What are your important issues? (1 Viewer)

[wardorican]

Forget the current headlines. Forget the manufactured talking points. What are the big issues you care about? Or the small ones that don't get enough attention?

I'm just going to rattle off a few. I may dig into these more later. In no special order...

1. Infrastructure investment. The major categories being road transportation, flood protection / drainage, electrical grid resiliency, and better mass transit, especially rail. Our rail systems, outside of a few areas like Chicago, NYC, DC.. are just awful. They don't serve enough of the areas. They aren't tying the Suburbs, and towns nearby to the major city centers and major concentrations of Industry.
   1. A - I'd have much preferred no tax cut for the wealthy, and use that money towards Infrastructure. I don't mind some of the corporate tax cuts (not a fan of profitable companies finding ways to pay $0 in taxes.. that's unfair), but take a little back to go towards infrastructure and mass transit, which will boost productivity and lower congestion in major cities.
2. Wage growth. Not just min wage, all wages. Not sure what the government policy could be to drive this, but it's a huge pet issue for me.
3. Technology. Finding the balance between a company being large enough to have stability/security (think Apple, Microsoft, Samsung) to have things work well, but no so large as to stifle all competition and drive up prices. Also, who controls/owns our data. If my data is so valuable, why can't I be compensated for it?
4. Education funding. It's ridiculous how much the States cut from Colleges and how little they controlled their growth since the 1990's. That's why tuition is out of control. So, it's not just the funding issue, but also the lack of forcing public Universities to cap operating budget increases. In college, tuition increases was probably one of the biggest things I tried to fight against when in Student Government. We usually failed, but I did get one win on that topic, when I realized the committee that year was being somewhat dishonest about the increases, and called them out in public about it.

I care about a lot of other things, but I'm going to stop with these four.

 

[Lazybones]

Taking away more money from Planned Parenthood would result in more unwanted pregnancies. This is completely illogical. Demonizing an organization that counsels women and provides contraceptives is illogical. It’s a thoughtless Republican stance. Very disengenuous. If you really want fewer abortions, you would advocate to increase their funding. None can be used for abortions, so that would be completely consistent.

difference of opinion. I can’t support any organization participating in abortions. I’m not saying not to fund programs, I just don’t want my tax dollars going to companies advocating abortion. As a business operator and owner, saying that the money can’t be used for abortions is reminiscent of al gore claiming there is a lock box.

 

[CoolBrees]

As a business owner and operator it is really easy to keep revenues streams separate. Like really easy.

 

[Lazybones]

As a business owner and operator it is really easy to keep revenues streams separate. Like really easy.

it has nothing to do with keeping them separate.

i sell red pens and blue pens. I get governmental assistance for the blue pens but that money can’t be used for the red pens.

I use that governmental money to make money off of my blue pens. I then have money to run my red pen business. It’s not a concept that isn’t used everyday.

 

[CoolBrees]

Except the red pen auditor comes in twice yearly to ensure you aren’t touching blue pens, nor their production, promotion, or sale under penalty of law.

 

[Lazybones]

Except the red pen auditor comes in twice yearly to ensure you aren’t touching blue pens, nor their production, promotion, or sale under penalty of law.

What I described is not illegal.

 

[Ayo]

I much prefer private charitable activity over government programs.

I think this is a reasonable take. And preference is one thing. But I don't think that reliance on charitable activity would be enough. And I'm *not* saying that's what you are advocating, just to be clear.

I've worked with a school that had a breakfast program for kids that a local church ran. It was great. The kids came early, got a meal, and had some food in them for first period.

Awesome. We were grateful. Kids were grateful. I applaud the Church for doing that.

But they did breakfast a couple of days a week for 100 kids.

They would not have been able to give lunch to 1500 kids 5 days a week, though. These kids need to eat. Local charity isn't enough - wouldn't be enough. Subsidizing the nutrition of developing children is critical and worthwhile.

So charity is laudable and we should encourage it. And, in many cases, it's preferable. Sure. Also, in many cases, it's not enough.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

As someone that also is in "business," it's not all that hard to make sure money allocated for one purpose does not get moved over into baskets it shouldn't. If you are doing so and not properly reporting it, there is a term for that, fraud.

it has nothing to do with keeping them separate.

i sell red pens and blue pens. I get governmental assistance for the blue pens but that money can’t be used for the red pens.

I use that governmental money to make money off of my blue pens. I then have money to run my red pen business. It’s not a concept that isn’t used everyday.

