Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Yes, College Professors Are Overwhelmingly Liberal -- Good" video.

+Raven W Not necessarily, in a 2012 article in Psychology Today it broke it down by departments and did a D:R ratio. In engineering the ratio was 2.7:1, in the arts it was 7.6:1, in Humanities it was 10:1. Is there much value in a Humanities degree?
4
There is some strawmannig here. Since when did conservatives push for affirmative action in universities?
2
A little deceptive. In 2012 Psychology Today had an article that did a ratio of Democrats to Republicans in different departments. The highest ratio existed in Humanities and the arts (10:1 and 7.6:1 respectively). Business, Engineering and Military/Sports had a closer to 1:1 ratio. So it is easily arguable that those who are more intellectual are not more liberal considering how humanities and art degrees are essentially worthless. For what it's worth Medicine/Nursing/Health was 4.8:1, I don't consider that "overwhelmingly lean to the left". You have to understand that it comes down to experience. Professors spend a lot of their life in academia and hardly in the real world, or apply their minds to real world events (such as arts). Those that do, like engineering, are not as liberal for a reason.
2
+Cassandra'sCurse Let us break it down Fire department: Locally ran and funded with around 70% of fire fighters being volunteered SS/Medicare: Unconstitutional and losing money K-12 education: Locally ran and funded, states are not required to have it Police: Locally ran an funded with those laws being created locally You are trying to justify expanded socialism at the federal level by pointing at locally ran and funded programs. The one federal program you pointed to is inefficient. You are not pushing a strong argument here.
1
+Cassandra'sCurse There is a desire to have government. What you have to do is keep government as local as possible to ensure that 1. you money is being spent that best benefits society 2. you have more control government so it remains the servants and not the masters You are trying so hard to justify having more government by pointing towards government programs like the EPA and FDA, all which can be ran locally. Meanwhile you are ignoring the flaws of government. It wasn't the free market that bailed out the banks, it was the federal government. Consider that. So while the federal government has the EPA, which is listed as "other" under funding and is a minute part of the budget, it is expanding corporatism. Too much government is just as bad as no government.
1
+Darnelj1 Denmark has around 5 million people which is smaller than most of our states. It also has mandatory military.
1
+therrydicule $70 billion is a drop in the bucket for the US budget. The vast majority of spending comes at the state and local level. Most federal dollars go to Title I schools. The creationism being taught in school is over blown. What districts are pushing for it? Very few if any. If they are then that is the right of their local government as long as they don't violate the constitution (as in force a religion on them). If they want an ignorant populous then so be it, they will change when their economy suffers. "Healthcare and social security are not unconstitutional said the supreme court in 1937." And the SC also said that the 5th amendment is no longer relevant with Kelo vs City of New London. We can either "deal with it" or point out how the SC got a ruling wrong. On major reason why those programs passed is because FDR threaten to stack the courts with his judges placing a lot of pressure on politics during that time. There was heavy corruption involved. "The EPA cannot be run locally: you just cannot deal with continental such as the columbia river system with dealing with thousand of municipalities, and expect that river to be clean. " Yes it can be ran locally. The federal government can settle pollution disputes between states, but it can't tell states what they can and can't do to their own land. We have a checks and balance system in place that is listed in the constitution. If we follow it we will be fine. "Particularly when congress get more oversight than municipal and local governments" That will lead to corruption and a lot of problems. I don't want someone like Nancy Pelosi controlling my life when I can't eve vote for her. Do you want some republican congressman doing the same thing?
1
+therrydicule Dumping that cost to states would not hurt anything if we simplified the tax code and lowered federal taxes. I know about those two cases. People were trying to use biology classes to teach creationism while making biology a required course. That is establishment of a religion which violates the 1st amendment. There are limitations on all governments. Even with that you can still teach it as long as you are not establishing a religion. What are you talking about with the Columbia River Treaty? "Tell me 5 rights that you don't have anymore because of Nancy Pelosi." That is a rather asinine question considering how there are only 27 amendments all of which are not rights. She does violate the 10th amendment and did so with her support of Obamacare. But more importantly is that I don't vote for her, why should she play a role in how my tax dollars are spent? Before 1913 federal taxes on individuals were unconstitutional. Federal revenue was raised by taxing the states based on population. Every state had representation. It was up to the states how they were to raise the money. Individual taxes were state and local where people had representation. I can't vote for Pelosi so why should I have to pay a federal tax? Only around 428 representatives in congress are from my state, that means 428 people control my individual income without me voting for them.
