Liberalism/Conservatism of Med School Students

[SuzieQ3417]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hey what about the libertarians in here... people who want limited government period. People who think the individual should make financial and personal decisions, not the government. Do what you want with your money. Make your own personal ethical decisions. Government is there to make sure that we maintain freedom and our freedom doesn't intrude on that of others. The whole liberal/conservative thing doesn't make sense to me. I am economically conservative and socially liberal. Want to gay marry? Fine. That's your deal. Want to spend your income on inefficient public works projects? Fine. That's your deal. Just don't pretend that you know best. And don't tell me how to live my life.

Yay for Libertarians. I saw a bumper sticker on a libertarian website that summed it all up nicely: "we're pro-choice for everything"

 

[MedicineNutt]

sorry double post

 

[MedicineNutt]

I don't really understand what you're trying to say in this post.

All I was pointing out is the language you used in your earlier post (which, in an internet forum, is the only way for me to understand your attitude) was offensive and prejudiced. I can respect either a conservative or liberal take on any issue, even if I disagree, as long as it's clear that all sides of the issue have been taken into consideration. So when someone calls homosexuality "bad," I have to wonder if that person has really thought about what he or she is saying, or if he or she is just jumping on a party bandwagon. Many liberals let this type of language shape their perception of ALL conservatives, when in reality most conservative people don't have these very generalized, one-sided opinions. Same goes for the conservative perception of liberals.

Sorry if I was unclear.

i really believe homosexuality is "wrong"; however, i also realize they are struggling individuals who should be accepted--im not calling on for a conversion...i believe this b/c my faith doesn't allow homosexuality, which is something i believe b/c Adam and Eve is God's first creation--man and woman were created to live together!! my faith does accept homosexuals and we dont force them to convert...we just see it as a struggle (like someone stuggling with bad grades or bad habits)...

i could care less about the liberal/conservative arguements...it just comes down to what one believes about their life/experiences!!!

 

[browniegirl86]

i really believe homosexuality is "wrong"; however, i also realize they are struggling individuals who should be accepted--im not calling on for a conversion...i believe this b/c my faith doesn't allow homosexuality, which is something i believe b/c Adam and Eve is God's first creation--man and woman were created to live together!! my faith does accept homosexuals and we dont force them to convert...we just see it as a struggle (like someone stuggling with bad grades or bad habits)...

i could care less about the liberal/conservative arguements...it just comes down to what one believes about their life/experiences!!!

Got it. My only real problem is the grouping of conservatives as a whole with your personal beliefs about specific issues. I definitely agree with you that what's most important are one's personal beliefs; I feel the same way and hate having to conform my beliefs to what is effectively a two party system.

I guess, as a social liberal but fiscal moderate, I'm just hypersensitive to those kind of generalizations. No hard feelings! 🙂



(edited because my grammar was all wrong)

 

[DrBowtie]

Hey what about the libertarians in here... people who want limited government period. People who think the individual should make financial and personal decisions, not the government. Do what you want with your money. Make your own personal ethical decisions. Government is there to make sure that we maintain freedom and our freedom doesn't intrude on that of others. The whole liberal/conservative thing doesn't make sense to me. I am economically conservative and socially liberal. Want to gay marry? Fine. That's your deal. Want to spend your income on inefficient public works projects? Fine. That's your deal. Just don't pretend that you know best. And don't tell me how to live my life.

I've said this before, but I'm a big fan. Nice post. 👍

 

[sanford_w/o_son]

Hey what about the libertarians in here... people who want limited government period. People who think the individual should make financial and personal decisions, not the government. Do what you want with your money. Make your own personal ethical decisions. Government is there to make sure that we maintain freedom and our freedom doesn't intrude on that of others. The whole liberal/conservative thing doesn't make sense to me. I am economically conservative and socially liberal. Want to gay marry? Fine. That's your deal. Want to spend your income on inefficient public works projects? Fine. That's your deal. Just don't pretend that you know best. And don't tell me how to live my life.

i just can't take libertarians seriously, especially when they pretend that some invisible hand of individual-action-in-aggregate will actually produce equitable outcomes. there exist in society problems which are most equitably and efficiently dealt with through collective action. if individuals are left to themselves, the resulting exacerbated inequality benefits those with political and economic power at the expense of most of the country without such power. i've never met a libertarian that did not have an advantaged background (especially economic), and so it leads me to suspect that selfishness is ultimately behind their professed policies. freedom of choice is fine for those with the power to choose among favorable options, but as a policy it dooms most of the country to a worse-off situation. our actions have consequences for others, and therefore need to be regulated to a greater extent than libertarians would like.

