The Issues & the 2012 Elections

[Prince Ikari]

I haven't posted a new topic in the politics and debate forum of this guild in quite some time, so with the 2012 elections coming, I wanted to see what everyone's top concern is. The poll above lists important issues facing the nation, some of which are more important than some to others. So please feel free to vote, and if you care too, leave some comments as to what you feel is the most important issue going into the election year.  

[Le Scratch]

I see immigration and the deficit being the lowest priorities. There's no substantiated evidence that immigration is harming the job market significantly because outsourcing is the biggest detriment to our job market at the moment. The deficit is only a problem because of the way it impacts Congress (i.e reducing spending to critical sectors without raising taxes on the wealthy or cutting spending on redundant or unnecessary programs).

The economy as a whole is the biggest deciding factor because it affects everything else. Unregulated capitalistic and wealthy interests are harming the people and the government has, time and again in these recent years, put corporate and moneyed interests above that of its own populace. Until the role of money in politics, especially corporate money in national politics, is eliminated, there will be no change. Until the people decide that enough is enough, there will be no change.  

[Prince Ikari]

Le Scratch

I see immigration and the deficit being the lowest priorities. There's no substantiated evidence that immigration is harming the job market significantly because outsourcing is the biggest detriment to our job market at the moment. The deficit is only a problem because of the way it impacts Congress (i.e reducing spending to critical sectors without raising taxes on the wealthy or cutting spending on redundant or unnecessary programs).

The economy as a whole is the biggest deciding factor because it affects everything else. Unregulated capitalistic and wealthy interests are harming the people and the government has, time and again in these recent years, put corporate and moneyed interests above that of its own populace. Until the role of money in politics, especially corporate money in national politics, is eliminated, there will be no change. Until the people decide that enough is enough, there will be no change.

I'd have to agree with you on immigration, but I would submit that the two other lowest priorities are the environment and social issues instead of the debt and deficit. I actually selected the debt and deficit is the most important issue to me going into the elections. It's the only issue that actually terrifies me when I think about it. It's high amounts of debt that are crushing economies around the world. Europe's socialist nations are so stagnant in terms of GDP growth right now, and their debt is plunging the continent into anarchy. I worry everyday about that happening to the United States. It's why I believe the upcoming presidential election will be the most important in my lifetime. The 15 trillion dollar debt cannot get any larger. All these showdowns in Washington regarding the debt have only made me sick this past year. Entitlements need to be reformed, the tax structure needs to be completely overhauled, to cut out the loopholes, and make sure everyone is paying if they want benefits, and there needs to be lots of spending cuts in all agencies and departments of the government. I do however, worry about education cuts being too deep. I'm from a lower income household, so I rely on financial aid to go to college. Financial aid is probably the only form of aid or assistance from the government I'm alright with, because with a college education, individuals who receive financial aid will over their lifetime pay all that money back in taxes with a good paying job anyways.

Well really, all of it is interconnected. The debt and deficit loom like the Sword of Damocles over the economy, which inhibits investment, which prevents job creation, which means higher unemployment, and less tax revenue coming in. I'd say what's harming the people though is not unregulated capitalism, but crony capitalism, where Wall Street, Washington politicians, and big labor have been too closely connected. Wall Street and big labor have too much influence over the political system, and politicians are beholden to them because they could easily destroy any politician who does not walk the line so to speak since they can pour millions of dollars into the system. I want to return back to free-market economic principles, not crony capitalism, or socialism.  

[Le Scratch]

Prince Ikari

Le Scratch

I see immigration and the deficit being the lowest priorities. There's no substantiated evidence that immigration is harming the job market significantly because outsourcing is the biggest detriment to our job market at the moment. The deficit is only a problem because of the way it impacts Congress (i.e reducing spending to critical sectors without raising taxes on the wealthy or cutting spending on redundant or unnecessary programs).

The economy as a whole is the biggest deciding factor because it affects everything else. Unregulated capitalistic and wealthy interests are harming the people and the government has, time and again in these recent years, put corporate and moneyed interests above that of its own populace. Until the role of money in politics, especially corporate money in national politics, is eliminated, there will be no change. Until the people decide that enough is enough, there will be no change.

