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.

 

[Archies Ghost]

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.

The obstacle to more extensive charitable activity is money.

Instead of creating a government program to replicate what charitable organizations do every day, the money should be directly provided to those organizations to increase the reach.

However, many of these organizations are necessarily religious in nature, although not all.

There would be objections.

And the over regulation that comes with government involvement is also a major issue.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

The obstacle to more extensive charitable activity is money.

Instead of creating a government program to replicate what charitable organizations do every day, the money should be directly provided to those organizations to increase the reach.

However, many of these organizations are necessarily religious in nature, although not all.

There would be objections.

And the over regulation that comes with government involvement is also a major issue.

How is this money collected, allocated, and the priorities decided upon?

 

[Lazybones]

The obstacle to more extensive charitable activity is money.

Instead of creating a government program to replicate what charitable organizations do every day, the money should be directly provided to those organizations to increase the reach.

However, many of these organizations are necessarily religious in nature, although not all.

There would be objections.

And the over regulation that comes with government involvement is also a major issue.

our non profit organization, the MIR group, sponsors youth, seminarians and priest to go on pilgrimages to Medjugorje. Before I was on the board, I just raised money and turned it over. Now that I’m on the board, the paper trail that we keep on that fundraising is crazy. I don’t know that I would go about donating in the same manner if I had to personally jump through the hoops.

Unfortunately some of these hoops are necessary because of the fraud organizations stealing well intended peoples money.

 

[Archies Ghost]

How is this money collected, allocated, and the priorities decided upon?

What money?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

What money?

I'm speaking to this central thesis:

"Instead of creating a government program to replicate what charitable organizations do every day, the money should be directly provided to those organizations to increase the reach."​

How does this work, exactly? I'm just trying to get a grasp of what your philosophy/societal model looks like here. Are you referring to government spending? If so how does that work? Taxes? Or is this presumed upon the libertarian framework I often assume with these conversations which are reliant upon disconnected personal donations in a system where taxation is largely outlawed as theft? Or something different? I'm genuinely just probing to understand here.

 

[The moose]

dude chill.

I’m saying that these issues are separate. If you are saying that illegal immigration/refugees and the treatment of them is important to you, great! Make that point.
At this juncture it seems that you are looking for a gotcha moment more so than actual conversation.

Just so you know, I would never advocate locking children in cages. How’s that for a start.

Pardon me for thinking that this is a forum where we talk to people with different views.

I have to say you have vastly different views than I do.

I am so glad to hear you don't want little brown children in cages. Yet don't want to talk about it or how the party you support does this.

To change policy on that would need a huge push from people on your side of the fence. The Christian conservative voters of the nation would go a long way if they were to put up a push for change.

 

[Lazybones]

Pardon me for thinking that this is a forum where we talk to people with different views.

I have to say you have vastly different views than I do.

I am so glad to hear you don't want little brown children in cages. Yet don't want to talk about it or how the party you support does this.

To change policy on that would need a huge push from people on your side of the fence. The Christian conservative voters of the nation would go a long way if they were to put up a push for change.

I’m still not understand the constant reference to little brown children. I don’t want kids in cages anywhere in the world. Muslim kids, Christian kids, Brown kids, yellow kids or any other kids for that matter.

how would you like to see us handle the next caravan that approaches the boarder?

 

[Lapaz]

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.

It still doesn’t change the fact that Planned Parenthood helps prevent unwanted pregnancies. If they ever advocate an abortion, it is likely to avoid a likely trauma. If anyone advocates abortion it would be to avoid some trauma such as health of the mother or to end a birth due to a rape or incest, which could have traumatic affects on the mother’s mental health and the child. Without that abortion, you’d have an unwanted child and a traumatized mother. It’s living in a fairyland to think that this would not cause more damage to society by creating more traumatized children and women. It’s easy to live on a high horse and feel moral by opposing abortions without considering uncomfortable circumstances, but the real world isn’t always so tidy. Many anti-abortion people have changed their minds when faced with such circumstances. Many people suddenly get empathy when reality slaps them in the face. They may still oppose abortions, like most people, but then finally realize why it is necessary sometimes.

