them to go out and do something themselves."

His comment may accurately touch on trends, or not (though it was an absolute statement about certain groups of people.) But something so vaguely defined as 'doing something' is next to impossible to measure. And there aren't just a few isolated counterexamples. They're prolific. At some point, they need to be accounted for. 'Hours volunteered' or 'percent of income donated' may be easier to measure, and may very well favor Judeo-Christian theistic groups (I haven't ever researched the matter). But I know quite a few people who may be classified as liberals who have acted similar to your girlfriend and integrated the moral work that they want to do directly into their lifestyle. Where does buying a Prius or purchasing fair trade coffee or organic cotton fit into this scheme? What about ethical vegetarianism? I question whether there can actually be a well designed study on so broad a topic. The best that can be done seems to be to focus in on a few very narrowly defined types of activities and extrapolate from them.

Working the night shift, Ryan?

I was referring to the post timestamped 1:40 pm. Though the time on the server seems to be 2 hrs later than my local time. Hope that clears things up. :-)

Wow... actually got a lively response on that post. I was hoping for some thoughts/debate on what I said in response to "US Foreign Policy, Mohammad Mossadeq, Ron Paul, and Iran"

Before I respond, I meant to say the first time around that from my experience, it's pretty hard to be "so confused about the world and human nature" and be successful at the same time.

Now...

"As far as I can tell, their policies keep people dumb and poor."
No, lazy people that take advantage of the system keep themselves poor. Just because some, or even a lot, of people suck, should we let everyone else who gets dealt a bad hand fall through the cracks? I've known plenty of people that had to go on welfare or unemployment for a while before getting back on their feet. I knew kids who only ate one good meal a day, at school on the fed's dime. I knew very few people in college that weren't using federal student aid out of necessity. I've been on unemployment before, which you can only do for ...I think it was a little over 3 months. I maxed out what you could get because of what my income had been, and it was still only a couple hundred bucks per week. A small price to pay to help people start contributing those all important tax dollars again.

"I've met plenty of teachers who get paid to not teach anything "
Yuk, yuk, yuk. Yeah, but they weren't being explicitly told & paid to by the feds.

"...wealthy are feeling guilt and that's what drives their policies?"
They can't just be nice people that want to help? Maybe they do feel bad when they look around and see other people working 3 jobs just to buy diapers and formula. Good, I wish more people did so we could fix the vulture capitalism (that'll get some posts) that is screwing up our country.

"Especially since there is no worse fate than being poor to a leftist."
Um...most lefties, while they enjoy money, it's not their focus in life. You haven't known many happy, hippy, stoner-types have you?

"'poverty'* made a pretty good person out of my wife"
I'd be the first to agree that hardship can sometimes forge someone into a better person. Wealth can spoil people, who knew?

" this guilt isn't enough to motivate them to go out and do something themselves"
You haven't met any of the people involved with Habitat for Humanity or similar charities have you? Regardless, I'd Rather they gave money. There's a lot more people with a little free time and a strong back than there are generous billionaires.

"poverty in this country is nothing compared to many other places."
You should do a search on the exploding homeless problem here. Living on the street begging isn't that much different anywhere.

"They just don't think that the government does a good job of it compared to private charity."
If private charities, for the most part meaning churches typically, were taking care of the poor and infirm as they were charged with instead of building gaudy stained glass palaces and paying huge salaries to their televangelist hosts/preachers, there wouldn't be a need for most government services to begin with. I've always thought it funny that these are the programs conservative "Christians" complain about most. Don't think we can afford it? Carve off a sliver of that massive defense budget (gasp,blasphemer!).
http://www.federalbudget.com/
The only Agency that even spends "real" money compared to defense is Health and Human Services. Here's what they do-

Health and social science research
Preventing disease, including immunization services
Assuring food and drug safety
Medicare (health insurance for elderly and disabled Americans) and Medicaid (health insurance for low-income people)
Health information technology
Financial assistance and services for low-income families
Improving maternal and infant health
Head Start (pre-school education and services)
Faith-based and community initiatives
Preventing child abuse and domestic violence
Substance abuse treatment and prevention
Services for older Americans, including home-delivered meals
Comprehensive health services for Native Americans
Medical preparedness for emergencies, including potential terrorism.

What of the above is less important than another stealth bomber...?
Hell, under the "Faith-based and community initiatives" they're even giving churches money to do what they were supposed to do anyway.

"I'm not a leftist, opposed to people being wealthy...glad you're apparently not opposed to that either -- how refreshing.)"
Money is good. Greed/ambition is good. But it should be tempered with compassion. Vulture Capitalists that move their manufacturing to another country for cheap labor only to export back here don't get that. Walmart buying all their goods from China because their political slave labor can cut costs, yeah they don't get it either. Noone I know on the left doesn't want to be rich. It may not be a goal they're striving for but it's not something they object to or hate people for. It's becoming rich at an unreasonable expense to everyone else they don't like. These would be the "denigrating their opponents as "rich" and "greedy" folks that you're referencing.

"I tend to believe that those who focus on a "liberal" education tend to lean more to the left, and also produce less economic value"
The stat on the blog would seem to disagree. People don't get paid a lot usually unless they're either someone's nephew or they're helping to make lots of money for the company. That must be a lot of nephews.

"You're simply wrong there: religious people, at all socioeconomic levels, on average give much more than their secular and left-leaning counterparts."
A.left-leaning doesn't mean non-religious.
Tell me whether the following sounds more like someone you'd consider liberal/lefty or conservative.
"If you would be perfectly happy, go home and sell all that you have, and give your riches to the poor people. Then you will have riches in heaven."
B.Depends on how you look at it. If the lefties are the wealthier on average, they're also paying more taxes. On top of their charitable giving, they are disproportionately financing the social programs they've championed to support the "widows and orphans". They may indeed not contribute to private charities as much as they've tried to set up more reliable organizations: like the EPA to do the caretaker of the Earth work Christians and Jews were charged with in Genesis, HUD to house the poor, Health and Human Services to heal and care for kids and old people, and Social Security to help the old and infirmed.

You know, all the programs the other guys want to privatize (read eliminate). If they sincerely want any of them to be privatized so badly, why haven't wealthy Republicans started a nationwide alternative that is better, but that requires you to not participate in the comparable government plan? Eliminate it by lack of participation.
No those agencies aren't perfect, or anywhere close to it(with the possible exception of Medicare which has proved more cost effective than private insurers)... but would you trust any of the above to the Catholic clergy or any given megachurch televangelist. Me either.

C.I tried to find the data to support this but couldn't. I'd like to know how they differentiated between the two categories. Not like the Red Cross has a "check which religion you are" box next to the donation amount. Also, if the bulk of what they're talking about is donations to churches or some religious charities(I'd make an exception for something like the Salvation Army), a lot of that money is budgeted to maintaining the building, paying the organist, etc. That's not the same thing as giving to a program singularly dedicated to helping people as its also funding the social/recreational function aspect of the churches.

Point is, if I'm hungry I don't care if you've got a cross or a badge as long as I'm fed, but the guy with the badge gets fired and/or jailed if he tries to skim the poor box to fund his new swimming pool.

"we prefer private charity over government-run charity "
That would be great... and again I say that if the private charities had been or were cutting it, we wouldn't have needed the government programs.

"she's noticed that those who get the service *free* frequently treat it as though it's *worthless* "
Ask her if that's 100% of the free cases. Should we also eliminate the ones who get it free but are appreciative? People suck, big surprise.

"they're a lot like Democrats in that way"
No, Republicans have proved much more capable at spending wastefully, starting and spending on wars of choice, spending far more than we're bringing in. Has W managed to get the national debt to $10 Trillion yet? He will before leaving. Maybe a few more roads to nowhere will help...

" it's the hypocrisy"
Like I said, maybe they feel that on top of contributing privately, they're also organizing their government to shoulder the effort more efficiently and more equally. I don't think Republicans exactly hold the high moral ground for debating hypocrisy, especially of late.