 

[Risa]

Here's some hard data on harvard med students' liberalism/conservativism...

Mateo I love you for posting this!

I've been getting a little nervous about leaving my very liberal college... I'm excited to know that, based on this poll at least, I'll fit in just fine at HMS 🙂

 

[MedicineNutt]

Do Libertarians take for granted what they are given in this country? i think america has given me a lot that asking for more will just mean im greedy!!

i just want your input on this b/c this is what i have noticed about liberalists

 

[sanford_w/o_son]

HA, laughable at best.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005

Look for trends in "liberal" vs "conservative" states.

if you bothered to look at the methodology, you would see that their measure of charitable giving

"includes giving to religious groups, churches and many other institutions."

and doesn't factor in cost-of-living.

you've established that poor states in the low-cost-of-living bible belt give more money to institutions that include churches than wealthier states (but with higher costs-of-living not taken into account) outside the bible belt. deeply religious people give money to their churches. it touches my heart and bolsters my claim that there exist a subgroup of conservatives who have little concern for fellow human-beings beyond their particular demographic. i've worked in arkansas and mississippi and lived in tennessee, and can tell you that they are some of the worst states i've been to in terms of white racism and not giving a crap about the substantial poor, black population.

and to the person who wants to claim that liberals are wasteful spenders, do you really want to go there? the national debt is now 8.3 trillion. it was 4 trillion in 1992 and 5.6 trillion in 2000. so it increased by 1.6 trillion during the eight years of clinton and 2.7 trillion during the only 5+ years of bush. and before you play the "bad economy" card take a look at the tax cuts for the wealthy combined with a 250 billion war debt, for a war that most liberals such as myself could have told you was a ridiculous, non-sufficiently-justified effort from the start (and we tried to, in our protests before the war--it's too bad it's taken national public opinion so long to catch up with what liberals had been publicly proclaiming from the start).

on a more personal level, i would point out that hmsneuro recently posted a fake usnews ranking list on one of these threads and has lost credibility among many in these forums. he didn't even post it in jest, and even posted b/s justifications about how his uncle gave it to him and how the methodology was changed to explain the drastic change in rankings among the top 10. just thought people would want to see what appears to be a "compassionate conservative" in action . . .

 

[HMSNeuro]

if you bothered to look at the methodology, you would see that their measure of charitable giving

"includes giving to religious groups, churches and many other institutions."

and doesn't factor in cost-of-living.

you've established that poor states in the low-cost-of-living bible belt give more money to institutions that include churches than wealthier states (but with higher costs-of-living not taken into account) outside the bible belt. deeply religious people give money to their churches. it touches my heart and bolsters my claim that there exist a subgroup of conservatives who have little concern for fellow human-beings beyond their particular demographic. i've worked in arkansas and mississippi and lived in tennessee, and can tell you that they are some of the worst states i've been to in terms of white racism and not giving a crap about the substantial poor, black population.

and to the person who wants to claim that liberals are wasteful spenders, do you really want to go there? the national debt is now 8.3 trillion. it was 4 trillion in 1992 and 5.6 trillion in 2000. so it increased by 1.6 trillion during the eight years of clinton and 2.7 trillion during the only 5+ years of bush. and before you play the "bad economy" card take a look at the tax cuts for the wealthy combined with a 250 billion war debt, for a war that most liberals such as myself could have told you was a ridiculous, non-sufficiently-justified effort from the start (and we tried to, in our protests before the war--it's too bad it's taken national public opinion so long to catch up with what liberals had been publicly proclaiming from the start).

on a more personal level, i would point out that hmsneuro recently posted a fake usnews ranking list on one of these threads and has lost credibility among many in these forums. he didn't even post it in jest, and even posted b/s justifications about how his uncle gave it to him and how the methodology was changed to explain the drastic change in rankings among the top 10. just thought people would want to see what appears to be a "compassionate conservative" in action . . .

I'll take you point by point.

1) "the worst states i've been to in terms of white racism and not giving a crap about the substantial poor, black population." Wow. Way to generalize. That would be like me saying, "Yeah, well [insert minority] definitely [insert stereotype]." What an insult to the intelligence of this board to suggest that because you've been witness to racism that you can judge an ENTIRE state's attitude towards race. Clearly racism exists. By using your model, I could say that, "I've worked in New York, and there certainly is a lot of racism towards Muslims." I've seen it, sure--but does that mean I can truly assess an entire population?