If I take funding designated explicitly for my blue pen business, explicitly forbidding it from going into my red pen business, and I use the profit of my blue pen business to run my red pen business, I am committing a crime. If you are obfuscating that redirection you are committing fraud.

Of course, that is not how this process with PP works at all. They, like any health care center, and like many medical providers, are simply given grants for certain specific purposes or reimbursed for the care they provide at an agreed-upon rate. You do X, like provide an STD test, we will reimburse it at Y rate. This happens through Medicaid. What politicians mean when they talk about defunding PP is refusing to reimburse Medicaid payments for services rendered at PP. Effectively locking out millions of low-income people from the only affordable avenue they have to get things like STD screenings, birth control, or basic reproductive related healthcare. The only time federal Medicaid money can be used for abortion is in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. This was codified in the Hyde Amendment.

And no plan put forward by Republicans has ever addressed how they will fill the enormous gap in affordable services left in doing so, which gets back to the inquiry about leaning on arguments of morality about the sanctity of life while pulling the rug out from avenues that protect it because it has separate side operations that you object to.

 

[Farb]

I think this is a reasonable take. And preference is one thing. But I don't think that reliance on charitable activity would be enough.

I've worked with a school that had a breakfast program for kids that a local church ran. It was great. The kids came early, got a meal, and had some food in them for first period.

Awesome. We were grateful. Kids were grateful. I applaud the Church for doing that.

But they did breakfast a couple of days a week for 100 kids.

They would not have been able to give lunch to 1500 kids 5 days a week, though. These kids need to eat. Local charity isn't enough - wouldn't be enough. Subsidizing the nutrition of developing children is critical and worthwhile.

So charity is laudable and we should encourage it. And, in many cases, it's preferable. Sure. Also, in many cases, it's not enough.

Honest question as I tend to agree with most of what you posted here. Do you think the lack of charity available is tied to the fact that our country and really the world are moving away from religion? Granted, I know not all charities are founded in religion but I would guess that most are and have been.

 

[SystemShock]

Women should always have the right to choose but I think some here are being quite hyperbolic when they say if somebody is against abortion they they should want to house every unwanted child or that because of their stance they should also rail against the practices along the US/Mexico border.

That would be like criticizing a vegetarian for wearing leather shoes. Somebody can have a viewpoint or believe in one area but that does not make them a hypocrite if they do not taking all other similar stances under their purview.

The constant gotcha attacks I am seeing in this thread are rather childish.

Wouldn't that depend on the why of the vegetarian diet?

Are they vegetarian simply because they think a vegetarian diet is a healthier choice? Or are they vegetarian because they can't eat anything with a face and proclaim it is cruel to slaughter animals?

If you are out there throwing red paint at people wearing fur coats while you are wearing a fine pair of Carlyle Oxfords, yes, you are a hypocrite.

Likewise, when you have someone claiming the sanctity of human life and the well being of innocent babies (even if they are not even close to fully formed yet) as the reason to want abortion to become illegal and de-fund organizations like Planned Parenthood because one of the items in their menu is abortion, I think is fair to question why that conviction doesn't apply universally in all cases where human life and the well being of innocent babies is at stake.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I think this is a reasonable take. And preference is one thing. But I don't think that reliance on charitable activity would be enough. And I'm *not* saying that's what you are advocating, just to be clear.

I've worked with a school that had a breakfast program for kids that a local church ran. It was great. The kids came early, got a meal, and had some food in them for first period.

Awesome. We were grateful. Kids were grateful. I applaud the Church for doing that.

But they did breakfast a couple of days a week for 100 kids.

They would not have been able to give lunch to 1500 kids 5 days a week, though. These kids need to eat. Local charity isn't enough - wouldn't be enough. Subsidizing the nutrition of developing children is critical and worthwhile.

So charity is laudable and we should encourage it. And, in many cases, it's preferable. Sure. Also, in many cases, it's not enough.

I've yet to see a libertarian system(or even the framework of one) that can realistically self replicate the necessary investments in social health, retirement, and complex infrastructure, along with the necessary interventions required to address negative externality costs in market activity, that is all needed to create and then maintain a healthy and high-functioning society.

And I have been on the internet since the early aughts, and libertarians loved to argue this stuff back then, and really the most honest response I have gotten is that ultimately they prioritize the separation from the state above the achievement of a number of those issues that most in society would not tolerate. If Archie has that elusive bridge that can connect the two, I'd certainly love to hear it articulated.