"liberals often hold deep pockets of conservative values"
I think I agree with what you're saying.
Everyone wants to accomplish the same good things, just by fundamentally different methods. It's when we start demonizing one another as "un-American" or traitorous (talk radio, cough cough) that more argument than accomplishment happens.

from my experience, it's pretty hard to be "so confused about the world and human nature" and be successful at the same time.

Just a quick thought; Some people develop excellent heuristics (rules of thumb or behavior) for living in a society governed by rule of law where most people they associate are essentially responsible like themselves and most mistakes are best smoothed over or forgotten. These heuristics can sometimes cause problems when applied outside the scope of a person's daily life. For instance, countries go to war for fundamentally different reasons than the ones which would cause an argument between yourself and someone in your office.

The fact that rule of law has been so successful in the United States seems to blind some people to the fact that the agreements that exist between nations, called "international law" aren't like domestic laws which can be enforced via the police. N. Korea violated it's agreements with the US re: nuclear weapons and there isn't any court which will punish them for this, or for selling those weapons to other countries or private terrorist groups.

I don't support much of Bush's behavior re: the Iraq war for a variety of reasons. But I would have had no problem with an assassination of Saddam and his sons, or other forms of coercion which didn't require a massive, sustained troop presence.

Cobaltbluemoon,

First, I want to formally say welcome, and thanks for the stimulating discussion. I won't always agree with your views -- and may even attempt to tear one or two apart -- but I want to assure that, as far as I am able to do so, you'll be treated respectfully as a person.

First, though, to backtrack to Mike's earlier comment:

"However, strangely enough, this guilt isn't enough to motivate them to go out and do something themselves."

There's an interesting parallel between the left and right: Christians and liberals both believe they're saved by their faith, it often seems to me. Many people I know on the left (not all, certainly -- some do really great things, but many) seem to believe that it's enough to hold all the "correct" positions on things.

In fact, an associate of mine said exactly that: "I'm a good guy because I hold the right positions." (slight paraphrase by now -- but that's pretty much it)...

But I know quite a few people who may be classified as liberals who have acted similar to your girlfriend...

Were they religious? That's a big indicator, bigger, in fact, than political alignment. There are of course wonderful secular liberals too -- I think of Christopher Hitchens risking his life to shelter his friend Salmon Rushdie, for example. But again, we're talking about trends, to which there are always exceptions.

Where does buying a Prius or purchasing fair trade coffee or organic cotton fit into this scheme?

For some, utterly sincere. But for many, I think it's an outward sign of righteousness. Car manufacturers have found that hybrids that *look* like hybrids (Prius) sell like hotcakes. Those which don't, and come in the same body style as a non-hyrid, don't sell nearly as well. Which tells us something, doesn't it?

Back to Cobaltblue:

Wow... actually got a lively response on that post. I was hoping for some thoughts/debate on what I said in response to "US Foreign Policy, Mohammad Mossadeq, Ron Paul, and Iran"...

I'd love to answer you, but I tend to address these sequentially, most recent posts first. I'll get back there eventually, but my life is pretty packed with activity at the moment.

(And when your opponent casually hurls a dozen or so wrong allegations, it takes quite a while to point you to a source of data showing each is incorrect.)

I meant to say the first time around that from my experience, it's pretty hard to be "so confused about the world and human nature" and be successful at the same time.

I completely disagree. People can be absolute geniuses in one area and complete morons in another. (I can write software like crazy -- but I have trouble using basic Microsoft applications, like Excel, for example.)

Albert Einstein, for example: brilliant mathematically. No question about it. Also an ardent Marxist -- and he didn't just buy into the whole economic scheme, but also believed Marx's pronouncements about sudden, radical shifts in human nature coming. Dumb!

Look at Hollywood: Great actors, often very succesfull people, sometimes also very good at marketing and even very charismatic -- yet completely ignorant on so many issues.

Of course people who are successful can be completely wrong about major things like human nature: George Soros has views exactly the opposite of, say, conservative billionaire Phil Anschutz. Yet their political views are fundamentally opposite. Both can't be right, so at least one must be massively successful economically yet wrong politically.

This seems so obvious.

Mike: "As far as I can tell, their policies keep people dumb and poor."
Cobaltblue: No, lazy people that take advantage of the system keep themselves poor...

My friend, when we design and vote for a system like welfare, we are partially responsible for the incentives it creates.

If a person argues that people should keep all their doors unlocked, in a bad neighborhood, we can blame the criminals for their actions, but we're also somewhat stupid for having failed to recognize, to say it again, some basic facts "about the world and human nature."

Just because some, or even a lot, of people suck, should we let everyone else who gets dealt a bad hand fall through the cracks?

Who are you arguing against? Where I did I say we should let people who have bad luck fall through the cracks? This is the big problem with these debates: you can say, over and over, that you believe in private charity, and that you believe also in making sure that people participate in being helped, and even point out the importance of charity and private giving...

... and a person to the left of me will act as if I just said we shouldn't help people who've had a spell of bad luck in life.

Can't you get past your stereotype of us, here? Or even just pay a bit closer attention to what has actually been said?

I've known plenty of people that had to go on welfare or unemployment for a while before getting back on their feet.... I knew very few people in college that weren't using federal student aid out of necessity... [Etc.]

Of course some people are benefitted by government programs. I've never said otherwise. I simply said I felt that generally private charity was more effective. Ryan pointed the same thing out, too.

Take the student aid example: Let's say we decided every kid had a right to a college education, so we offered each youth, say, the average cost of a year's education (say, $15K per year). What would happen to the cost of a college education?

If you guessed it would go up (probably about $5-15K annually) you would be correct.

First, that $15K tuition per year doesn't fall from the sky: the taxpayers pick it up, one way or another. So each family is poorer by a bit represented by that amount -- but that's just a transfer, so far.

But let's think about a kid who would have gone to college either way: before, his family would have "paid" for the education. Now, because the same cost is going in through taxes, it seems to be "free". And so Democrats argue: "Look how many people couldn't have gone without that aid!" -- forgetting, of course, that they made all people a bit poorer to offer that "free" service, which they now "need" -- when they wouldn't have before.

Next, even worse, because something is "free", a lot of people who wouldn't have gone otherwise will go: If Bob would have just gone to a trade school before, why *shouldn't* he get a college degree now? After all, his family already paid much of the price through taxes, right?

So all the people who went to trade schools, or just started in business directly now go to college. Ooops -- but wait, the total bill just went up because more people went.

And of course the *value* of a college education also just dropped -- after all, they can't be flunking out all the trade school students, right? So now "college degree" also can imply the same thing "trade school degree" meant before. Thus the perceived "value" of a college degree drops for prospective employers.

So now the typical college student has to also achieve a graduate degree, to differentiate himself from former trade-school or associates-degree student. So his price goes up, as does years spent in school (instead of letting that person now start working, and creating wealth which benefits everyone) -- and society as a whole becomes poorer still.

And nobody really gets a much better education.

Likewise, since wealthier students now have that subsidy, and part of the price of college is dictated by what the market can bear, elite colleges will simply pocket the government $15K and raise the tuition yet another $10-$15K, becoming more profitable, keeping the masses out still, and keeping the value of their degrees comparatively high.

So in the end, because you're handing out a lot of unnecessary (and eventually ineffective) "education" (years in college, really), you end up making everyone poorer -- since there really was a cost for that inefficiency.

This isn't a future hypothetical: it's already happened. Once, a high school diploma meant, to prospective employers, that a student could read and write. But as schools became increasingly cenralized, and union-oriented, pressure increased to keep kids in as long as possible, and keep the funds flowing by maximizing students. So now the high school diploma only means you've turned 18, and it's no longer a gateway into most entry-level business jobs, and everybody's got to go to college (and waste for more years and countless more $$$) simply proving they had the same basic skills as a high school grad circa 1957.

Yes, there are some people who are helped, who might not have been otherwise. But as a whole, it makes society worse, and makes more victims, and makes us all poorer.