 

[Lazybones]

It still doesn’t change the fact that Planned Parenthood helps prevent unwanted pregnancies. If they ever advocate an abortion, it is likely to avoid a likely trauma. If anyone advocates abortion it would be to avoid some trauma such as health of the mother or to end a birth due to a rape or incest, which could have traumatic affects on the mother’s mental health and the child. Without that abortion, you’d have an unwanted child and a traumatized mother. It’s living in a fairyland to think that this would not cause more damage to society by creating more traumatized children and women. It’s easy to live on a high horse and feel moral by opposing abortions without considering uncomfortable circumstances, but the real world isn’t always so tidy. Many anti-abortion people have changed their minds when faced with such circumstances. Many people suddenly get empathy when reality slaps them in the face. They may still oppose abortions, like most people, but then finally realize why it is necessary sometimes.

I appreciate your perspective. I would refer you to post 184

 

[Archies Ghost]

I'm speaking to this central thesis:

"Instead of creating a government program to replicate what charitable organizations do every day, the money should be directly provided to those organizations to increase the reach."​

How does this work, exactly? I'm just trying to get a grasp of what your philosophy/societal model looks like here. Are you referring to government spending? If so how does that work? Taxes? Or is this presumed upon the libertarian framework I often assume with these conversations which are reliant upon disconnected personal donations in a system where taxation is largely outlawed as theft? Or something different? I'm genuinely just probing to understand here.

Since this is a philosophical discussion and I am restricting myself to the current system, I would allow individuals the ability to earmark up to 50% of their annual federal tax liability to be transferred directly from the treasury to charitable organization(s) involved in activities that directly support human society.

 

[SystemShock]

You are making assumptions with no basis in fact.

Protecting the right to life is a function of government most everyone agrees upon.

At some point between conception and voting age, abortion becomes a violation of that right to life.

Government does not provide. Government takes.

I much prefer private charitable activity over government programs.

I guess I got my cables crossed a bit with lazybones... but you did bring up a Christian opinion and presented it as fact.

As for the right of life, and some point between conception and voting age, the point that needs to be determined is not when "human life" begins, but rather when an individual is recognized as such, and what is the standard for that recognition.

 

[V Chip]

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.

I prefer to not have government money support organizations that are faith-based and use government money to promote their own religion, no matter what that religion is. More money goes to these types of organizations than goes to PP or ones you might find objectionable, and in orders of magnitude to the Nth power.

As to the question of charity and religion... I don't think people are less charitable if they are less religious at all. In fact, I think charitable giving is seriously skewed in religious folks' favor, being that tithing to a church is seen as charitable giving when it's really just supporting an organization you take part in. Of the income of churches from tithing, only about 15% actually gets put towards charitable causes, with most of the income going towards church upkeep (building costs, salaries, events and amenities for church members). I find that less charitable than giving to organizations who put 80-90% of their income to actual charitable works, but I don't think that tithing being seen as "charitable" will ever change in the US.

 

[Dragon]

The obstacle to more extensive charitable activity is money.

Instead of creating a government program to replicate what charitable organizations do every day, the money should be directly provided to those organizations to increase the reach.

However, many of these organizations are necessarily religious in nature, although not all.

There would be objections.

And the over regulation that comes with government involvement is also a major issue.

You hit your head on the nail on your description of the charity programs. While I know it is an important part of US culture I really don't like charity.

It is in some way demeaning and it can feel humiliating to have to seek such help, which may make some who need it, stay away or feel preasured to participate in political or religious acts that may or may not be against their own beliefs.


A government program run independently of religious or political affiliations but based on a clearly define need, helps maintain the dignity of those who seek help.

 

[LA - L.A.]

look if you want to support abortion,...

I made it very clear that my goal is to have no more abortions.