2) "deeply religious people give money to their churches. it touches my heart and bolsters my claim that there exist a subgroup of conservatives who have little concern for fellow human-beings beyond their particular demographic." I don't know how to even approach the ignorance in this statement. Do you know who cares for over 90% of the homeless population in the Country? Churches. I've personally worked with Michael Stoops, formely homeless and now director of the National Coalition for the Homeless. He will tell you without churches, the homeless would go without food and shelter. You know, I really wonder who is truly more prejudiced--liberals seem to just DESPISE middle America and "bible-belt" folk. You're against labeling, but make complete blanket statements about this population. Again, unbelievable ignorance. And it's not just churches--synagogues, mosques, etc. all play a role in helping the underserved. Furthermore, there are numerous other roles that faith-based organizations play in helping the underserved (literacy programs, job training, day care, etc...). Educate yourself.

3)"and to the person who wants to claim that liberals are wasteful spenders, do you really want to go there? the national debt is now 8.3 trillion" This argument falls apart because you are arguing that conservatives played a causal role in this debt. No. George W. Bush (read: NOT a fiscal conservative) is responsible. If you want to argue against Republicans fine. But fiscal conservatives had no role. Be careful about defining your terms and who you are taking on.

4) As far as your last paragraph... (picture Gob from Arrested Development) come on... come on! Seriously, those fake rankings were pretty funny. And I admitted that they were fake in my other preposterous thread. Trying to discredit me by alluding to my previous attempts (and I stress attempts) at humour take nothing away from the Generosity Index, nor the arguments posted above.

 

[Rockhouse]

if you bothered to look at the methodology, you would see that their measure of charitable giving

"includes giving to religious groups, churches and many other institutions."

and doesn't factor in cost-of-living.

you've established that poor states in the low-cost-of-living bible belt give more money to institutions that include churches than wealthier states (but with higher costs-of-living not taken into account) outside the bible belt. deeply religious people give money to their churches. it touches my heart and bolsters my claim that there exist a subgroup of conservatives who have little concern for fellow human-beings beyond their particular demographic. i've worked in arkansas and mississippi and lived in tennessee, and can tell you that they are some of the worst states i've been to in terms of white racism and not giving a crap about the substantial poor, black population.

and to the person who wants to claim that liberals are wasteful spenders, do you really want to go there? the national debt is now 8.3 trillion. it was 4 trillion in 1992 and 5.6 trillion in 2000. so it increased by 1.6 trillion during the eight years of clinton and 2.7 trillion during the only 5+ years of bush. and before you play the "bad economy" card take a look at the tax cuts for the wealthy combined with a 250 billion war debt, for a war that most liberals such as myself could have told you was a ridiculous, non-sufficiently-justified effort from the start (and we tried to, in our protests before the war--it's too bad it's taken national public opinion so long to catch up with what liberals had been publicly proclaiming from the start).

Apparently giving money to churches doesn't count? Odd...I have never known a church to send mission trips to impoverished parts of the world, or hold neighborhood clean ups outside their cities, or run food banks, or orphanages or anything like that. So you must be correct, if someone is generous to a church, it isn't really being generous, it is just looking out for their own self interest. Everybody gives money towards their self ascribed beliefs, if you are an atheist that gives money to "get god out of my community" groups or a bible thumping christian that gives money to a "lets have church at school" you are still placing your money where your belief system lands. Religion is simply a category of philosophy, and is no more or less valid than any other. As far as people being from states with "lower costs of living," they also have lower median incomes, so that argument washes out as well. And last, as far as the soaring debt. Touche, but lets remember, Clinton didn't really have any big decisions to make in office except should I let this fat intern into my office. 9/11 has affected economy and national security, and we can make no judgement about wether or not a Clinton, Gore, or Kerry would have managed the situation (financially) any differently. It is a different presidency. And can we really forget that congress was all about going to war with Iraq with the same intelligence the white house had? You can call Bush a liar if you would like, but ultimately that is unsubstantiated. Many made the decision three years ago to head to Iraq, in hindsight with bad predictions, that much is clear, but again, Bush wasn't the only one (conservative or otherwise) that thought it was the right thing to do at the time. I tired of this, I'm takin my ball and going home

 

[HMSNeuro]

Mateo I love you for posting this!

I've been getting a little nervous about leaving my very liberal college... I'm excited to know that, based on this poll at least, I'll fit in just fine at HMS 🙂

Hey Risa...