And -- key point here -- taxes and charity drive out private giving. Which is also detrimental, because more learn the lesson that it's not their job to take care of others -- that's the job of some federal agency. They gave at the IRS and poll booth, thanks.

You, for example, seem to believe it's the job of the government to carry out all God's commands. (See below.)

[Teachers not teaching:] Yuk, yuk, yuk. Yeah, but they weren't being explicitly told & paid to by the feds.

But let's think about a kid who would have gone to college either way: before, his family would have "paid" for the education. Now, because the same cost is going in through taxes, it seems to be "free". And so Democrats argue: "Look how many people couldn't have gone without that aid!" -- forgetting, of course, that they made all people a bit poorer to offer that "free" service, which they now "need" -- when they wouldn't have before.

While I disagree with a lot of things that teachers unions have done (and democratic support for them) public subsidy for education (done in a merit based, market driven fashion) is high on my list of things the government does that is helpful in the long run. It costs money, obviously, but it can increase the value of someone's labor for their entire lives.

Though it would be nice if the US put more emphasis on 'trade schools' and was stricter in HS, restoring the value of a HS diploma.

And of course the *value* of a college education also just dropped -- after all, they can't be flunking out all the trade school students, right? So now "college degree" also can imply the same thing "trade school degree" meant before.

Assuming that people don't actually learn anything by going to school, sure. But I don't buy that assertion.

Academic institutions are still selective, anyways. If they take in more money and they're in a competitive environment, that money will have to be spent on something that contributes to the effectiveness of the college.

So advocate scholarships based partly on ability.
Wouldn't that help solve the problem of people going to college even though they didn't have the potential to benefit?

So all the people who went to trade schools, or just started in business directly now go to college. Ooops -- but wait, the total bill just went up because more people went.

There's a pretty elastic supply of education, as far as I can see (unless you make it inelastic as
some unions have done at the HS level.) Unfortunatley, colleges don't collaborate as much as they could (elearning could facilitate this, but there's some opposition to this at the HS level. Certain AP materials are forbidden from being used online in some states, though the details escape me at the moment.) If they did, an economy of scale should reduce the average cost per student.

Think: if government-guaranteed welfare worked, the USSR would have been the best nation on earth. Instead, its people lived in abject poverty.

There was a lot going on in the USSR besides just welfare, though, or socialism. This is kindof like saying "The Nazis had an anti-smoking policy and yet there were more deaths in Germany when the Nazis were in power. Thus, anti-smoking policies increase rather than decrease deaths."

For that matter, the USSR applied pressure to students families if the students didn't perform properly. In that regard, they were a bit stricter in terms of their meritocracy (though 'merit' in their system may involve memorizing blatant historical and scientific lies.)

It'd be a more honest to just compare the US to a more socialistic country like Sweden. And you could still probably make your point.

Claiming that lefties are "chariable" because they pay more taxes is a bit like saying Islamic women are modest because they're forced to wear a veil.

You're not really addressing the argument here. To make the analogy complete, you'd need to focus on whether Muslim women were more modest for voting veils as mandatory (making a choice, but collectively). Especially those Muslim women who were more attractive than average, or who otherwise stood to gain from being unveiled.

"First, I want to formally say welcome,.."
Thanks :)

"Where does buying a Prius... I think it's an outward sign of righteousness."
We can only hope that outwardly displaying conservation becomes a source of ego inflating vanity. As Americans are much more motivated by fitting in than doing what's right, I hope that's a growing trend that will eventually rival muscle cars and hummers as status symbols. We should be so lucky.

"But let's think about a kid who would have gone to college either way..."

To qualify for financial aid (which is usually a loan not a grant) in the first place, you're not usually dealing with folks that it wouldn't be a crushing financial burden even if they can scrape together the money. So the "they would have gone either way" doesn't hold water.

"Though it would be nice if the US put more emphasis on 'trade schools' and was stricter in HS, restoring the value of a HS diploma."

My dad used to run VICA(vocational and industrial clubs of america) so I've gotten to see how vocational education has been deprioritized and defunded first hand. And HS diplomas should be the equivilent of AA & AS degrees by now.

"And of course the *value* of a college education also just dropped -- after all, they can't be flunking out all the trade school students, right?"

? I've never been in a college that had a problem flunking out anyone.

"So advocate scholarships based partly on ability."

Most scholarships based on need I've seen were also prioritized or limited in some way by GPA.

"So all the people who went to trade schools, or just started in business directly now go to college."

So what, give them 2 years. If they flounder, screw it, they'll weed themselves out before burning through very much money. If the grease monkey surprises you and turns into a neurosurgeon, so much the better. What better cause to try endlessly towards than trying to improve our populace culturally, intellectually, and financially.

"Think: if government-guaranteed welfare worked, the USSR would have been the best nation on earth. Instead, its people lived in abject poverty."

There were a lot more faults that caused the downfall of that system than just feeding and housing its poor.

"Claiming that lefties are "chariable" because they pay more taxes"

Never said that paying more taxes is charitable. But when your group champions programs to accomplish things universally acknowledged as socially good (feeding the poor, housing homeless, etc), and then your group also disproportionately funds those programs... I could see how you might think some of your work is done in those areas.

Me-I meant to say the first time around that from my experience, it's pretty hard to be "so confused about the world and human nature" and be successful at the same time.

"I completely disagree. People can be absolute geniuses in one area"

I don't see how your comparison applies at all. Yes, you can be an idiot who can't tie your shoes and still calculate physics. But, how many highly successful businessmen do you know of that are clueless about human nature and how the world works? Yup, kind of mutually exclusive.

"My friend, when we design and vote for a system like welfare, we are partially responsible for the incentives it creates."

I agree. Show me a better way and I'll support it. Dissolving the safety net with nothing beneath it other than the vague assurance of private charities/churches is not a real solution.

"Who are you arguing against... that you believe in private charity,"

And again, what private charity? I missed all this housing for the poor, school lunches and college finiancial aid that is going unused? Apparently, it's not enough.

"... Or even just pay a bit closer attention to what has actually been said?"

Or maybe you just haven't actually offered a viable alternative solution.

'Of course some people are benefitted by government programs. I've never said otherwise. I simply said I felt that generally private charity was more effective. Ryan pointed the same thing out, too."

And again, if the right feels so strongly about it, implement these better solutions and require participants to come off the government programs. Till then, it's hollow talk.

"So in the end, because you're handing out a lot of unnecessary (and eventually ineffective) "education" (years in college, really), you end up making everyone poorer -- since there really was a cost for that inefficiency... yes, there are some people who are helped, who might not have been otherwise. But as a whole, it makes society worse, and makes more victims, and makes us all poorer.
"
That was a lot of talk to come around to- screw those poor kids. They would have gotten there either way, and if not, let them go beg the church for some money. ;)

"And -- key point here -- taxes and charity drive out private giving."
?

"because more learn the lesson that it's not their job to take care of others -- that's the job of some federal agency. "

Because those federal agencies are staffed by robots, right? not people who may have specifically gone into that field (teachers,social workers,home healthcare nurses, etc) to help. How stupid would teachers have to be to take that job for the money?

That said, for just a moment I'd like to step back and take a big swing at everyone who likes to constantly run the underlying theme of "damn teachers, damn unions, bum tenure teachers, etc".
You, one and all, are morons. Veil your disdain however you want, you only serve to make yourself look even more ignorant and meanspirited.
Do you know how little money these people make?
You entrust them with both the daycare and education of our next generation and then simultaneously complain about every possible aspect of what or how they do it. Let's see you put up with, much less teach, 30-40 screaming 1st graders for (maybe) just over 20k per year. Didn't think so.
Tenure? That just means they have to actually give a reason to fire you. Basically the same difference between a contractor and salaried employee.

Of course we have a lot of crappy teachers, aside from those idealists dead set on teaching as a goal in life, did you think we were going to get the top grads for less money than an assistant manager at McDonald's?