 

[SystemShock]

it has nothing to do with abortion. I also always find it funny for people who are not involved in religion to make the above claims.

I am very involved in religion. How do you think I became an atheist?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Honest question as I tend to agree with most of what you posted here. Do you think the lack of charity available is tied to the fact that our country and really the world are moving away from religion? Granted, I know not all charities are founded in religion but I would guess that most are and have been.

I think I might have to disagree with the premise of this statement a bit? As it, neither appears to be factually true, and I don't think really characterizes what Ayo said(but he can speak on that).

and

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

It would appear that charitable giving has actually increased as religious participation has waned(though giving to religion outpaces al other categories), and generationally, the less wealthy, less religious Millenials are giving more as a percentage of their income and more of them are giving than the more religious Boomers. So I'm not sure there is, or ever was a strong correlation to be had.

 

[Andrus]

I think it’s all in the presentation. As long as the question is posed similarly to how you just posed it, and not with the other types of statement that ascribe value judgments to the other poster. At least that’s my interpretation of the guidelines so far.

That would be a correct interpretation. Abortion is a very volatile topic, and the rules are strict here. I suggest that everyone whose hair is catching fire figuratively speaking step away for a bit, take a deep breath, and think about how to debate points without including anything that may be interpreted as personal or offensive in their responses.

 

[Ayo]

I suggest that everyone whose hair is catching fire figuratively speaking step away for a bit, take a deep breath,

I'm safe then, because I'm more a Dr. Pepper kinda guy than a Pepsi one.

 

[Lazybones]

I'm safe then, because I'm more a Dr. Pepper kinda guy than a Pepsi one.

man I remember that like it was yesterday.

 

[Ayo]

Honest question as I tend to agree with most of what you posted here. Do you think the lack of charity available is tied to the fact that our country and really the world are moving away from religion? Granted, I know not all charities are founded in religion but I would guess that most are and have been.

I'd have to plead ignorance on this one. I've seen so many studies that declare Christians the most charitable. I've seen studies that argue atheists. I've seen studies that assert Republicans more than Democrats. And vice versa. And others, still, independents.

That said, generally speaking charity has gone up reasonably linearly, I think. And so has volunteerism (another form of charity).

I'd agree with your sense that religious charity is pronounced and it's a reasonable question that if religion dips, then does charity?

Personally - and based really on nothing than my hope in humanity - I think that even as religion loses popularity, charity will stay strong because there is a lot about charity that's quite secular.

I suppose that's my way of saying I have no real idea. Just some impressions, suppositions.

 

[Ayo]

man I remember that like it was yesterday.

I had to sneakily buy the Thriller cassette when it came out. After Stacy Fontenot let me borrow hers, I was hooked. So I bought it from a record shop down the road for myself. Dad eventually found it and wanted me to return it.

Mom stepped in and said she'd given me permission (she hadn't).

One night, on the national news, they were talking about the story and my dad called me into the room.

And he just pointed to the TV after the segment aired, and said, "Told you."

Told me what? Didn't answer it then, or since.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I'd have to plead ignorance on this one. I've seen so many studies that declare Christians the most charitable. I've seen studies that argue atheists. I've seen studies that assert Republicans more than Democrats. And vice versa. And others, still, independents.

That said, generally speaking charity has gone up reasonably linearly, I think. And so has volunteerism (another form of charity).

I'd agree with your sense that religious charity is pronounced and it's a reasonable question that if religion dips, then does charity?

Personally - and based really on nothing than my hope in humanity - I think that even as religion loses popularity, charity will stay strong because there is a lot about charity that's quite secular.

I suppose that's my way of saying I have no real idea. Just some impressions, suppositions.

That seems to be in line with the data that I have found after a preliminary search predicated on jogging my memory from things I have read before(so by no means scholarly confidence in the findings). That as religious participation as whole has waned, charitable giving has continued to rise in the west. It would seem that is.

Though how you break down charitable giving seems to get tricky, as most does go to religious institutions. And that gets tricky because should proselytizing and buying a private plane count as charitable giving? It currently would based on the study I found. which brackets any donation to a religious institution as a charitable donation

For me, I would want to see the evidence of a correlation between religious participation in society and charitable giving before even considering....Though all of it sort of sidesteps the larger conversation of whether a system reliant upon charitable giving almost exclusively for the social and economic needs of the underprivileged is sustainable. And if so what quality of life would it realistically provide? And if religious adherence is assumed to be a strong corollary, how does that change the calculus in a society where its influence is waning strongly?