I understand what you mean about wanting to go to a liberal med school--but do you really want to be surrounded by people who agree with you all the time? How boring would that be... I would think that most of us would rather have our views challenged, in the true spirit of academia.

 

[sanford_w/o_son]

"1) "the worst states i've been to in terms of white racism and not giving a crap about the substantial poor, black population." Wow. Way to generalize. That would be like me saying, "Yeah, well [insert minority] definitely [insert stereotype]." What an insult to the intelligence of this board to suggest that because you've been witness to racism that you can judge an ENTIRE state's attitude towards race. Clearly racism exists. By using your model, I could say that, "I've worked in New York, and there certainly is a lot of racism towards Muslims." I've seen it, sure--but does that mean I can truly assess an entire population? "

later on in your own comments, you put forth generalizations of your own. it's okay because it's what people often do in forums and everyday life, especially if it's a subject with no hard data. if we didn't do it reasonably, we couldn't have conversations. but rather than generalize further from my own experience i'll just list slavery, jim crow, lynching, civil rights movement, kkk, katrina, burnt black churches, highly segregated cities, confederate statues/memorabilia that proudly exist in public places and tell you to hit the history books and travel more through the south.

"2) "deeply religious people give money to their churches. it touches my heart and bolsters my claim that there exist a subgroup of conservatives who have little concern for fellow human-beings beyond their particular demographic." I don't know how to even approach the ignorance in this statement. Do you know who cares for over 90% of the homeless population in the Country? Churches. I've personally worked with Michael Stoops, formely homeless and now director of the National Coalition for the Homeless. He will tell you without churches, the homeless would go without food and shelter. You know, I really wonder who is truly more prejudiced--liberals seem to just DESPISE middle America and "bible-belt" folk. You're against labeling, but make complete blanket statements about this population. Again, unbelievable ignorance. And it's not just churches--synagogues, mosques, etc. all play a role in helping the underserved. Furthermore, there are numerous other roles that faith-based organizations play in helping the underserved (literacy programs, job training, day care, etc...). Educate yourself."

so no blanket statements about the cultural atmosphere of a state, but we can somehow make them about churches and liberals? well despite this egregious contradiction in your reasoning, i will allow the reasonable generalizations that we both make. i completely concede that churches do a lot of good things for the underserved. that's certainly the case for the (ahem) somewhat liberal catholic organizations in chicago, and fundamentalist protestant churches do charitable things as well. but churches have also espoused wars, mandatory sterilization, slavery, anti-alcohol, anti-immigration, anti-gay-rights, etc., and those who need the charitable services but are not of the same religion or demographic are put at risk for a violation of their personal dignity when they enter the church for those generous services. this outright deters a subpopulation of america from seeking services from churches out of respect for their own beliefs. and it's not as if this is all churches are doing with the money they receive. for the churches i know of, a large bulk of contributions they receive go to infrastructure improvements, paying salaries and bills, and providing services to members--i.e., stuff for themselves.

"3)"and to the person who wants to claim that liberals are wasteful spenders, do you really want to go there? the national debt is now 8.3 trillion" This argument falls apart because you are arguing that conservatives played a causal role in this debt. No. George W. Bush (read: NOT a fiscal conservative) is responsible. If you want to argue against Republicans fine. But fiscal conservatives had no role. Be careful about defining your terms and who you are taking on."

oh ok, so NOW you want to start making this distinction, when it is convenient for you. george bush's platform DID include fiscal conservatism. remember the tax cuts i mentioned? cuts in government programs? he tried to satisfy both the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives for election, and he's since alienated the fiscal conservatives of his party with his idiotic spending. and by the way, a fiscal conservative is a type of conservative, so what i said was obviously valid. but wait, i never used the term "conservative" in my statement, so you're conjuring up stuff that i never typed.

but i concede to another poster that 9/11 (and katrina) was a special challenge that required spending. a liberal may (hopefully) have made the obvious choice to go to afghanistan to try to find bin laden, but the iraq "evidence" was so pulled out of bush's own @ss that i couldn't imagine gore, let along mccain, doing anything like that. congress supported the war under the confidence that bush had good enough military intelligence to request one. when he finally revealed his pitiful "evidence" (poor powell) he showed himself to be either a dip**** or a liar, but either is an entirely unacceptable justification for the loss of 250 billion dollars and thousands of lives (and counting). no 20/20 hindsight here.

