What's the Most Important Issue in Politics?

[Husker_x]

We have an election cycle on right now. Maybe that narrows it down.

 

[knapplc]

For this election cycle I think if the candidate appears to be too closely tied to Obama, they're in for it. He rode the wave of change into the White House but the promised change hasn't happened - in fact, the country is either stagnant or worse than when he took office. Whether that's his fault or not (and there are two sides to that, not debating that right now), "change" is going to get his folks ousted, and he will have to have a miracle second half to win another term.

 

[Ponderosa]

I know, I know. Just let it soak in. I'm for legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. I'm against taxes that go a penny over what is absolutely necessary to keep this country from sinking into the ocean. I understand that the government has a role, but it has far exceeded it and has instead begun social engineering, which leads directly to a dependence on the state, which is sowing the seeds of tyranny. My vote will go for the candidate who maximizes freedom and minimizes taxes almost every time. Whether he's religious or not, gay or not, black, white, purple or not, homo sapien or not, that's my horse.

I've heard many a libertarian use the exact same phrasing and I don't get it.

(Note: I'm not saying you are a libertarian or speak for them - just that I've heard it many times.)

Speaking only for yourself - why are those three items the highest on your list/mentioned first?

If nothing else, all three are already legal (to some degree) and all are already accessible.

 

[Husker_x]

I know, I know. Just let it soak in. I'm for legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. I'm against taxes that go a penny over what is absolutely necessary to keep this country from sinking into the ocean. I understand that the government has a role, but it has far exceeded it and has instead begun social engineering, which leads directly to a dependence on the state, which is sowing the seeds of tyranny. My vote will go for the candidate who maximizes freedom and minimizes taxes almost every time. Whether he's religious or not, gay or not, black, white, purple or not, homo sapien or not, that's my horse.

I've heard many a libertarian use the exact same phrasing and I don't get it.

(Note: I'm not saying you are a libertarian or speak for them - just that I've heard it many times.)

Speaking only for yourself - why are those three items the highest on your list/mentioned first?

If nothing else, all three are already legal (to some degree) and all are already accessible.

I have a hard time with labels myself. I use the world libertarian to describe my philosophy most of the time. As for the three I listed, they're examples, but not necessarily in order of importance. In my opinion the most pressing issue facing our country is the idea that the federal government is designed to solve the minutia of our lives. It isn't.

 

[huskerjack23]

In a general sense, Government control and regulation and social acquiescence to these ends. The embrace of the marginalization of liberty.

In a specific sense, the government's distrust of capitalism and gradual formation of a socialist state.

As in you want that to happen or it is happening and you'd prefer it not to?

I do not want approve of this trend.

Phew. Me either.

I'm trying to narrow down my political philosophy into something that might be able to answer my own question is a succinct way. I don't think I'll quite make it, but here goes. Feel free to print this on a T-shirt, but if anyone does, make sure I get my F(*&ing royalty checks.

Hrrg. Hrmm...

Don't take my money. And don't tell me what to do.

I know, I know. Just let it soak in. I'm for legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. I'm against taxes that go a penny over what is absolutely necessary to keep this country from sinking into the ocean. I understand that the government has a role, but it has far exceeded it and has instead begun social engineering, which leads directly to a dependence on the state, which is sowing the seeds of tyranny. My vote will go for the candidate who maximizes freedom and minimizes taxes almost every time. Whether he's religious or not, gay or not, black, white, purple or not, homo sapien or not, that's my horse.

I like your views X but I'm gonna take just a little bit of side view on your view. I do believe that the federal government is leading us into tyranny, but not from the centralized goverment per se. They're just the tool that the corporatocracy uses to initiate and maintain the tyranny we see. That almost sounds like conspiracy theorist paranoia just typing it out, but it just seems to me that the freedoms that were supposed to be guaranteed for the people, are also being guaranteed and actually being enforced for corporations. I just don't understand how such a huge gap in the socio-economic classes can benefit a country, especially on a global scale like this.

But I'm kind of an idiot, tell me off if I'm off base anywhere.

 

[Ponderosa]

I know, I know. Just let it soak in. I'm for legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. I'm against taxes that go a penny over what is absolutely necessary to keep this country from sinking into the ocean. I understand that the government has a role, but it has far exceeded it and has instead begun social engineering, which leads directly to a dependence on the state, which is sowing the seeds of tyranny. My vote will go for the candidate who maximizes freedom and minimizes taxes almost every time. Whether he's religious or not, gay or not, black, white, purple or not, homo sapien or not, that's my horse.

I've heard many a libertarian use the exact same phrasing and I don't get it.

