Liberals and Conservatives, set the record straight.

[paddymcdougall]

Well, yes, you can. But if you want to make a living at it, then you need to find an employer who is willing to pay you to do so. There's only so much of a demand for language teachers, and if there are more people seeking to be language teachers than there are job openings in that field, then some of them are not going to be able to get these jobs.

You seem to be operating under some kind of idea that there is something that government can or should do to create new jobs in niche fields where there are too many qualified job seekers chasing after too few jobs. These jobs can only be created by people or businesses that are in need of these services. What do you think government can or should do to create these jobs?

Quite frankly, when it comes to foreign languages, everyone who can speak another language should be sucked up by business or govt; we have HUGE shortage of people who can fluently work or translate stuff from other countries.

A more relevant example of a degree which might not be great for getting a job might be liberal arts or theater.

But then the question is - is going to college just a trade school to get a job? or is it about learning how to learn, deepening one's knowledge of the great works of literature and art, expanding one's knowledge in a lot of areas to prepare you for learning for the rest of your life?

 

[apdst]

50% of the college students are not employed and you must think they all took useless courses? Really? I find that hard to believe.

You can thank the government for that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How is it that you think government can or should “stimulate” the economy to create jobs for the benefit of people whose skills are not in demand?

50% of the college students are not employed and you must think they all took useless courses? Really? I find that hard to believe.

So, no answer then. Just a pathetic and futile attempt to divert away from the question that you cannot address. No surprise.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Quite frankly, when it comes to foreign languages, everyone who can speak another language should be sucked up by business or govt; we have HUGE shortage of people who can fluently work or translate stuff from other countries.

If that were really true, then anyone with such a foreign language background would have no trouble finding a job.

A more relevant example of a degree which might not be great for getting a job might be liberal arts or theater.

But then the question is - is going to college just a trade school to get a job? or is it about learning how to learn, deepening one's knowledge of the great works of literature and art, expanding one's knowledge in a lot of areas to prepare you for learning for the rest of your life?

If you go to school for the purpose of “learning how to learn, deepening one's knowledge of the great works of literature and art, expanding one's knowledge in a lot of areas to prepare you for learning for the rest of your life”, without giving any thought to what kind of job you are going to seek, what demand there is for that job, and how your education will help you in that career path; then do not be surprised if you come out of school with an advanced degree and no actual in-demand marketable job skills; and have to settle for a career flipping burgers or bagging groceries.

 

[Bob N]

If you go to school for the purpose of “learning how to learn, deepening one's knowledge of the great works of literature and art, expanding one's knowledge in a lot of areas to prepare you for learning for the rest of your life”, without giving any thought to what kind of job you are going to seek, what demand there is for that job, and how your education will help you in that career path; then do not be surprised if you come out of school with an advanced degree and no actual in-demand marketable job skills; and have to settle for a career flipping burgers or bagging groceries.

If you read my posts earlier in this thread, you would have seen where I found a link showing where 50% of our college graduates, at the time of the writing of that article, not employed in the area they studied. Now remember that's 50% Mr. Blaylock; that's a good chunk of college graduates not working in their field.

Earlier, you claim that it's because they have a college degree that is not good enough for workforce demand. Can you prove that those 50% have those kind of degrees?

 

[paddymcdougall]

If that were really true, then anyone with such a foreign language background would have no trouble finding a job.

Maybe our govt and corporations are idiots? or maybe people with languages ARE finding jobs - do you have any stats on the number of college graduates with language degrees who aren't employed using their degree?

If you go to school for the purpose of “learning how to learn, deepening one's knowledge of the great works of literature and art, expanding one's knowledge in a lot of areas to prepare you for learning for the rest of your life”, without giving any thought to what kind of job you are going to seek, what demand there is for that job, and how your education will help you in that career path; then do not be surprised if you come out of school with an advanced degree and no actual in-demand marketable job skills; and have to settle for a career flipping burgers or bagging groceries.

It's sad, isn't it? Instead of companies grabbing up people who have learned how to think, how to research, how to learn and then teaching them how to program, how to do accounting, or whatever - these young people who have a brain like a sponge are left to flip burgers. Makes you wonder about priorities, huh?

I'm not saying students don't have to consider the job market; but my dad & I had these discussions regularly - he thought college was about learning, not about vo-tech. I agreed, but argued I needed a degree that I could get a job with after graduation.

OH LOOK!
Georgetown Study Identifies Majors with Lowest Unemployment Rates

In humanities and liberal arts, liberal arts and foreign language majors had the lowest unemployment, at 8.1%. In the arts, theatre and drama students had the lowest unemployment (6.1%).

Like I said, you need a better "test case" for useless degrees.