"4) As far as your last paragraph... (picture Gob from Arrested Development) come on... come on! Seriously, those fake rankings were pretty funny. And I admitted that they were fake in my other preposterous thread. Trying to discredit me by alluding to my previous attempts (and I stress attempts) at humour take nothing away from the Generosity Index, nor the arguments posted above."

well, most of the people who posted in the thread didn't find it funny, especially as you never explained it was a joke as joking friends will often do in a timely manner. it discredits your character, but i entirely agree that it has no bearing on the arguments you've posted.

 

[sanford_w/o_son]

i have to get a lot of work done, so i'm signing off on this for a good bit. i'll let those who outnumber me here have the last flame for a while. 😉

 

[Risa]

Hey Risa...

I understand what you mean about wanting to go to a liberal med school--but do you really want to be surrounded by people who agree with you all the time? How boring would that be... I would think that most of us would rather have our views challenged, in the true spirit of academia.

People who agree with me on everything? Nah, that would be boring. People who agree with me on my fundamental beliefs--things like the fact that gay people deserve the same rights as other human beings? You bet.

 

[HMSNeuro]

People who agree with me on everything? Nah, that would be boring. People who agree with me on my fundamental beliefs--things like the fact that gay people deserve the same rights as other human beings? You bet.

I understand... but again, don't you want to at least hear why some people might not believe homosexuals should be able to be married. I certainly don't agree with this, but it's truly valuable to know why and how people do.

 

[Risa]

I understand... but again, don't you want to at least hear why some people might not believe homosexuals should be able to be married. I certainly don't agree with this, but it's truly valuable to know why and how people do.

I agree that ignorance is not bliss, and that understanding the rationales of others is important and can solidify one's own beliefs. So yes, hearing the arguments behind those beliefs, by some means, is valuable. I just don't want to be around the people who hold them 🙂

 

[NonTradMed]

Either a double standard or, more likely, your definition sucks. Elitist liberals are those liberals that think society needs their help. They're meddlers that won't leave people alone. They think they're the best and brightest of society and that the poor need/want their help. There are certainly conservatives who care about only running their businesses and getting wealthy, but at least there aren't very many who insult the masses by insinuating we need their help. Thus, conservatives are rarely elitist, given that, the common definition. Elitist liberals should go back to their hand-wringing in their ivory towers and leave us alone. We don't need your help. As Lewis said, it's better to be ruled by robber barons than moral busybodies.

Then, do you consider the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to be conservatives? Or liberal elitists who are 'moral busybodies'?

I had a friend who said something similar . He was a republican but he said liberals were the ones pushing their morals down everyone else's throats whereas conservatives never do. I asked him what he thought of conservative religious leaders who tout family values and reclaiming America and he got all flip floppy with me. 😀


I've spoken with people from all across the political walkway, and I believe that political affliation does not discriminate on hypocrites and dinguses. There are conservatives who are hypocrites and arrogant asses and there are liberals who are that way.

Across the political spectrum, there are people who believe they are 'right', that they know better. From so called liberal elitists who say they know better because they are more educated, to our own beloved (conservative) VP who claims the 'real' America resides in the heartland, where the simple folks who have 'common sense' live (because common sense makes them better than liberal eggheads evidently).

Well, I've lived in ivory towers and I've lived with the 'simple folks', they are dumb idiots in both areas. Just saying you are liberal or conservative says nothing to me about your humility or your compassion.

 

[browniegirl86]

Then, do you consider the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to be conservatives? Or liberal elitists who are 'moral busybodies'?

or CRAZIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

😛

 

[medhacker]

Heh medical students are right out of lliberal-brainwashing-school a.k.a. college and have never payed taxes in their lives (except maybe the $75 they paid on their outback host/hostess summer job). Of course everyone is hardcore liberal.

So everyone who is not in college and pays taxes must be conservative? not happening last time I checked

 

[Gut Shot]

HA, laughable at best.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005

Look for trends in "liberal" vs "conservative" states.

I have seen this same argument when comparing charitable giving in the US versus various countries in Europe. Not surprisingly, the charitable giving is much more prevalent in the US.

What this fails to take in to account, however, is that the European nations in question have obviated the need for most charity by constructing extensive tax-supported social safety nets. If you considered a portion of their taxes as compulsory charity I'm sure a different picture of relative generosity would emerge.

I wonder if this might have some counterpart phenomenon here in America. After all, they don't call it Taxachusetts for nuthin'.