I'd have to agree with you on immigration, but I would submit that the two other lowest priorities are the environment and social issues instead of the debt and deficit. I actually selected the debt and deficit is the most important issue to me going into the elections. It's the only issue that actually terrifies me when I think about it. It's high amounts of debt that are crushing economies around the world. Europe's socialist nations are so stagnant in terms of GDP growth right now, and their debt is plunging the continent into anarchy. I worry everyday about that happening to the United States. It's why I believe the upcoming presidential election will be the most important in my lifetime. The 15 trillion dollar debt cannot get any larger. All these showdowns in Washington regarding the debt have only made me sick this past year. Entitlements need to be reformed, the tax structure needs to be completely overhauled, to cut out the loopholes, and make sure everyone is paying if they want benefits, and there needs to be lots of spending cuts in all agencies and departments of the government. I do however, worry about education cuts being too deep. I'm from a lower income household, so I rely on financial aid to go to college. Financial aid is probably the only form of aid or assistance from the government I'm alright with, because with a college education, individuals who receive financial aid will over their lifetime pay all that money back in taxes with a good paying job anyways.

Well really, all of it is interconnected. The debt and deficit loom like the Sword of Damocles over the economy, which inhibits investment, which prevents job creation, which means higher unemployment, and less tax revenue coming in. I'd say what's harming the people though is not unregulated capitalism, but crony capitalism, where Wall Street, Washington politicians, and big labor have been too closely connected. Wall Street and big labor have too much influence over the political system, and politicians are beholden to them because they could easily destroy any politician who does not walk the line so to speak since they can pour millions of dollars into the system. I want to return back to free-market economic principles, not crony capitalism, or socialism.

I'm aware of the effect of the deficit. If the taxes on the wealthiest individuals and on corporations are returned to their former levels, the deficit will work out on its own without a single spending cut. Because of corporate and moneyed influence in politics, however, that won't happen. Their profits are too at-stake for them to allow a tax hike on the wealthy and big business.

The reversal of Citizens United would help that greatly. De-humanization of corporations and interest groups would help that greatly. Forbidding lobbying would help that greatly. Once the organizations have no influence, be they unions, corporations, or interest groups, then you will see a return to sanity.  

[Prince Ikari]

Le Scratch

Prince Ikari

Le Scratch

I see immigration and the deficit being the lowest priorities. There's no substantiated evidence that immigration is harming the job market significantly because outsourcing is the biggest detriment to our job market at the moment. The deficit is only a problem because of the way it impacts Congress (i.e reducing spending to critical sectors without raising taxes on the wealthy or cutting spending on redundant or unnecessary programs).

The economy as a whole is the biggest deciding factor because it affects everything else. Unregulated capitalistic and wealthy interests are harming the people and the government has, time and again in these recent years, put corporate and moneyed interests above that of its own populace. Until the role of money in politics, especially corporate money in national politics, is eliminated, there will be no change. Until the people decide that enough is enough, there will be no change.

I'd have to agree with you on immigration, but I would submit that the two other lowest priorities are the environment and social issues instead of the debt and deficit. I actually selected the debt and deficit is the most important issue to me going into the elections. It's the only issue that actually terrifies me when I think about it. It's high amounts of debt that are crushing economies around the world. Europe's socialist nations are so stagnant in terms of GDP growth right now, and their debt is plunging the continent into anarchy. I worry everyday about that happening to the United States. It's why I believe the upcoming presidential election will be the most important in my lifetime. The 15 trillion dollar debt cannot get any larger. All these showdowns in Washington regarding the debt have only made me sick this past year. Entitlements need to be reformed, the tax structure needs to be completely overhauled, to cut out the loopholes, and make sure everyone is paying if they want benefits, and there needs to be lots of spending cuts in all agencies and departments of the government. I do however, worry about education cuts being too deep. I'm from a lower income household, so I rely on financial aid to go to college. Financial aid is probably the only form of aid or assistance from the government I'm alright with, because with a college education, individuals who receive financial aid will over their lifetime pay all that money back in taxes with a good paying job anyways.

Well really, all of it is interconnected. The debt and deficit loom like the Sword of Damocles over the economy, which inhibits investment, which prevents job creation, which means higher unemployment, and less tax revenue coming in. I'd say what's harming the people though is not unregulated capitalism, but crony capitalism, where Wall Street, Washington politicians, and big labor have been too closely connected. Wall Street and big labor have too much influence over the political system, and politicians are beholden to them because they could easily destroy any politician who does not walk the line so to speak since they can pour millions of dollars into the system. I want to return back to free-market economic principles, not crony capitalism, or socialism.

I'm aware of the effect of the deficit. If the taxes on the wealthiest individuals and on corporations are returned to their former levels, the deficit will work out on its own without a single spending cut. Because of corporate and moneyed influence in politics, however, that won't happen. Their profits are too at-stake for them to allow a tax hike on the wealthy and big business.

The reversal of Citizens United would help that greatly. De-humanization of corporations and interest groups would help that greatly. Forbidding lobbying would help that greatly. Once the organizations have no influence, be they unions, corporations, or interest groups, then you will see a return to sanity.