(Note: I'm not saying you are a libertarian or speak for them - just that I've heard it many times.)

Speaking only for yourself - why are those three items the highest on your list/mentioned first?

If nothing else, all three are already legal (to some degree) and all are already accessible.

I have a hard time with labels myself. I use the world libertarian to describe my philosophy most of the time. As for the three I listed, they're examples, but not necessarily in order of importance. In my opinion the most pressing issue facing our country is the idea that the federal government is designed to solve the minutia of our lives. It isn't.

It just seems like you're leading with your chin that's all.

Otherwise I strongly agree with the bolded item. At least at 30,000 foot level.

The devil (heh) is in the details.

 

[HuskersNow]

The amount of personal freedoms. Something that bothers me is that it seems that most people value the law above liberty. But what is the point of a lay without liberty?

 

[knapplc]

But what is the point of a lay without liberty?

:blink:

 

[HuskersNow]

But what is the point of a lay without liberty?

:blink:

lol good catch

 

[HuskerNMO]

Singling out one issue is exactly what has us in the position we are in today. We voted in a president based on change and his ability to wow crowds with his speaking ability (not saying he was the wrong choice, just saying he was voted in for the wrong reasons). I vote for the person who aligns most closely with the things I believe, and who I think has the least to gain by obtaining the position. In other words, the one that I don't feel is agenda driven, but rather will listen to the will and voice of their constituents and fight for them.

I will share a quote from a Teddy Roosevelt speech

If a man's efficiency is not guided and regulated by a moral sense, then the more efficient he is the worse he is, the more dangerous to the body politic. Courage, intellect, all the masterful qualities, serve but to make a man more evil if they are merely used for that man's own advancement, with brutal indifference to the rights of others. It speaks ill for the community if the community worships these qualities and treats their possessors as heroes regardless of whether the qualities are used rightly or wrongly. It makes no difference as to the precise way in which this sinister efficiency is shown. It makes no difference whether such a man's force and ability betray themselves in a career of money-maker or politician, soldier or orator, journalist or popular leader. If the man works for evil, then the more successful he is the more he should be despised and condemned by all upright and far-seeing men. To judge a man merely by success is an abhorrent wrong; and if the people at large habitually so judge men, if they grow to condone wickedness because the wicked man triumphs, they show their inability to understand that in the last analysis free institutions rest upon the character of citizenship, and that by such admiration of evil they prove themselves unfit for liberty.

 

[Army Husker]

to win back the trust of your constituents...regardless of the partisan BS

 

[MCAT800]

Establishment of a new amendment to the constitution outlawing liberal/environmental wackos

 

[Manhattan]

Establishment of a new amendment to the constitution outlawing liberal/environmental wackos

:blink:

 

[AR Husker Fan]

it is the economy, you knuckleheads. that is all that ever matters. unless the economy is doing well, then it is something trivial.

In a very real sense, I agree. The problem, however, is that no one seems able to agree on what constitutes the best course to correct the current economic problems. To Republicans, it is to lower taxes - particularly on the rich - in hope that will spur hiring and investment. To the Democrats, it is to stimulate the economy using tax dollars, which is some respects is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Of the two, I tend to favor the Democrats on this issue. Why? Well, while statistics can certainly be used to prove almost anything, a close look at the "reduce taxes on the wealthy" has a number of flaws. It's simply the "trickle down" theory - which hasn't worked. When wealthy individuals get tax breaks, they don't invest in hiring or creation of new industries - they bank that money. For corporations, tax breaks don't bring about hiring or increases in production - they bring about a better bottom line, which leads to hire stock valuations. Corporations hire only when they need more production than their workforce can produce.

If there are to be tax breaks, they should be for the middle and lower class - and they should be substantial. Why? First, real job development through creation of new business comes from the small business community - which comes from the middle class. Second, the wealthy are far less impacted by back economic times - it has less of an impact on their disposable income, and consequently, their spending habits rarely change. However, those tax breaks for the middle and lower class always generates an uptick in spending - which in turns causes companies to hire more people to meet increase consumption demand, which in turn results in more people with more disposable income with which to purchase.

People claim that the stimulus package of the current administration has not worked because we haven't seen a huge increase in jobs - in fact, we have seen periods of job loss and periods of modest gains. True - but to say that's the failure of the stimulus package does not take into account what would have happened without it. The stimulus, I would suggest, kept a large number of people employed who would have ended up on the welfare rolls. It may not have increased jobs - but it did keep the loss down.

So, the biggest issue to me? Repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy and substantial, meaningful tax cuts for the middle and lower class.