Along these same lines, let's compare the need for charity (as estimated by the percentage of people at or below the poverty line circa 2004) in the order of the most philanthropic states:

1. Mississippi - 17.3%
2. Arkansas – 16.4
3. South Dakota – 13.0
4. Oklahoma – 11.8
5. Tennessee – 15.0
6. Alabama – 16.0
7. Louisiana – 16.8
8. Utah – 9.5
9. South Carolina – 13.8
10. West Virginia – 15.8

...and then there are a bunch in the middle...

41. Michigan – 12.3
42. Hawaii – 8.9
43. Colorado – 9.9
44. Minnesota – 7.2
45. Connecticut – 9.1
46. Wisconsin – 11.0
47. Rhode Island – 11.5
48. New Jersey – 8.3
49. Massachusetts – 9.7
50. New Hampshire – 5.6

Perhaps you, too, notice a trend between the “liberal” and “conservative” states? Let’s look at it this way:

Top Ten Giving States:
Average poverty rate = 14.5%
Percentage voting red in 2004 = 100%

Bottom Ten States:
Average poverty rate = 9.4%
Percentage voting red in 2004 = 10%

 

[newguy357]

yes, conservatives are often selfishly focused on economic interests, and/or lacking in a social conscience for those beyond their particular demographic. so, what is it you are so proud of . . . ?

Try reading my post again. If your reading comprehension is really as bad as it seems then have someone else read it out loud for you.

 

[newguy357]

So everyone who is not in college and pays taxes must be conservative? not happening last time I checked

Is that what he said? No it's not? Please learn to read.

 

[LabMonster]

There are strong pockets of "blueness," particularly in Minnesota and Wisconsin, which were both blue states last election. I would say that the two U of MN schools and the U of WI are all pretty liberal.

This is true. Madison and Milwaukee are the population centers for WI and the trend is toward the left.


BTW, the liberal vs conservative BS you are all spewing without listening to one another belongs in the everyone forum. 🙄

 

[sanford_w/o_son]

BTW, the liberal vs conservative BS you are all spewing without listening to one another belongs in the everyone forum. 🙄

yeah, this thread is seriously derailed. i apologize to the op and future search-and-read folks for my part in that, although it's no suprise it happened given the topic.

so what do folks think are conservative/liberal/moderate schools? is there any more special insight on the schools the op listed? let's put aside the flame war.

 

[Touchdown]

Everyone who is in medical school is either a conservative, or a soon to be conservative. Once they become a full doctors and start getting your real salary and see how much of it is taken by the government (because even my dad as a general ped is in the same bracket as billionaires) they will convert to a small governement way of thinking quickly.

 

[MollyMalone]

Everyone who is in medical school is either a conservative, or a soon to be conservative. Once they become a full doctors and start getting your real salary and see how much of it is taken by the government (because even my dad as a general ped is in the same bracket as billionaires) they will convert to a small governement way of thinking quickly.

Do you have a source for this assertion?

 

[Touchdown]

The only one I have is personal experience, my dad was an ardent liberal in college but after 5 years of being taxed to death he coverted.

 

[MollyMalone]

The only one I have is personal experience, my dad was an ardent liberal in college but after 5 years of being taxed to death he coverted.

Wow, asserting that "everyone" in medical school is a present or future conservative based on n=1. That's some science.

 

[Touchdown]

Im just passing on my dads experience (and by the way my first response was a essentially quote from him) based on his personal experience and knowing other med students/doctors. Take it or leave it.

 

[MollyMalone]

Im just passing on my dads experience (and by the way my first response was a essentially quote from him) based on his personal experience and knowing other med students/doctors. Take it or leave it.

Well, then, say what you mean. How much harder is it to type, "My dad's experience has been that most people in medical school..."?? In that case the reader knows in what context to take your information. A blanket overgeneralization like the one you posted isn't helpful to anyone.

Not EVERYONE in medical school is a present or future conservative. I know several very liberal physicians who have been in practice quite some time. I will gladly admit that I don't know the actual breakdown of political affiliation, and any guesstimate I could make would be just that, a guess.

I would be interested in seeing actual data on this issue, since it comes up fairly often. Anyone know if this info is available from the AMA or anywhere else? A quick Google didn't turn up anything for me.

 

[Rafa]

Everyone who is in medical school is either a conservative, or a soon to be conservative.

source?

The only one I have is personal experience, my dad

...asserting that "everyone" in medical school is a present or future conservative based on n=1.

Im just passing on my dads experience...