I criticize their Union too, for 2 things:

A.Not implementing a nationwide strike. Let everyone who bitches and whines see how important they really are. Let's see you all actually afford a private school, especially once there's intense competition for open slots. Supply and Demand right, can't criticize those schools for making another buck. The poor kids can just go to the new Salvation Army school. I'm sure they'll get an equivalent education.
Strike until every teacher has a fitting salary of at least 50-60k per year with adjustments for inflation. These ought to be the highest praised and well cared for public servants we have. Maybe they can swap pay and benefits with Senators for a while as they definitely work harder for it.
Strike until every teacher works in a safe environment. If they're working in an inner city war zone, they should be rewarded just like military personell once on a hazardous assignment, danger pay and adequate surrounding security.

B.With the elevated pay, implementing greater quality control. All higher level instructors should have advanced degrees/experience. All elementary teachers should be required to have degrees specializing in child care/development. All teachers should be required to test periodically to ensure their knowledge and mental faculties are up to the task.

It is a disgrace that education doesn't get 600 billion dollars a year instead of the defense industry. But everyone thinks that number should be bigger...
Education however needs to be "privatized". Right... Because that works out so much cheaper with our Blackwater military mercenary/contractors too, doesn't it?
Meanwhile, the only well funded options will be to have your child indoctrinated at whatever religious school is close to your home. I thought we were against Madrasahs?
Why is it that we still have some backwards Norman Rockwell-esque little schoolhouse on the priarie ideal for education. We should be striving for Socrates and silicon in every classroom. Not, "how little can we scrape by with" in public education until it's an object of scorn.

"You, for example, seem to believe it's the job of the government to carry out all God's commands."

No, but I find it entertaining as hell when the church isn't doing what it was supposedly commanded to do, government picks up the slack at the behest of "libruls", and then the religious right vehemently denounces it at the bidding of their corporate masters. I'm sorry... I missed the Catholic version of Greenpeace that decried the industrial revolution's damage to the planet. I missed the Southern Baptist EPA for Jesus calling out for lower mercury levels in our food supply too I guess. You're right, no need for government intervention here. Those religious organizations are doing a heckuva job (Brownie) making sure god's creation stays clean and habitable.

"No, they're being told not to work and paid by the states. It's so hard to fire teachers now that many schools keep them on even when they're totally ineffective."

No, they're not. I don't understand why there is such a misconception about tenure. See the above rant. The only timidity I have ever seen about canning a teacher is when they are a minority. Here in AL they're so scared of the appearance of racial impropriety, they'll promote (seen it) a bad black teacher (read, both poor teacher and sexually suggestive in the case I'm thinking of) out of the classroom and into administrative faculty before they'll fire them.

"McMahon is currently being paid his $77,000 ...city has paid him an estimated $600,000...Sorry, but you're simply wrong about that, Cobaltblue. "

A.Go to your nearest public school and ask if anyone there makes anywhere close to 77k.I don't think even upper administration makes quite that in the Southeast. My dad was a principal and got close to 60k after being in the school system for 20+ years.
B.You act as if this bizarrely expensive and unusual instance is the norm and thereby proves something. It isn't and doesn't.

"Have you?...Do you realize that there was a huge explosion in homelessness during the 1980s?"

Um, yeah.

" The ACLU sued to force mental institutions to release these poor people onto the streets. The ACLU won, and they've been stuck wandering out there ever since."

Well... or it could be what has been viewed as "federal abdication of responsibility" in dealing with the mentally ill under Reagan.
http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas_d.html

Please link me to an article about the evil ACLU mental patient liberation.

"I don't think the huge influx of low-paid laborers has been helping either, as it's driven down the wages for unskilled workers and probably put not a few on the street. Consider which party has most strongly supported both these policies, please."

Nope, I say close the borders for a while. We need to straighten our own house out before helping anyone else. Both parties support illegals. Look at W trying to salvage this amnesty crap right now. Wealthy Capitalists are drooling over all that legal cheap labor, and pissing themselves over it all going away. My biggest criticsm is for the Dems though. I can't see how they could possibly betray organized labor any worse than promoting mass legalization of illegals.

"I'm sorry, cb, but you're simply wrong on your facts again. Government welfare *increased* poverty, rather than reducing it. And when we scaled back welfare, rates of poverty again started to fall. "

Please link me to stats and the paper you cite. Also, keep in mind that once people are unemployed for long enough, they fall off the rolls. That can cause an artificial improvement in unemployment and poverty statistics. Maybe it worked, maybe there was an economic upturn simultaneously that helped everyone, don't really know without reading it.

"(Europe as a whole now has a standard of living equivalent to the four poorest US states.)"

Europe as a whole includes backwards iron curtain countries and the war ravaged baltic. Compare apples and apples.

"You live in a nation which has one of the lowest rates on earth of real poverty, and also happens to be one of the most Christian nations on earth. And you can't even notice the co-relation?"

Why don't you lay it out for me? I think we end up with manifest destiny and divine right... and an empire of military bases around the world.

And I've already pointed out that people who go to church give far more than those who don't. Go look for yourself: don't take my word for it. And even though secular people give far less, you still principally blame the religious?

" One minute you preach about the rising homelessness problem, and the next minute you rattle off a long list of agencies which apparently aren't helping...You need a consistent narrative here, friend."

I thought it a clear commentary about how we have a flawed but functional system in place, and your plan is to dismantle it with no real solution imagined or concrete, in place.

"Most of the agencies you've mentioned are fraught with waste -- "blah blah blah

The DoD reported $1.1 trillion missing in FY 2000 alone. Trillion with a T.
1,000. That's about how many military bases we have worldwide.
Until someone starts talking about cutting defense instead of staying perpetually mobilized for WWII, I don't want to hear it about how the department of education is inneffient. At least they can say where they wasted the money at.
Great article by the way- http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1181/chalmers_johnson_on_garrisoning_the_planet

"Head start works -- until the fourth grade."

Damn kids. We could have had another tank for the money it took to keep him clean till 4th grade...

"You seem to pretend you care about all these programs and problems, cb, but it seems I, an "evil" and "uncaring" conservative, have spent quite bit more time researching what works and doesn't than you have. Think about what that means."

For all that supposed thought, your only solution is to send people begging to private charities that are not up to the task or that don't even exist. Think what that means.

"I'm not trying to brag here or anything: it just drives me nuts that lefties come here preaching about how deeply they care, yet never seem to take even twenty minutes to figure out it the policies they support help or hurt people."

Right... damn medicare/caid, hurting those poor sick people. How dare they... I'm sure some benevolent corporation would have stepped in to help them too if only those feds wouldn't stand in the way.

"Again, cb, the problem, as I see it, is that you simply don't understand economics. It's not that your opponents are just so much less moral than you are,"

Yes, they are.

" it's that people like myself -- I face outsourcing threats everyday -- actually believe outsourcing (when done right -- not badly, as I see so often) creates far more jobs than it costs."

Tell me that when your IT job moves to India.

"Think about it: XYZ company (a) writes software (it's main focus), and (b) sends out bills. If they can send the bills out for half the cost by outsourcing them (and still get a reliable result -- that's the trick) -- what happens then?"

Well, that would work great if it were a rare occurence. But when nearly your entire manufacturing industry moves its production to the third world, and your IT moves to the third world, and customer support, etc etc. Then all of a sudden you have no middle class to buy all those wonderful goods or to pay those bills. Then you end up with a debtor nation like the present day US where everyone has no savings, no insurance, and maxes out their credit to try and keep up the lifestyle we supposedly have here.
For short sited vulture capitalists, it works out great.

"we're not all unemployed and homeless. Think about it."

You're right. Every mom and dad works, if not more than one job a piece. Strangers raise our kids so we can afford to buy a home. If you can afford to buy a home. I have thought about it. I have lived it.

"A.left-leaning doesn't mean non-religious.
True: but it certainly implies it."

The right implies it. As often and as loudly as possible.

"I know that guy: he's deeply conservative."