 

[Bob N]

OH LOOK!
Georgetown Study Identifies Majors with Lowest Unemployment Rates

In humanities and liberal arts, liberal arts and foreign language majors had the lowest unemployment, at 8.1%. In the arts, theatre and drama students had the lowest unemployment (6.1%).

Like I said, you need a better "test case" for useless degrees.

Furthering one's education is always a good thing, huh. Now if we could get the 1-3% to spend the money to create jobs. That's right. The same money the public lets them save so that they can do what they said they would do if the government would keep taxes low. We keep taxes low and the public sector has to spend money to do a job the private one should have been doing all along. What a waste of public money no matter which way you look at it. :roll:

 

[paddymcdougall]

Furthering one's education is always a good thing, huh. Now if we could get the 1-3% to spend the money to create jobs. That's right. The same money the public lets them save so that they can do what they said they would do if the government would keep taxes low. We keep taxes low and the public sector has to spend money to do a job the private one should have been doing all along. What a waste of public money no matter which way you look at it. :roll:

Yeah - talk about the big lie.... "cut our taxes! we'll provide jobs"... they forgot to mention any jobs they created would be very low wage in other countries...but mostly they took their tax cuts and put them in to investment vehicles that don't provide jobs... Or of course they built large houses with elevators for their cars, but at least that provides a few jobs while the house is being built!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If you read my posts earlier in this thread, you would have seen where I found a link showing where 50% of our college graduates, at the time of the writing of that article, not employed in the area they studied. Now remember that's 50% Mr. Blaylock; that's a good chunk of college graduates not working in their field.

Earlier, you claim that it's because they have a college degree that is not good enough for workforce demand. Can you prove that those 50% have those kind of degrees?

Assuming the claimed facts are true, then it is self-evident. If they had sufficient marketable job skills in their chosen field, and if their chosen field had sufficient job openings, then they would have jobs.

If you cannot find a job in your chosen field, then this mean either that there are not enough job openings in that field to accommodate all of those who are seeking those jobs, or else it means that you don't have the necessary skills and qualifications to get hired in that field.


If you do not agree, then you tell me why you think it is that so many college graduates are unable to find jobs in their chosen field.

 

[paddymcdougall]

If you do not agree, then you tell me why you think it is that so many college graduates are unable to find jobs in their chosen field.

BECAUSE WE'RE IN A RECESSION, NEARLY A DEPRESSION

hello? companies aren't hiring ANYONE

 

[Bob N]

Assuming the claimed facts are true, then it is self-evident. If they had sufficient marketable job skills in their chosen field, and if their chosen field had sufficient job openings, then they would have jobs.

If you cannot find a job in your chosen field, then this mean either that there are not enough job openings in that field to accommodate all of those who are seeking those jobs, or else it means that you don't have the necessary skills and qualifications to get hired in that field.

Those elements are a tad bit limited to me. How about also those businesses do not wish to hire and they enjoy holding on to their unprecedented profits that they saved--especially using the tax cuts they receive. Why can't that also be a factor?

If you do not agree, then you tell me why you think it is that so many college graduates are unable to find jobs in their chosen field.

Just did. And as you told me earlier:

So, no answer then. Just a pathetic and futile attempt to divert away from the question that you cannot address. No surprise.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Those elements are a tad bit limited to me. How about also those businesses do not wish to hire and they enjoy holding on to their unprecedented profits that they saved--especially using the tax cuts they receive. Why can't that also be a factor?

That's a foolish answer; rather like the Parable of the Talents.

A company isn't in business to “hold onto” money. A company is in business to make a profit. Hiring workers, paying them a wage, and using the results of their labor to make even more money that what it costs to employ them is what companies try to do.

No competently-run company is going to hire workers just for the sake of hiring workers. They'll hire workers on the belief that the labor of these workers can be utilized to generate a profit. If it is perceived that there's no additional profit to be made by employing more workers, then more workers will not be hired. That's how it works. The CEO of a company that does not hire workers when it would have clearly been profitable to do so would be the slothful and wicked servant spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 25:26, as would the CEO who hires workers that cannot be utilized profitably.

 

[paddymcdougall]

That's a foolish answer; rather like the Parable of the Talents.

A company isn't in business to “hold onto” money. A company is in business to make a profit. Hiring workers, paying them a wage, and using the results of their labor to make even more money that what it costs to employ them is what companies try to do.

No competently-run company is going to hire workers just for the sake of hiring workers. They'll hire workers on the belief that the labor of these workers can be utilized to generate a profit. If it is perceived that there's no additional profit to be made by employing more workers, then more workers will not be hired. That's how it works. The CEO of a company that does not hire workers when it would have clearly been profitable to do so would be the slothful and wicked servant spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 25:26, as would the CEO who hires workers that cannot be utilized profitably.

yeah, well, welcome to the real world.