1
+therrydicule You are oversimplifying it. At the local level there is less waste and less bureaucracy. Also, states will have more money with less federal taxes. "That thinking is not practical" It is very practical. How much waste exists in the federal government? A strong economy is getting the most out of your resources. You do that with smaller more local government. With that people have the ability to see if they are getting their money's worth with government spending. You don't get that at the federal level, thus more waste. It isn't as easy as X+Y=Z. Here is a small example of how there is waste in federal spending. In Title I schools they give out breakfast. Every student who eats breakfast has to take one of each item (like milk, fruit, juice, and something like waffles). If they don't eat it they throw it away, you can't send it back. Literally food is thrown away. That is waste. How about infrastructure spending. When it comes to building a dam or a bridge it is difficult to budget due to changes in pricing of resources. Add in bureaucracy then you have a mess and millions wasted. Take those programs, add on more across 50 states with a country of 320+ million people and you have waste. You can't micromanage at the federal level and you can't expect to add multiple layers of government and not expect inefficiencies. "and risk to turn a big chunk of the USA into Porto-Rico and Kansas. Localism and low taxes are not a panacea." Why the bash on KS? A beauty of state rights is that you get to vote for the government you want. The citizens of KS voted for their government, and if you don't live there then it shouldn't be of your concern. It isn't mine. I don't live there. Or I guess we can have your way, high taxes, increase waste, and a feast or famine method. Obamacare is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the federal government should have a say in healthcare. The SC has been wrong before. Look up Kelo vs City of New London for a great example. But I guess we should all bow down to the government without question.
1
+therrydicule When did I ever say KS was beautiful? Point to me the quote. I simply said the citizens of KS vote for what they go. Assuming you don't live in KS then you didn't vote for it and neither did I. Why should you care? If you don't like KS is being ran then don't go there. At this point I am going to assume you are ultra liberal by the way you are bashing KS. I find it funny how ultra liberals point towards KS and go "ah ha". Meanwhile the other side can point towards Detroit and Baltimore. I don't live in those cities as well, thus I can't vote there nor do I have any say in what goes on there. I shouldn't either since I don't pay local taxes there, I have no skin to lose in that case. The same goes with you and KS. Why should you care? You have nothing to lose with KS. "There might be less bureaucracy at the local level, but there is also a greater risk that they fuck up big time resulting in money not spend properly in the first place, and trying to correct that mistake again and again." If a local government does "fuck up" it will be isolated. Look at Flint and their water crisis. It is isolated there. Now imagine if it were at the federal level? The whole country is screwed. You want to expand the federal government to try to fix what you feel is wrong, even if the people that live there (KS for example) don't feel that way. That drags everyone else down. Why do you want to do that? What do you want to punish success? Obamacare is not constitutional. The SC made a wrong ruling, a 5-4 ruling at that. What if there were 99 justices? Would it still be constitutional then? Four justices felt it was unconstitutional, so it is still up to debate, at in reality isn't constitutional. "End of story. If you don't like it, try to pass an amendment banning government financing of health care&look how fast you don't get popular supports." If the federal government wanted to be in control of healthcare financing then push to have an amendment pass and see how fast you don't get popular support. Point to me where in the constitution the word "healthcare" is listed. Also, you mindset is really scary. Do you think the Patriot was constitutional? Do you not want to question the government and their actions? Or place restrictions on it?
1
+Cassandra'sCurse 1. Fire departments, like everything else that is ran and funded locally, is set up by the community if they feel there is a desire to have such program. Around 70% are volunteer because they want to help out their community. That is no different than running a charity. It saves tax dollars especially in areas where there aren't many resources. People like to help there community and have it functioning well, they don't need government force. 2. Overall poverty was dropping from 1965 to the early 70s, so it just wasn't those who were 65 and older. 3. State and local governments already have the right to run education. Not every state follows CCSS or NGSS. To think that a state and local government will just allow their citizens to become stupid is being ignorant yourself. Just like the volunteer fire fighters, people do want to see their community succeed. Schools in poor neighborhoods are that way because of two reasons, teacher unions and the department of education. The department of ed. has a program that just throws money at those schools which doesn't have the states pushing to improve them. If we get rid of the department of ed. local governments will have to become creative to ensure that those schools in low income areas are well funded. With teacher unions they pay teachers based off of years taught, not on actual quality or demand. If there was a greater incentive for teachers to teach in low income schools then they will improve. "Otherwise, we have pastors in Kansas teaching "science" from their Bibles." Actually we don't have that. The EPA and FDA are unconstitutional and should be left up to the states. I live in a business friendly state as well and we, as a community, push to pollution. It is up to your community to ensure that the environment is not polluted. Also think of it this way. With a federal EPA say a bunch of business friendly politicians get into office and remove environmental regulations. Imagine the federal government also controlling your drinking water. Now it doesn't matter where you live, it is all bad. Congrats, your way now just screwed over the entire country.
1
+therrydicule There is some truth to it. Public education can be used as indoctrination. I have said that public education can either be the greatest thing offered to our kids in society, or the worse. I personally support public education at the K--12 level. I support it being ran locally so it does not become indoctrination of the masses. Totally dismissing the idea that government can use public education as indoctrination is foolish.
1
+therrydicule It is not used as indoctrination due to our checks and balance system and education being ran locally. That is one major reason why I am opposed to the federal government funding college.
1
+therrydicule Similar checks won't apply. At the state level if a state has poor education standards then they will be exposed and will have to improve. . The problem is that at the federal level those same states want federal standards that basically hold other states back. My state is near the bottom in education purely due to the economics of it. But they push for federal standards and are one of the first states to pick up both CCSS and NGSS, basically saying that we suck to other states have to suck as well. That is not a way to go. And if indoctrination comes it becomes worse.
1