In a general sense, Government control and regulation and social acquiescence to these ends. The embrace of the marginalization of liberty.

In a specific sense, the government's distrust of capitalism and gradual formation of a socialist state.

This somewhat baffles me. I hear it time and again, but I don't quite understand where people get the idea of the creation of a "socialist" state. The three most common examples I hear are:

1. The bank bailouts
2. The takeover of GM
3. The healthcare reform act

Taking them one at a time:

1. The bank bailout plan was, to refresh everyone's memory, a plan put into effect by the Bush administration. It was continued by the Obama administration. Was it the right thing to do? That point can be argued endlessly. The better point is that both parties - at least at the time it was happening - believed it to be necessary to keep the economy from collapsing completely. Regardless, however, the government bailout of "Wall Street" was not a takeover - it was an economic prop. As it turns out, both administrations were wrong as to the necessity in retrospect, most likely. But the government did not take over banking. It propped up companies. It even closed banks - and does to this date - but it certainly has not socialized banking or financial investments. As a final note, the administration recognized - correctly - that much of the financial system's problems didn't result from too much regulation; it resulted from so little regulation that it permitted financial institutions to engage in incredibly risky, financially unsound practices. To that end, financial reform regulations have been put in place. Have those in any way reduced the earning capacity of those financial institutions? Not based on their earning reports.
2. Much like the bailout of the banks/financial sector, it was believed that GM needed to be assisted to keep from losing an incredible number of jobs - not just at GM, but for all the industries that supplied and supported GM, and which depend almost entirely on that relationship. Yes, the government took it over - it essentially stated, "We'll provide assistance, but we want some degree of control temporarily and to ensure that we have some collateral in the event this doesn't work. Again - this was a temporary situation - the government did not socialize the automotive industy.
3. The third one is the most baffling. The government did not socialize healthcare. Even the early proposal to have the government offer a government-sponsored healthcare alternative was not, or would not have been, socialization of healthcare. It would have been an alternative to the current offerings. I happen to be under contract to the State of Arkansas. Among other things, I'm one of the individuals that has to implement provisions of the healthcare act. In meeting with hospital directors, I've yet to meet a single one that doesn't praise the bill. This is particularly true for small, rural hospitals. They routinely say that the healthcare reform act is a godsend that will allow them to keep their doors open. When I meet with directors of large hospitals, they have trouble articulating any issues from the Act that will impact them substantially.

Equating regulation with socialism isn't necessarily valid. It can be, but only if the regulations essentially permit the government to control the industry completely. That's not the case in any of the examples above. One good example is the healthcare act, again. The act doesn't erect barriers to entry in the healthcare field - it actually provides new opportunities, coupled with economic incentives. Do the regulations that have resulted from the financial reforms and healthcare prescribed conduct by those industries? Certainly. Have they granted the government the ability to "control the means of production"? No.

Regulations - any regulations - entail some degree of restriction; that's their purpose. It is to prescribe minimum standards of conduct necessary to both allow the affected industry to operate while at the same time providing protection to consumers and prohibiting established industries from dominating the arena to such a degree that others can't enter.

Government, by it's very nature, is designed to set standards of conduct. Regulations, like laws, are the means to that end. Yes, they can be a means for a government to socialize industry - it just happens that's not the case in the examples above.

Perhaps you're thinking of other examples. I simply was citing the ones I hear most often as "examples" of a move to socialism.

There is also a somewhat contradictory strain in saying that things as the stimulus package and healthcare reform (and the other examples) are examples of socialism, verses the statement that the government distrusts capitalism. The stimulus package - regardless whether it has achieved its purpose - was designed to spur job development and capitalism. It was designed to incentivise the creation of companies to utilize the stimulus money. Yes, some of the money went to state and local governments - but in those cases the vast majority of those dollars were earmarked for projects that required that those local and state governments to hire private contractors to perform the tasks, such as infrastructure repair (roads, electrical grid, etc.). In other cases, monies that have gone to states (an example includes the recent support to retaining or hiring teachers) will go to support jobs - ensuring that those individuals will continue to purchase goods and services from, yes, private companies. And, to keep them off welfare and unemployment rolls.

The regulatory reforms, likewise, attempt to incentivise private industry. First, they are designed to prevent current and future companies from jeopardizing their very stability. Second, they ensure that current companies can't monopolize their industries to the point of prohibiting entry by new companies. Third, in some cases they provide funds to spur investment in new companies and in current industries. Fourth, they help to ensure a degree of fairness for the small investor - and those investors in turn provide capital to private industry.

Carry on, everyone...