Jesus was a hippy. Peace, love, long hair, sandals and all. He'd fit in with the modern religious right about as well as Kucinich on their Pres. ticket. They don't even realize how they've become a parody of the guy praying loudly in the temple to be heard.

"Look at this conversation: You're obsessed with wealth and poverty."

Didn't this start out with a post about the fact that more of the nation's wealthy and intelligent are lefties ;).

"And you're quoting this verse as though it proves Jesus is a liberal: e.g. since Jesus was against wealth he must not have been a conservative, who (you must be meaning, therefore) are materialistic. You're simply deploying, yet again, that if someone is anti-materialistic they must be a liberal."

Actually I was just saying that he'd instruct you to help the poor even if it hurt your pocketbook. That doesn't sound like a conservative at all. And he'd certainly have you do that before he'd want you to allocate $600 billion to bullets and bombs every year.

"The EPA isn't the answer to God's commandment, friend -- a clean, healthy planet full of godly people is clearly what God's desiring there."

My point is "God's people" ain't taking care of business like he told them to. Therefore all those nasty agnostic and athiest libruls who are a little more concerned with earth being around than apocalyptic fetish fundamentalists, had to enact laws to clean the place up.

"You may like that idea, or not,..."

You may like it or not as well, but enjoy breathing that cleaner air either way.

"And if God thought these programs were his ultimate ideal, then I'm really not interested in a God who's that grossly incompetant."

I think that every time I look at the obnoxious, mouth breathers that tend to be his followers.

"If you're interested in helping the poor, it might be worth a few minutes to try to determine whether HUD was (a) a huge mistake which harmed poor people,"

You're right... horrible mistake. Let's never try to house the poor again. Damn HUD. Now where is this great privatized alternative that sprang up to replace it?

"There *are* alternatives to every program you mention above."

Yes, that are helping. Not that are capable of entirely addressing the problems they face.

"Do you think people can decide whether or not to fund these programs?"

You didnt read what I wrote. Give people a better alternative that requires them to not take the comparable federal/state aid.

"And agencies won't be eliminated if people stop using them: they just keep going on and on regardless."

I'm pretty sure Republicans would gladly proclaim how there is noone on welfare because of their efforts and then shutter the office doors. And then kick all those funds to the military.

"What two categories?"

...Religious and secular givers.

"Are you even listening CB? I never said we should "eliminate" service to these people -- simply that all should be required to participate and pay, in some small way."

Yes...and if they can't pay, in some small way, then they are elminated.

"I guess I wouldn't expect you realize that we're saving tends of thousands of Iraqi lives each year."

Are you kidding me? You do realize we're killing more Iraqis than Saddam did annually.

"W is terribly wasteful, but national deficit actually went down under his tax cuts."

The deficit has not gone down. Stop listening to Limbaugh. Economists estimate this moron will put us at the 10 Trillion mark before the end of his reign. The Chinese own us. What happens when we can no longer pay the interest on our national debt. Hope you've been buying gold because "they" who are in charge seem determined to crash our currency.

"But there's no consistency to your arguments: It's good to increase government spending one minute, the next minute you're deriding a guy who does precisely that -- on SOCIAL programs, mind you."

Um, consistency... doing good things, good. Wasting my tax money on wars of choice and bridges to nowhere, bad.

"But you make my point exactly: Bush is NOT a conservative in this regard. Notice that even the right is unhappy with this behavior. It's called having principles,"

No, they've kissed his ass all the way up until they started worrying about getting elected and realized he's poison.

"You feel HUD is a great answer to housing problems, "

Great, no. But it's one more answer than the other side has.

"I'm talking about people who pick worse over bad, according to their own stated values."

I feel exactly the same way about republicans that aren't smart enough to vote their pocketbooks. Go ahead and vote for someone else that gives your values lip service, when all he really cares about is that Halliburton stock is through the roof... While you struggle to pay that second mortgage and continue on fueling 1900's technology transportation to get to your no-insurance contract job that may or may not be outsourced to another country. Are we better off now than 8 years ago? Hell no.

We can only hope that outwardly displaying conservation becomes a source of ego inflating vanity. As Americans are much more motivated by fitting in than doing what's right, I hope that's a growing trend that will eventually rival muscle cars and hummers as status symbols. We should be so lucky.

Personally I'm happy that our status symbols are tending more towards the moral and less towards the purely extravagant. I'm all for conscious capitalism. But I disagree that Americans as a whole are as amoral as you portray them. Many people, left and right, do not fit that trend.

"And -- key point here -- taxes and charity drive out private giving."

Cobalt - To explain this phrase, what I'm pretty sure Tim means is that you can only spend a dollar once. So either the government spends it, or individuals do. Individiuals may invest it, give it to charity, or spend it on goods. How individuals WOULD spend this money if it were returned to them is the heart and soul of this debate, which has only been addressed indirectly. It's an important issue, so please don't just assume that people would go out and buy an extra hummer with the money. The majority of people can't be good collectively and bad individually.

This public vs. private spending conflict applies to a variety of government services. Take myself for instance. I tend to use naturopathic doctors (when I actually go) because outside of differential diagnosis, the main skill of mainstream doctors seems to be matching a patient's symptoms with prescription drugs. So I'm against publicly funded healthcare because if it's enacted then I have to pay for my healthcare twice. Once for other people's healthcare that I don't want and mostly wouldn't use (unless it was something that I really couldn't treat through diet and lifestyle changes), and then again for my own healthcare. Publicly funding an activity makes private funding of that activity more difficult. And those people who prefer private funding are understandably against public funding of an activity for a similar reason.

Also, keep in mind; a lot of religious organizations have to alter their rules to get public funding (i.e. their own tax dollars handed back to them with added regulations.) Those in favor of religious organizations are thus quite reasonably opposed to publicly run services.

(The effectiveness, however we define it, of public vs. private services is also a matter of debate.)

Do you know how little money these people make? ... Strike until every teacher has a fitting salary of at least 50-60k

Pay is highly variable. Here's a letter that I got from my friend Shane ( a self described "left-over hippie dippie leftist who has sacrificed a huge chunk of her life to charitable work.)

Regarding the economics of all this, I've been pretty amazed to find out how
much teachers actually make. One of my summer teachers from the Seattle
area makes $80,000 a year and another from the chicago suburbs makes $90K !!

Bear in mind, this is for a job with the whole summer off.

Tenure? That just means they have to actually give a reason to fire you.

My uncle had a College professor who had had a stroke and was mentally incompetant. He would come into class, open the book to a random
page, and read for most of the class. For that, he still got his paycheck. I can understand giving a guy like that a pension if he's served long enough, but he shouldn't still be in the classroom or drawing a fulltime salary.

If they're working in an inner city war zone, they should be rewarded just like military personell once on a hazardous assignment, danger pay and adequate surrounding security.

Inner city teachers ARE paid more if they have seniority. Unfortunately, unions tend to force the newer teachers into those jobs. Which leads to higher dropout rate and a teacher shortage. Also, schools are paid in part through local property taxes, so "war zone" schools pay more for teachers and have less for other tasks. But if we switch to a less-local funding model, there's both less incentive for people to support the public school system (their own use and property taxes) and also it becomes impossible for people to "vote with their feet" when the system becomes corrupt.

With the elevated pay, implementing greater quality control. All higher level instructors should have advanced degrees/experience. All elementary teachers should be required to have degrees specializing in child care/development. All teachers should be required to test periodically to ensure their knowledge and mental faculties are up to the task.

I'm all for having testing. Though it's easier to use test to differentiate the bottom 25% of teachers from the upper 75% than it is to
differentiate the top 25% from the bottom 75%. Programs which do the first have been successful. Programs that do the second tend to encourage playing the system.

Also, I'd like you to support the argument that mandating a degree in child development measurably improves the quality of a teacher. You may be right, but I'd like to see some basis of support for this claim and that it's a cost effective mandate compared to spending the money on education in some other way.

You'd widen the pool of teachers considerably, and allow for more 'weeding out' of ineffective teachers, if you allowed some folks without teaching certificates to teach (possibly with the partial assistance of another teacher.) In some cases, lessing restrictions can improve quality by increasing the supply availible for folks to choose from.