But for you to criticize me for not seeing life the same as you...

I was only commenting on things you've said and the impression I get of your views on abortion based on the things you have said. Nothing I said was a critique of you as a person or what you seem to believe.

...(seems I may actual respect life, the horror).

There's nothing horrible about respecting life and everyone in this thread clearly respects life.

Again, I did not criticize you or how you see life. Not once did I judge you. Not once did I say or imply that you are wrong to believe what you believe. All I did was say what I believe and point out things that we seem to disagree on.

 

[Lazybones]

I think you have no interest in discussing issues when you realize your position is indefensible.

Not unlike when you realized that your understanding of the statistics you presented was flawed.

btw I never said I valued life more than anyone else. You totally misunderstood the point purposely or not who knows. I guess this was more of a comment to the comment not what I quoted.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I guess I got my cables crossed a bit with lazybones... but you did bring up a Christian opinion and presented it as fact.

As for the right of life, and some point between conception and voting age, the point that needs to be determined is not when "human life" begins, but rather when an individual is recognized as such, and what is the standard for that recognition.

You got that sorta backwards. I was arguing that there are no "facts". The I was demonstrating how a scientist could present a well reasoned paper concluding that human life begins a point X and then how that "fact" would be considered an opinion by those inclined to wish/believe/desire it to be otherwise. She happened to be a Catholic scientist. I haven't been able to find anything that presents anything like a scientific argument against her position. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

She also further states that

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.

So, yes, the real question is what value do we place upon human life at the earliest stages of development.

You seem to have a personal standard of attaining the status of "individual". I don't know how you define that status.

Personally, from a philosophical standpoint, I know that I want every potential human life to proceed. My own personal experiences have shown that even the worst circumstances of human existence are better than non-existence. I also know that this is an unreasonable proposition.

I do believe a human being is present shortly after conception. Everything that makes a human being is there, actively creating the life that may be. I also know that at 24 weeks or possibly earlier, that human being is viable outside the womb. So the point at which it deserves our protection is much earlier, in my opinion.

If I were king I would give the fetus the right to life at 8 weeks given what we know right now.

 

[SystemShock]

You got that sorta backwards. I was arguing that there are no "facts". The I was demonstrating how a scientist could present a well reasoned paper concluding that human life begins a point X and then how that "fact" would be considered an opinion by those inclined to wish/believe/desire it to be otherwise. She happened to be a Catholic scientist. I haven't been able to find anything that presents anything like a scientific argument against her position. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Because it is her opinion. This scientist is not making a scientific observation in a vacuum. What is the standard for the beginning of "human life"? There isn't one.

If you were arguing that there are no "facts", you are very mistaken.

You seem to have a personal standard of attaining the status of "individual". I don't know how you define that status.

Yes, the individual. You keep referring back to the Constitution. The Constitution says nothing about "human life". It only refers to people and men (does it even say women? Don't remember off the top of my head).

And individual is one person.

I do believe a human being is present shortly after conception. Everything that makes a human being is there, actively creating the life that may be.

As I said, same with an egg: everything that makes a chicken is there, yet an egg is not a chicken.

If I were king I would give the fetus the right to life at 8 weeks given what we know right now.

If I were king, I'd decree comprehensive sex education starting in the 7th grade.

 

[Polycarp]

My most important issue is getting a paycheck so that I can move up to be able to say that I am living paycheck to paycheck and get a payday loan every two weeks.

Can any of y'all tell me where I can find the deep state? I've been looking all night and I can't find it on a map anywheres. Don't tell anybody, but some cooyon I met today at the park calling hisself Q told me that the deep state is a swamp infested with pedaphiles and a lot of rotten eggs. Sounds like my kind of place. Can somebody give me a ride over there? If the eggs don't float then they ain't rotten, and I don't know what kind of alligator or crocodile a pedahile is, but I ain't choosy, me!! I want to get there quick before the less educated people I know get there and take it all.