When banks won't lend money to companies and companies won't hire workers because their money is better off in the banks that aren't lending money - it's pretty crazy. Remember, rather than hiring people, the corporations can work the people they have a little harder (for no more pay in most cases)

And pretty sure most corporations don't run themselves by the bible.

 

[Bob N]

That's a foolish answer; rather like the Parable of the Talents.

A company isn't in business to “hold onto” money. A company is in business to make a profit. Hiring workers, paying them a wage, and using the results of their labor to make even more money that what it costs to employ them is what companies try to do.

No competently-run company is going to hire workers just for the sake of hiring workers. They'll hire workers on the belief that the labor of these workers can be utilized to generate a profit. If it is perceived that there's no additional profit to be made by employing more workers, then more workers will not be hired. That's how it works. The CEO of a company that does not hire workers when it would have clearly been profitable to do so would be the slothful and wicked servant spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 25:26, as would the CEO who hires workers that cannot be utilized profitably.

Really? Whats the Lord say about paying your taxes? That's one reason that the People give them tax breaks are to create jobs. Are they doing it? No. Why we have plenty of the rich even hiding their money overseas.

Luke 20

[SUP]22 [/SUP]Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar or no?”
[SUP]23 [/SUP]But He perceived their craftiness and said unto them, “Why tempt ye Me?
[SUP]24 [/SUP]Show Me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it?” They answered and said, “Caesar’s.”
[SUP]25 [/SUP]And He said unto them, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things which are God’s.”
[SUP]26 [/SUP]And they could not take hold of His words before the people. And they marveled at His answer and held their peace.

 

[Bob N]

yeah, well, welcome to the real world.

When banks won't lend money to companies and companies won't hire workers because their money is better off in the banks that aren't lending money - it's pretty crazy. Remember, rather than hiring people, the corporations can work the people they have a little harder (for no more pay in most cases)

You're absolutely correct. Those companies enjoy making unprecedented profits and receiving tax breaks while not hiring people. Beautiful life, huh.

And pretty sure most corporations don't run themselves by the bible.

Be rest assured they don't.

 

[reinoe]

I've noticed while reading various posts on this board (I've been a member for 6 years, I hardly ever post but I read and read and read) that it often happens that people get frustrated when their side is mischaracterized by the other side, whether by accident, ignorance, or spite. So I'm curious, for anyone that self-defines as Liberal or Conservative...What, specifically, are the mischaracterizations done by the "other side" that irritate you the most? Things like "Liberals all hate free speech" or "all Conservatives are racist." So set the record straight, where does the other side have you wrong, and how can they be set straight?

To make sure my question is understood, this isn't a thread on what you don't like about the other side. This is a thread on how the other side incorrectly portrays your side.

I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas!

I'm neither liberal nor conservative, however whenever I have a disagreement with a conservative they will almost immediately call me a "liberal". This doesn't happen when I have disagreements with moderates, centrists, liberals, libertarians, or independents. It happens almost exclusively when dealing with conservatives.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I'm neither liberal nor conservative, however whenever I have a disagreement with a conservative they will almost immediately call me a "liberal". This doesn't happen when I have disagreements with moderates, centrists, liberals, libertarians, or independents. It happens almost exclusively when dealing with conservatives.

I have found the same to be true. It seems to many conservatives anyone that is not on the far right of the ideological spectrum is a liberal. They consider centrists liberals, moderates liberals, even their dreaded "RINOS"…liberals. And actual liberals, well they are marxists to them.

 

[Mycroft]

I have found the same to be true. It seems to many conservatives anyone that is not on the far right of the ideological spectrum is a liberal. They consider centrists liberals, moderates liberals, even their dreaded "RINOS"…liberals. And actual liberals, well they are marxists to them.

You can call yourself a centrist, a moderate...whatever you want...but when you spout liberal talking points, I have no choice but to consider you a liberal.

So it goes.

 

[Morton]

As I was saying somewhere else, liberals tend to run away from the word "liberal". There's the story of someone telling Dan Rather that he was liberal who was so upset by it he reminded the person telling him that he was in the marines. Many liberals don't like to be called liberals and the call themselves "centrist" or "independent".

They honestly believe that wherever they are on the spectrum is the center. They deny their fringe pedigree and suffer from it through various dysfunctions. They would be better off in embracing their liberalness instead of trying to appear normal.

I have found the same to be true. It seems to many conservatives anyone that is not on the far right of the ideological spectrum is a liberal. They consider centrists liberals, moderates liberals, even their dreaded "RINOS"…liberals. And actual liberals, well they are marxists to them.

You can call yourself a centrist, a moderate...whatever you want...but when you spout liberal talking points, I have no choice but to consider you a liberal.

So it goes.

 

[Johnson]

As I was saying somewhere else, liberals tend to run away from the word "liberal". There's the story of someone telling Dan Rather that he was liberal who was so upset by it he reminded the person telling him that he was in the marines. Many liberals don't like to be called liberals and the call themselves "centrist" or "independent".