Tim - Europe as a whole now has a standard of living equivalent to the four poorest US states

A little perspective on that; Unemployment may be higher in Europe. But productivity, according to one New Yorker article, is the same.
The difference is asserted there to derive from the differing amounts of vacation the two countries take, since it was easier for unions
to argue for more vacation than more pay.

If they're working in an inner city war zone, they should be rewarded just like military personell

previous comment was mine. Lack of attribution was a mistake.

First off, I wanted to correct a stat I used earlier.
1,000 bases was way off apparently...
Approx, 1,000, Abroad. 6,000 more at home.
"According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591.5 billion to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more."

Some interesting thoughts here
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/01/dominion-over-world-v-global-empire-of.html

Now for responses...

"One of my summer teachers from the Seattle area makes $80,000 a year and another from the chicago suburbs makes $90K !!"

...All I can say is that I've never seen or heard of a public school teacher making half that. Like I said, I'm from the South, so it goes without saying that learning isn't a huge priority (our high school football coach has the highest salary in the school of 65k+). I could maybe see a superintendent (I think that's as high as the administration goes) getting between 60-80 in perfect circumstances here.

Found a page with info on salaries here. And though it list entry level AL teacher's salary at 28k, I know for a fact that some teachers make in the low 20's. Regardless, the highest paid (Doctoral degree +21 years experience) is 45k. I made more than that in my second IT job with only an Associates (military contract by the way, thanks taxpayers). http://parca.samford.edu/report38.html

"My uncle had a College professor... "

I'm less familiar how it works for college folks, but I know for certain, tenure or not, it isn't that dificult to fire a public school teacher here.

"I'd like you to support the argument that mandating a degree in child development measurably improves the quality of a teacher"

It may or may not improve their teaching. I can't see how it couldn't help them learn how to better handle 30-40 rampaging chidlren on a daily basis. Which is a honed skill I want someone to have if supervising a child of mine.

"You'd widen the pool of teachers considerably..."

I think you'd widen the pool signifigantly enough with better pay and better security.

"Cobalt - Are you saying that we should cut both head start and the millitary?Either Head start works or it doesn't. "

Oh, cutting the ridiculous military budget goes without saying, but on HeadStart, I also have no idea whether it works and have had no experience with it. I was half making a joke but then thought... we've pumped how much money into star wars defense and it doesn't work either. Maybe wasting exponentially less money on an effort to fix our screwed up children is worth making mistakes too.

"Have you ever personally known anyone like this?(Apocalypse obsessed christians) I haven't. "

Yes. And even in more moderate churches, the Last Days, rapture, and living as though in the last days, etc are constant themes. Go to a Christian bookstore and see how many "end times" books there are, I'll bet there are more on that topic than any other. I find it disturbing and have seen the negative effect it can have on developing children.
Imagine growing up being told weekly (or usually more often) that the world is "definitely" going to end within the generation that founded the new Israeli nation(within a few years). Being shown graphic films of christians getting beheaded and burned and all the other wonderful events that are supposed to happen pre/post rapture. None of it presented as what might or could be interpretted as happening, but as what will happen to the world, before you're 30. It's psychological cruelty and it is very common.

It may or may not improve their teaching. I can't see how it couldn't help them learn how to better handle 30-40 rampaging chidlren on a daily basis. Which is a honed skill I want someone to have if supervising a child of mine.

I agree, it's better to have a degree than not have one. But any requirement carries costs. If we up the pay and also up the requirements then the school has less money to spend on other things. What if, for instance, we had fewer requirements for teachers (And one or two administrators or counselors who were trained to deal with disruptive students), kept pay as it is, and hired more teachers in order to reduce class size? Would that be better? I don't know. Personally, I'd have loved to have elementary schools with at least one or two teachers who had degrees in, say, biology or history.

I worked as assistant Dir. of Youth Education at the Morton Arboretum at the tail end of college and after graduation. We had teachers there, education majors, who didn't even understand the details of what pH was, and wrote it "Ph" (while trying to teach their students about this topic!) So I'm concerned that mandating a "child development" degree would further reduce elementary schools to glorified daycare centers.

Ryan: Well, it seems to me the demand for education is fairly elastic. In France and the UK, there are people who go to university for as long as they possibly can, because they've got a good deal.

So advocate scholarships based partly on ability.

Umm, not sure if you noticed it, but schools are *already* knocking themselves out to attract bright candidates -- particularly those from disadvantaged or minority backgrounds.

I'm always amazed at the apparent need so many have to tinker even with the parts of society which are already basicly working.

There was a lot going on in the USSR besides just welfare, though, or socialism.

Er, um, yes, but when studying why the USSR's (or any other Communist nations') economy didn't work, I would think that its *economic* policies would be an important factor. But you apparently assert their economic policies are as unrelated to their economic performance as, say, an anti-smoking policy would be to the holocaust.

I don't even think I have to refute that one.

You're not really addressing the argument here. To make the analogy complete, you'd need to focus on whether Muslim women were more modest for voting veils as mandatory...

If I care to spend a lot of time judging who was more righteous by some internal measure, that is. But my point is that I don't: I don't believe it's as useful to focus on stated intentions as it is on outcomes.

(But to follow your thread anyway, it's not quite that simple: I suspect that most the people who vote (a) think the burden of the taxes will fall on someone wealthier than themselves, and (b) don't even understand the true costs of what they're doing or advocating.)

CBM: We can only hope that outwardly displaying conservation becomes a source of ego inflating vanity.

You don't have to hope for that at all: you've got it already. I'd rather have people put tens of thousands of dollars extra towards using DDT in Africa again (and thus saving millions of lives), or towards stopping the killing in Sudan, than towards shaving five or ten MPG off their mileage. (I'm all in favor of lower mileage too (who wouldn't love to drive for as little as possible?) -- but I rate saving lives as a higher priority.) But I heard Ryan's question as pertaining to whether this was inherantly altruistic behavior -- not whether it might have had some positive impact.

To qualify for financial aid (which is usually a loan not a grant) in the first place...

Err, I'm not sure if you noticed it, but that was a hypothetical scenario I was spelling out. This sentence was part of that scenario, and doesn't refer to the way things currently work, as you seem to be trying to make it.

I guess I shouldn't have bothered.

My dad used to run VICA(vocational and industrial clubs of america) so I've gotten to see how vocational education has been deprioritized and defunded first hand...

My father was also deeply involved in vocational education. Partially, the problem is that many manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, and different skills are needed today. But it's also partially that, as I've been saying, government does a crappy job of things. At first, the money goes to all the good causes everyone approves of. But eventually, it gets siphoned off to a dozen other stupider things.

Look at lotteries: In Illinois, they were done "for the children", and the money went to schools. But by the end, it was a shell game: every dollar that "went to schools" was simply displaced by another one going, out the back end, to whatever the goverernor of Illinois thought he needed to spent to ensure his next election.

I've never been in a college that had a problem flunking out anyone.

You've never been in a college which received a guaranteed $15K annual stipend for each student. High schools currently behave this way, and if we started treating college education similarly, there's no reason to think it wouldn't produce similar effects.

But, as I said above, this was an argument about a hypothetical measure which doesn't currently exist. Since you didn't even seem to notice that, I clearly wasted my time.

Tim: Claiming that lefties are "chariable" because they pay more taxes...

CBM: Never said that paying more taxes is charitable....

True: but that's what the context implied. Otherwise, why would you have introduced this argument at this point in the discussion?

But when your group champions programs to accomplish things universally acknowledged as socially good...

charity - benevolent goodwill or love of humanity... generosity and helpfulness especially towards the needy or suffering

So, yes, I hear you claiming that since the left advocates government-funded programs they are indeed more charitable.

But as far as your assertion that Federal agencies are "universally acknowledged as socially good", you're providing an example of the bubble many on the left dwell in. I'm not expecting liberals to *agree* with every conservative counter-argument, but to fail to notice the debate even exists, as you have in this statement... ?