From now on, whenever a conservative pre-med starts an argument with "everyone", I'll know he (because they're almost always young males)'s just talking about his dad. 🙂

 

[chef_NU]

there exist in society problems which are most equitably and efficiently dealt with through collective action.

this is true, but if people don't agree with your methods, their freedom should not be compromised at the expense of bureuacratic judgment.

government appropriation makes the bold assertion that its judgement trumps the judgement of the individual. i don't know why anyone would want to live under a government like this...

 

[drchekhov]

Everyone who is in medical school is either a conservative, or a soon to be conservative. Once they become a full doctors and start getting your real salary and see how much of it is taken by the government (because even my dad as a general ped is in the same bracket as billionaires) they will convert to a small governement way of thinking quickly.

You're "everyone" has already been debunked. But perhaps your dad's anger about being taxed at the same rate as billionaires should interest him in a party that supports progressive tax policies, not one that that wants to run on gimmicks like flat taxes and absolving those same billionaires of estate taxes.

 

[Touchdown]

Did I mention my dad was unable to pay back his education loans until he was 40 and has struggled with debt all his life? The fact of the matter is "the upper crust" doesnt pay taxes, they get out of it by either moving to Monte Carlo, perverting tax breaks to their advantage, or simply by not paying it and trusting their legal team will get them out of it.

My family was not poor, but it was by no means fility rich either and frankly the tax code sucks in this country right now (it is way to complicated and is being taken advatage of by big business and the rich the exact people who should be paying it.) I dont know if a flat tax would work, but I do know it would work better then what we have now (the more money you have=the more money you owe, but I would demand an exception for those below a certain poverty line as the only exception).

Finally, I hate to break it to you dr. chekhov but both parties are funded by lobbiyists and the elite so both parties are going give tax breaks to them, end of story. Conservative and republican and liberal and democrat should not be used interchangibly; conservative and liberal are terms used to describe a political viewpoint, republicans and democrats are corrupt politcial parties that pay lip service to those viewpoints and this is the crux of the political problem in this country.

When the democrats say they are going to tax the rich they mean people like you and I who are going to be hard working professionals and its going to make living and paying back our huge loans a big problem.

 

[chef_NU]

gimmicks like flat taxes

do you know anything about flat taxes?

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3860731

http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archive...ies-Experiencing-Explosive-Growth-Rates.html”

Please educate yourself before you spout your blatantly idiotic critique of any non-liberal economic agenda.

 

[chef_NU]

estate taxes are double taxation. if you think that is fair, i suppose that's your deal.

 

[MN81]

Everyone who is in medical school is either a conservative, or a soon to be conservative. Once they become a full doctors and start getting your real salary and see how much of it is taken by the government (because even my dad as a general ped is in the same bracket as billionaires) they will convert to a small governement way of thinking quickly.

Or they could look at the number that the government doesn't take out (the number that goes into their checking account), and realize that it is a heck of a lot more money than most people make, buy a BMW instead of a Bentley, and be happy.

 

[Touchdown]

^You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Most of us will be 250k-300k in debt by the time we graduate, and its going to be hard enough getting the credit to buy a home. Doctor does not equal rich.

 

[Gut Shot]

^You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Most of us will be 250k-300k in debt by the time we graduate, and its going to be hard enough getting the credit to buy a home.

There are numerous 100-103% mortgage programs (with no PMI) available to physicians. Bank of America, Tower Mortgage, Compass Bank, to name just a few. Educational debt is not counted against you during preapproval.

If anything is obvious, it's that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Touchdown]

^You're right its not, its just counted against you when they give you the interest rate (not a big deal since you can refinance in a few years) and the down payment (huge problem.) Then your credit rating will seriously drop as you know have 300K plus a mortage.

 

[Gut Shot]

^You're right its not, its just counted against you when they give you the interest rate (not a big deal since you can refinance in a few years) and the down payment (huge problem.) Then your credit rating will seriously drop as you know have 300K plus a mortage.

uuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh.....

1. 100% loan = no down payment.
2. 103% loan = no down payment and closing costs are covered.
3. Rates are comparable to standard, non-physician loans.
4. Residents cannot afford 300K homes.
5. I was unaware that owning a house kills your credit rating. Source?

 

[MN81]

^You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Most of us will be 250k-300k in debt by the time we graduate, and its going to be hard enough getting the credit to buy a home. Doctor does not equal rich.

God forbid a person just finishing his/her 8 years of college plus approximately 4 years residency would be in debt and have to rent for a few years before they can afford a house!