They honestly believe that wherever they are on the spectrum is the center. They deny their fringe pedigree and suffer from it through various dysfunctions. They would be better off in embracing their liberalness instead of trying to appear normal.

I've noticed people with "moderate" or "Independent" that have had hard line liberal or conservative views. If anything, not stating your lean is like taking a bullet out of someone's gun nowadays. In your opinion, if someone is Independent, can they dislike one side more than the other? Or would disagreeing with one side be equal to agreeing with the other side? Just curious as to your opinion on the matter.

 

[Morton]

You can be independent in affiliation but still have a political bent. I personally am not affiliated with a political party but if you put a gun to my head I would call myself conservative or libertarian. I generally don't like the label game and personally reject all of them except "well hung".

There are also those who call themselves moderate. These may be people lean one way politically and another way socially. But why bother wasting any brain cells trying to determine which label you like? Then there are those who call themselves moderate because they think thats where everyone should be. They may actually determine their stance on issues based on what places them in the center. Milquetoast, fence sitting, sissies if you ask me. Compromise for compromise sake can do great harm and create bad policy.

I've noticed people with "moderate" or "Independent" that have had hard line liberal or conservative views. If anything, not stating your lean is like taking a bullet out of someone's gun nowadays. In your opinion, if someone is Independent, can they dislike one side more than the other? Or would disagreeing with one side be equal to agreeing with the other side? Just curious as to your opinion on the matter.

 

[Johnson]

You can be independent in affiliation but still have a political bent. I personally am not affiliated with a political party but if you put a gun to my head I would call myself conservative or libertarian. I generally don't like the label game and personally reject all of them except "well hung".

There are also those who call themselves moderate. These may be people lean one way politically and another way socially. But why bother wasting any brain cells trying to determine which label you like? Then there are those who call themselves moderate because they think thats where everyone should be. They may actually determine their stance on issues based on what places them in the center. Milquetoast, fence sitting, sissies if you ask me. Compromise for compromise sake can do great harm and create bad policy.

lol on the well-hung. I'm not really stressing my brain worrying about it, I just like hearing other peoples' opinions on things. The only part I really dislike about the label game is it makes political discourse too much like a sporting event. If you're a Yankee fan you hate the Red Sox and vice-versa. It's too much of an easy escape from a meaningful debate to just dismiss someone because they're "Liberal" or "Conservative".

 

[Morton]

Yes, and it invites annoying strawmen and tedious pre-conceived notions.

lol on the well-hung. I'm not really stressing my brain worrying about it, I just like hearing other peoples' opinions on things. The only part I really dislike about the label game is it makes political discourse too much like a sporting event. If you're a Yankee fan you hate the Red Sox and vice-versa. It's too much of an easy escape from a meaningful debate to just dismiss someone because they're "Liberal" or "Conservative".

 

[Mycroft]

As I was saying somewhere else, liberals tend to run away from the word "liberal". There's the story of someone telling Dan Rather that he was liberal who was so upset by it he reminded the person telling him that he was in the marines. Many liberals don't like to be called liberals and the call themselves "centrist" or "independent".

They honestly believe that wherever they are on the spectrum is the center. They deny their fringe pedigree and suffer from it through various dysfunctions. They would be better off in embracing their liberalness instead of trying to appear normal.

It used to be liberals were proud to call themselves liberal. Then liberal became a dirty word. (I guess we can credit Rush...and the liberal's own actions...for that) So, they started calling themselves progressives. But, wouldn't you know it, progressive became a dirty word, as well. Now, they've taken to calling themselves centrist, independent, moderate, etc.

Pretty soon those will be dirty words and the liberals will be searching for another one.

It doesn't really make sense to me. I call myself a conservative even though I have some liberal...or maybe libertarian...positions. I'm not looking for another word to describe myself.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It used to be liberals were proud to call themselves liberal. Then liberal became a dirty word. (I guess we can credit Rush...and the liberal's own actions...for that) So, they started calling themselves progressives. But, wouldn't you know it, progressive became a dirty word, as well. Now, they've taken to calling themselves centrist, independent, moderate, etc.

Pretty soon those will be dirty words and the liberals will be searching for another one.

It doesn't really make sense to me. I call myself a conservative even though I have some liberal...or maybe libertarian...positions. I'm not looking for another word to describe myself.

It seems a big watershed for the word “liberal” was the 1988 Presidential campaign, wherein George Bush the First successfully exposed his opponent; Michael Dukakis, as a “liberal”, and exposed some of the crazy policy positions of Dukakis' that went along with that label. It was really at that point that the word “liberal” took on a decidedly negative connotation; and that those of that political inclination started identifying as “progressives” instead.