(Especially in the context of having already provided evidence and citations against the "social good" of those programs. Utterly impervious to contradictory evidence. Again, not that you have to agree: but you can't even see and engage it, apparently.)

I don't see how your comparison applies at all. Yes, you can be an idiot who can't tie your shoes and still calculate physics. But, how many highly successful businessmen do you know of that are clueless about human nature and how the world works? Yup, kind of mutually exclusive.

Well, not-seeing seems to be a specialty here. Sigh. I'll try this again, more simply:

I've already pointed out that liberals and conservatives have opposite assumptions about "human nature and how the world works." And I would hope you're aware that there some billionaires who hold conservative beliefs, and some billionaires who hold liberal beliefs. I even gave you you specific examples, should you doubt the existence of either variety.

Are you with me so far?

Both of these groups can't be right, of course. At least one of them must be wrong in their political assumptions about how "human nature and the world works."

So at least one of these groups must both be successful in business, and also wrong politically.

Again, I would think this is obvious. But apparently, since it disturbs you, you cannot even notice the arugment exists.

Tim: "My friend, when we design and vote for a system like welfare, we are partially responsible for the incentives it creates."

CBM: I agree. Show me a better way and I'll support it.

I see no evidence of that whatsoever so far.

I've already shown you that reducing welfare reduced child poverty. I've also pointed out that an extensive welfare system took a country (Sweden) which started with the best overall standard of living in Europe, and low rate of poverty (apparently achieved without government welfare programs) and worsened that situation signficantly. I've pointed out that Habitat for Humanity does a good job of housing people, whereas HUD doesn't. I've pointed out that Welfare does worse than private charities. And so on.

Now, perhaps you don't agree with this evidence. Perhaps you have wonderful and powerful counter-evidence. But I don't see that happening: from what I can see here, you're simply ignoring any evidence presented, and going on blithely as though you'd never seen any counter-evidence.

Below, I'll present some evidence regarding what policies work and which don't. I don't expect you to agree immediately: but I do expect it to impact your thinking and writing here, if what you just promised is true.

There were a lot more faults that caused the downfall of that system [the USSR] than just feeding and housing its poor.

Yes, you're quite correct: feeding and housing the poor didn't hurt the USSR. The belief that the government should do that (and everything else) did, and resulted in starvation.

I notice you're apparently lamenting "the downfall" of the USSR. How odd: I welcomed it. The USSR was at it's worst and most harmful when it was at it's peak of strength.

Perhaps you didn't mean that?

And again, what private charity? I missed all this housing for the poor, school lunches and college finiancial aid that is going unused? Apparently, it's not enough.

Private charity doesn't sit around "going unused" -- it simply gets redicted to other needs. Using your same argument, I don't see a surplus of government money available to spend sitting around unused. I don't see vast tracts of livable HUD housing for the homeless going unused.

(And even if it did, that would be a sign the government was being inefficient, not effective. But you demand, as proof of effectiveness, the very signs which would prove something isn't working at all.)

Resources will always be scarce -- in the sense that there are lots of good causes. The question isn't whether we'll have leftover items intended for charity. The question is what policies do the most good for each dollar entrusted or contributed.

Tim: But as a whole, it makes society worse, and makes more victims, and makes us all poorer.

CBM: That was a lot of talk to come around to- screw those poor kids.

You are a classic, CBM: I spend time explaining how government involvement in college education would end up devaluing it for everyone (including the poor), and point out that the system currently works pretty well, and you claim that I'm in favor of intentionally hurting poor people.

It seems nearly impossible for you to engage any point without alleging your opponents are deliberately intending to hurting poor people. Despite the fact that, as far as I can see, it your own favored policies which do precisely that.

That said, for just a moment I'd like to step back and take a big swing at everyone...

More name-calling and violent imagery? Ask me how shocked I am.

... who likes to constantly run the underlying theme of "damn teachers, damn unions, bum tenure teachers, etc".
You, one and all, are morons.

Actually, I come from a long line of teachers, CBM. But you're not listening to what's actually being said, so I'm not surprised to see you lashing out in rage at anyone who tries to show you how the policies you advocate hurt people -- especially the poor.

You seem uninterested in taking a few minutes, or listening to contrary evidence, to determine if you're actually hurting or helping people, so, hey, it's name-calling time, I guess.

Veil your disdain however you want, you only serve to make yourself look even more ignorant and meanspirited.

Why would a person be "mean-spirited" for thinking teachers' unions are generally harmful? I was talking to a teacher just this weekend, and she was saying most her peers felt like the union didn't care about them and was ripping them off.

CBM, I don't like teacher's unions because I believe they promote things which harm children -- especially disadvantaged children. The union's job is to maximize what's best for its own members and leadership -- not kids. Thus they advocate policies which keep bad teachers in place, make it impossible to pay teachers based on performance, make it difficult for teachers to even have a say where their own dues go, etc.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? I would think that if you're concerned about how bad our inner city schools are doing, that you also would be angry about such policies.

But apparently you're simply angry I don't agree with you, politically. That's so sad.

Do you know how little money these people make?

I know *exactly* how much money teachers make. Many of my friends are teachers, and I was the son and grandson of one. And we lived quite comfortably, actually. Not wealthy, certainly, but we weren't starving. Although it certainly was stressful, the pay was good enough that Dad didn't want to leave it for another job.

There was a lot going on in the USSR besides just welfare, though, or socialism.

Er, um, yes, but when studying why the USSR's (or any other Communist nations') economy didn't work, I would think that its *economic* policies would be an important factor. But you apparently assert their economic policies are as unrelated to their economic performance as, say, an anti-smoking policy would be to the holocaust.

I don't even think I have to refute that one.

A good study isolates as many variables as possible. Using the USSR as a basis for comparison adds a number of unneeded confounding variables, which is why such a comparison is so easily dismissed by someone holding a contrary view. The result is people "not hearing" what you have to say.

The ideal comparison would seem to be a society that was as similar as possible to the US except for the variable in question. No?

The ideal comparison would seem to be a society that was as similar as possible to the US except for the variable in question. No?

... and I probably should have done the same with my own example.

Sorry, italics was missing from the earlier post. Reposted with clarifying italics added;

There was a lot going on in the USSR besides just welfare, though, or socialism.

Er, um, yes, but when studying why the USSR's (or any other Communist nations') economy didn't work, I would think that its *economic* policies would be an important factor. But you apparently assert their economic policies are as unrelated to their economic performance as, say, an anti-smoking policy would be to the holocaust.

I don't even think I have to refute that one.

A good study isolates as many variables as possible. Using the USSR as a basis for comparison adds a number of unneeded confounding variables, which is why such a comparison is so easily dismissed by someone holding a contrary view. The result is people "not hearing" what you have to say.

The ideal comparison would seem to be a society that was as similar as possible to the US except for the variable in question. No?

GRR... sorry. I keep forgetting that a carriage return undoes italics.

More odds 'n' ends...

Ryan: While I disagree with a lot of things that teachers unions have done (and democratic support for them) public subsidy for education (done in a merit based, market driven fashion) is high on my list of things the government does that is helpful in the long run.

I actually don't have a problem with public subsidy for education. Compared to libertarians, I'm actually rather moderate in this area (though still open-minded). I favor vouchers, I favor a couple weeks' unemployment pay, some minimum safety net to prevent starvation, ... but we're way beyond that.

CB: Jesus was a hippy. Peace, love, long hair, sandals and all...

Jesus on free love:

"I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away... It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

Jesus on how groovy and accepting God is:

"I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him."

Jesus on World Peace, and everyone singing Kum by Yah in harmony:

"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me..."

Yeah, a real hippy, that one.

News bulletin: everyone had long hair and sandals then.

Didn't this start out with a post about the fact that more of the nation's wealthy and intelligent are lefties...

Yep. And I was quoting a lefty who was addressing other lefties about it. You seemed to have missed the point: I *don't* actually care who is wealthier, left or right. It wouldn't bother me either way.