Even if you returned to the tax levels of the 90s, it's absurd to think you could just hike taxes and have no spending cuts. It has to be a mixture of both. To most people's surprise, it's middle class and lower income Americans that need to pay more in taxes, not the upper class. The top 1% of Americans pay 38% of all federal income taxes, yet earn only 20% of the nation's income. The top 25% pay 86% of all federal income taxes, while 51% of Americans pay no federal income taxes at all, yet those 51% receive benefits from the government. If people want to go on about raising taxes on the wealthy, who already pay a large share, make sure the rest of Americans are paying their fair share first. That's why I want a flat tax, so that everyone has to pay something, and in the process, the wealthy lose all of their loopholes so they'll end up paying more too.

While I believe the Citizens United decision should be reversed, I don't believe you could ever remove all of the outside influences in the political system. Reversing Citizens United would only restore limits on the amounts corporations and labor unions could spend in elections, not remove them completely. As much as we don't like large groups controlling the process, we have to accept that they are part of the process. Corporations, labor unions, lobbyists, the media, politicians, the voters, we're all in the system. And not all groups are bad either. The pluralist political view states that people form groups in order to have a greater voice in the system, and to some great success. Individuals who shared the same view joined together to form the Tea Party in 2010, and completely reshaped the political process. And you also have more formal organizations such as The Humane Society who serve a good cause, trying to end animal cruelty. I don't have as much of a problem with groups influencing the process, it's just the matter of how much influence they can have, and with the Citizens United ruling, those groups can participate by spending unlimited amounts of money, which I don't agree with. Individuals can't contribute millions of dollars to make their voice heard, like the NRA, or AFL-CIO could.  

[Le Scratch]

Prince Ikari

Even if you returned to the tax levels of the 90s, it's absurd to think you could just hike taxes and have no spending cuts. It has to be a mixture of both. To most people's surprise, it's middle class and lower income Americans that need to pay more in taxes, not the upper class. The top 1% of Americans pay 38% of all federal income taxes, yet earn only 20% of the nation's income. The top 25% pay 86% of all federal income taxes, while 51% of Americans pay no federal income taxes at all, yet those 51% receive benefits from the government. If people want to go on about raising taxes on the wealthy, who already pay a large share, make sure the rest of Americans are paying their fair share first. That's why I want a flat tax, so that everyone has to pay something, and in the process, the wealthy lose all of their loopholes so they'll end up paying more too.

While I believe the Citizens United decision should be reversed, I don't believe you could ever remove all of the outside influences in the political system. Reversing Citizens United would only restore limits on the amounts corporations and labor unions could spend in elections, not remove them completely. As much as we don't like large groups controlling the process, we have to accept that they are part of the process. Corporations, labor unions, lobbyists, the media, politicians, the voters, we're all in the system. And not all groups are bad either. The pluralist political view states that people form groups in order to have a greater voice in the system, and to some great success. Individuals who shared the same view joined together to form the Tea Party in 2010, and completely reshaped the political process. And you also have more formal organizations such as The Humane Society who serve a good cause, trying to end animal cruelty. I don't have as much of a problem with groups influencing the process, it's just the matter of how much influence they can have, and with the Citizens United ruling, those groups can participate by spending unlimited amounts of money, which I don't agree with. Individuals can't contribute millions of dollars to make their voice heard, like the NRA, or AFL-CIO could.

I have to disagree with you there. The super wealthy, like the Walton Family, have no need for the absurd amount of wealth that they have. They already do not invest in anything other than themselves (and politicians). Why should they be allowed to hoard so much wealth that they can buy an entire political party, yet the lower classes, who already cannot make ends meet, should be forced to pay more? Going with the Waltons as an example, their combined net worth, the six of them, is greater than that of 30% of the entire nation, and far greater than that of many US cities. Six people control more money and capital than 100 million ... and they have it because they shipped American jobs overseas. Where's the ethics in that? Spending cuts can come from getting rid of subsidies for oil, corn, and the like, as well as from getting our military out of countries we have no business being in to begin with ... like the entire middle east. Oh, and we can stop handing over billions to Israel, and quit supporting dictatorships elsewhere in the world, and... well, you get the idea. I'm talking of returning taxes on the upper echelon to their levels in the 50s, not their levels in the 90s. There's no reason that businesses cannot survive and thrive now like they did then because of taxes; with today's technology business should be doing even better than then.

A great deal of the influence of such groups comes because over half the nation's voters ... don't vote. They don't care anymore, or they see themselves so overshadowed by groups like those that they figure 'why bother?' Taking the interest groups out of politics will do one of two things: it'll spur the people back into action by removing that shadow, or it'll do nothing and we will continue as we always have. I think that publicly financed elections, using tax money, will alleviate the need for campaign fundraising and give those from a less-than-wealthy background a chance to actually get into the race.  