What is the world coming to?

 

[drchekhov]

do you know anything about flat taxes?

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3860731

http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archive...ies-Experiencing-Explosive-Growth-Rates.html”

Please educate yourself before you spout your blatantly idiotic critique of any non-liberal economic agenda.

First of all, way to jump right into childish name-calling. I'll refrain from descending to your level.

Actually yes, I've studied flat taxes a fair amount. The concept is probably the most egalitarian in theory—but it fails in application. The poor end up paying a higher percentage of the burden because they have to devote a FAR higher percentage of their income to consumption in order to survive. When you've got to spend a quarter of your income buying groceries at Wal-Mart, a flat tax on every purchase hurts a lot more than if you're deriving lots of income from investments (which would be untaxed in a completely laissez-faire flat tax system). Thus, flat taxes end up being more regressive than income taxes.

Second, don't you think the movement from communism to capitalism has had a lot to do with increasing growth rates in Eastern Europe (the countries lauded in both articles)? As a student of Russian and East European Studies, I can definitely tell you that their previous economic systems were HORRIBLY inefficient. So any sort of proper stewardship, they were bound to achieve a lot of catch-up growth of their economies.

Third, I studied in Russia this summer. Trust me, you do not want to pattern our financial or social model on theirs. That country's just biding the time until the next revolution. 😛

estate taxes are double taxation. if you think that is fair, i suppose that's your deal.

Dude, it already happens all the time. Anyone who drives a car gets double-taxed: once on their income and again at the pump. Or anyone who lives somewhere with a state income tax. Etc.

I'm fine with paying more taxes based on additional opportunities I'll have in this country—because, let's face it, we have a whole lot more than most residents of the rest of the world (and even a sizable portion in our own country).

 

[kirexhana]

just so we're clear. when you guys say conservative/liberal, you specifically mean fiscally right? I'm uncertain about where i stand when it comes to economics, just because i am ignorant for the most part. but, socially, i am and always will be liberal.

 

[SeventhSon]

this is true, but if people don't agree with your methods, their freedom should not be compromised at the expense of bureuacratic judgment.

government appropriation makes the bold assertion that its judgement trumps the judgement of the individual. i don't know why anyone would want to live under a government like this...

OH GREAT! Then we should wait until 100% of the public agrees on something before we take action. Actually I take it back, I like your logic. That way George W. only makes 51% of the decisions about this country.

 

[8744]

yes, conservatives are often selfishly focused on economic interests, and/or lacking in a social conscience for those beyond their particular demographic. so, what is it you are so proud of . . . ?

Ah. Social conscience. The propensity to be generous with other people's money.

 

[Gut Shot]

The propensity to be generous with other people's money.

Like your grandkids' money?

 

[Shredder]

Anyone who drives a car gets double-taxed: once on their income and again at the pump. Or anyone who lives somewhere with a state income tax. Etc.

I'm fine with paying more taxes based on additional opportunities I'll have in this country—because, let's face it, we have a whole lot more than most residents of the rest of the world (and even a sizable portion in our own country).

i too have seen the rampant double taxations argument. commodity taxes, state and local taxes, capital gains taxes. and in a way its true, if the tax is the price to live in a country i guess americans get a decent deal compared to europeans. i always consider expatriation a viable option if things go too far, but its not reached that point yet. maybe its govt job to push ppl as far as possible to pay taxes, then scale back once ppl start taking off for tax havens? then again one must consider the effects of taxes on economic growth, which gets into supply side issues and laffer curves and all, also labor income and substitution effects but now im just regurgitating material from my classes

seventhson the idea is that once 51% of ppl in a democracy realize they can steal all the money or other rights from the richer 49% via taxation, things turn sour. majority rule and minority rights--rights to private property being one of the foremost, money included

 

[sanford_w/o_son]

seventhson the idea is that once 51% of ppl in a democracy realize they can steal all the money or other rights from the richer 49% via taxation, things turn sour. majority rule and minority rights--rights to private property being one of the foremost, money included

yeah, but folks like me believe in "positive rights," that especially in a country as rich as ours people have a basic right to health care, education, and even a decent standard-of-living. excess private property of the wealthy is a luxury compared to those basics, and i think it's just to tax it (yes, to progressively violate the negative right to private property of those whose basic needs are met, if that's how you'd like to frame it, to ensure the positive rights of the less fortunate).

and all it takes is 50% + 1, dernit!