I simply find it endlessly amusing that the people who endlessly deride their political opponents as being rich materialists, are, well, rich... and secular!

Actually I was just saying that he'd instruct you to help the poor even if it hurt your pocketbook...

I'm not sure if you've heard it yet, but I've now mentioned several times I'm a big believer in private charity.

That doesn't sound like a conservative at all.

Right: because you believe conservatives are greedy and don't give to charity. Even though I've already shown you quite a lot of evidence that says otherwise.

And he'd certainly have you do that before he'd want you to allocate $600 billion to bullets and bombs every year.

Both are important. One way to save lives is to give people food. Another is to make sure that bad people are deterred from doing bad things to them. Police and military have a legitimate role to play in society.

When Jesus was asked about a group of rebels Pilate had killed, did he condemn the killing? To the contrary, not only didn't he condemn Pilate for violently putting down the insurrection, but he warned other people about the sins that cost those rebels their lives:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." (Luke 13:1-3)

My point is "God's people" ain't taking care of business like he told them to...

Sorry, friend, but many of us support basic environmental laws. That's like blaming churches for not being the police, or for not building roads. (By the way, it's quite funny to hear you cite the EPA as proof that conservatives don't care about the environment -- since that agency, o bright one, was created by Richard Nixon.)

Government has legitimate functions, like sensible laws against pollution, investigating crimes, national defense, building roads. It doesn't prove churches have "failed" because Christians like myself think this is the legitimate role of government and fully support those functions.

My point to you is that there are also many things government does badly -- one being charity. And the more we think of charity as "the job of the government", the less personally charitable we become. And indeed, the statistics I've repeatedly cited (and you've repeatedly ignored) bear this point out well.

I think that every time I look at the obnoxious, mouth breathers that tend to be his followers...

Hmmm: I thought you were just saying the left was God's true followers, carrying out his will by state decree and all. Oh well, now you claim to think people who "follow God" are stupid.

Guess you went apostate pretty quickly, after having been so deeply concerned about the whole matter just a few moments ago.

You're right... horrible mistake. Let's never try to house the poor again. Damn HUD.

You see? If I suggest the government isn't good at something, you try to turn my suggestion into one which says it shouldn't be done at all, or that I'm against it. This is a pervasive feature of leftism.

Ryan: Unemployment may be higher in Europe. But productivity, according to one New Yorker article, is the same.

Tim: Unless I'm mistaken, productivity is amount produced per man hour. I'd see no reason to assume this would be vastly different.

Well, Europe is more socialistic. Are you saying you don't see why that tendency would impact per-man-hour productivity?
It seemed to impact productivity in the Soviet Union, so far as I know. I'm open to the possibility that they Europeans are manipulating stats, of course.
(Unemployment stats are pretty unreliable even in the US, as I understand, since people not considered looking for work are off the list, among other reasons.. )
But if a lot of socialism impacted productivity a lot, then a little socialism should impact it a little. If not, this suggests some aspects of Communism are
absent under socialism. And if that's true, a 'reductio ad absurdum' would be difficult to apply since we're not dealing with an extreme
end of a gradient but a fundamentally different system. To give a bad analogy, killing a child as punishment is
not simply an extreme form of spanking, but a fundamentally different act. This is part of why the "socialism is communism" argument
comes across as a persistantly used strawman in my view, and persuades mostly those people who already agree with the argument.

But "productivity" doesn't tell us about standard of living, which measures our relative economic situation.

If measured accurately, why wouldn't it strongly correlate? Granted, unemployment and median wealth comes into play,
but I would think productivity would tend to represent pretty well the average standard of living. What would be better?
Immigration and emigration trends? Lifespan? (granted, lifespan stats are skewed by different reporting of stillbirths in US and Europe)

Now it's entirely possible to attack that by saying perhaps TOO MUCH socialism is bad,
but a medium amount is beneficial. And I'd welcome that counter-argument, if you could figure out how to make it.

Well, I'd think certain types are better than others. Those which integrate with an otherwise free market (like vouchers, which you support, or scholarships)
seem to be considerably less disruptive, at the least. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Pell grants cut under Bush? That seems to be
a defunding of the type of program I'm in favor of.

Tim: Unless I'm mistaken, productivity is amount produced per man hour. I'd see no reason to assume this would be vastly different.

Ryan: Well, Europe is more socialistic. Are you saying you don't see why that tendency would impact per-man-hour productivity?

That's correct. Consider two programmers. One (C) is in a state with a 10% tax rate, the other (S) works in socialistic state with a 70% tax rate. Both are paid, before taxes, $80K per year. I don't see why C should write more or better code than S.

It seemed to impact productivity in the Soviet Union, so far as I know.

Ah, I see what you're trying to say.

Nobody worked for the private sector in the USSR: even factory jobs were (non-competitive) government jobs. But that's not true in nations like Sweden or France: People still work for private businesses which want to compete. They just have hours reduced, higher taxes -- and more unemployed and government workers.

Unemployment stats are pretty unreliable even in the US...

So if you're only focused on the banning of political parties, or the arresting of home gardeners, yes, the two are totally different. But if you focus on their *economic* policies, then the USSR is the logical end-point of an idea that Sweden takes half way.

In contrast, a nation like Sweden only has *many* state-directed industries

Socialism is Communism-lite. And I'd be more persuaded by your dissent if you'd say something concrete to the contrary. :-)

Lysenkoism? Productive citizens arrested or killed for political beliefs? Lack of freedom of speech and movement. History books containing something not resembling actual history. Coercion of those who said otherwise. The non-existance of an electoral process which might pressure for political reform. The non-existance of any markets or competition whatsoever (there's an almost binary difference between less competition and no competition.) And I'd say each of these things are at least indirectly 'economic' in their impact. Egypt may have developed geometry, but it took the Greek democracies to develop proofs.

Granted, I oppose government created monopolies where consumers can't vote with their feet.

But trying to argue that a society-wide 'safety net' is a slice of totalitarianism, even if it's inefficient, seems a bit of overkill.

But you apparently assert their economic policies are as unrelated to their economic performance as, say, an anti-smoking policy would be to the holocaust.

To be clear, I was referring to Germany's anti-smoking policies which were intended to make it's "aryan" population more fit for war. The derisive term 'nico-nazi' applied to modern anti-smoking czars is an allusion to the Nazi anti-smoking campaigns. The anti-smoking measures were a direct outcropping of 'race war' ideology. But it wasn't the anti-smoking campaigns that made Nazi Germany morally despicable. Similarly, it wasn't "a social saftey net" that made the Soviet Union despicable. I could buy the notion that we may need cuts in social security, publicly funded medical services, etc. (though unfunded mandates to hospitals are just as bad) I just think that "a government that governs least is best, so the best government governs not at all" is the other side of the reductio ad absurdum.

Umm, not sure if you noticed it, but schools are *already* knocking themselves out to attract bright candidates
My girlfriend had to take on loans with interest rates of +10% to get through college. She was an honors student, and very well academically qualified (though possibly a bit financially nieve.) But she got very little assistance because her parents (who are divorced) were not impoverished. But that didn't help her any.

Granted, the government gave her some help in the form of low interest loans, but not nearly enough to cover her education. I don't know what scholarships she got, though I imagine she got something. If low interest loans rather than grants would be less prone to corruption, I'm fine with that. I don't think the current system is perfect as it is, though. People do fall through the cracks, and those offering loans sometimes seem to take advantage of their innocent clientelle to sell high interest loans (sometimes even with the school's complicity and for their profit.) Such arrangements seem like conflicts of interest, no pun intended.

So you make my point for, or perhaps with, me: less socialism is better. Here, instead of having the government RUN these markets, you just have them empower consumers, and amplify their choices.

And you agree that the decreased intervention is "less disruptive."

That'd be great. Government help in a way that keeps people accountable for their choices and is less subject to corruption, abuse, etc. I also believe that there are positive externalities from an educated populace. So I do what I can personally and politically to support that.