[Prince Ikari]

Le Scratch

Prince Ikari

Even if you returned to the tax levels of the 90s, it's absurd to think you could just hike taxes and have no spending cuts. It has to be a mixture of both. To most people's surprise, it's middle class and lower income Americans that need to pay more in taxes, not the upper class. The top 1% of Americans pay 38% of all federal income taxes, yet earn only 20% of the nation's income. The top 25% pay 86% of all federal income taxes, while 51% of Americans pay no federal income taxes at all, yet those 51% receive benefits from the government. If people want to go on about raising taxes on the wealthy, who already pay a large share, make sure the rest of Americans are paying their fair share first. That's why I want a flat tax, so that everyone has to pay something, and in the process, the wealthy lose all of their loopholes so they'll end up paying more too.

While I believe the Citizens United decision should be reversed, I don't believe you could ever remove all of the outside influences in the political system. Reversing Citizens United would only restore limits on the amounts corporations and labor unions could spend in elections, not remove them completely. As much as we don't like large groups controlling the process, we have to accept that they are part of the process. Corporations, labor unions, lobbyists, the media, politicians, the voters, we're all in the system. And not all groups are bad either. The pluralist political view states that people form groups in order to have a greater voice in the system, and to some great success. Individuals who shared the same view joined together to form the Tea Party in 2010, and completely reshaped the political process. And you also have more formal organizations such as The Humane Society who serve a good cause, trying to end animal cruelty. I don't have as much of a problem with groups influencing the process, it's just the matter of how much influence they can have, and with the Citizens United ruling, those groups can participate by spending unlimited amounts of money, which I don't agree with. Individuals can't contribute millions of dollars to make their voice heard, like the NRA, or AFL-CIO could.

I have to disagree with you there. The super wealthy, like the Walton Family, have no need for the absurd amount of wealth that they have. They already do not invest in anything other than themselves (and politicians). Why should they be allowed to hoard so much wealth that they can buy an entire political party, yet the lower classes, who already cannot make ends meet, should be forced to pay more? Going with the Waltons as an example, their combined net worth, the six of them, is greater than that of 30% of the entire nation, and far greater than that of many US cities. Six people control more money and capital than 100 million ... and they have it because they shipped American jobs overseas. Where's the ethics in that? Spending cuts can come from getting rid of subsidies for oil, corn, and the like, as well as from getting our military out of countries we have no business being in to begin with ... like the entire middle east. Oh, and we can stop handing over billions to Israel, and quit supporting dictatorships elsewhere in the world, and... well, you get the idea. I'm talking of returning taxes on the upper echelon to their levels in the 50s, not their levels in the 90s. There's no reason that businesses cannot survive and thrive now like they did then because of taxes; with today's technology business should be doing even better than then.

A great deal of the influence of such groups comes because over half the nation's voters ... don't vote. They don't care anymore, or they see themselves so overshadowed by groups like those that they figure 'why bother?' Taking the interest groups out of politics will do one of two things: it'll spur the people back into action by removing that shadow, or it'll do nothing and we will continue as we always have. I think that publicly financed elections, using tax money, will alleviate the need for campaign fundraising and give those from a less-than-wealthy background a chance to actually get into the race.

Well it may seem like those individuals who have enormous amounts of money don't need all the wealth they have, but it is there wealth, and they earned it. It's not the government's place to take all of the money of individuals who earned there money, however superfluous you may feel it is. The free market economic system doesn't work that way. In the system, some win, and some lose. Some earn more money than others. I don't demonize the individuals who are successful. Now if they have a lot of money, I say they should invest some of it, because it helps create jobs and could actually benefit the individual who invested if a company really takes off, but that's there decision whether or not they want too. And why should the rest of Americans pay more? Because right now, over half aren't paying ANYTHING at all. The way I see it, if you use benefits provided by the government, you should have to pay taxes for those benefits and services. The United States is not an entitlement state. We're not a nanny state. We're not a socialist state. The rich shouldn't have to subsidize the lower classes so that they pretty much get a free ride. I've grown up poor my whole life, and I'd never demand the government take all of the money away from those who have it so that I can get a free house, and free health care, and free food, a free cell phone, etc. Instead, I'd rather go to college, work hard, and make something of myself. Right now, I can hardly buy any food, so I have to eat the same small inexpensive things each day, like PB&J, because it's all I can afford, but one day, I hope to work for a big tech company like Google, Microsoft, or Symantec, making such a comfortable salary, I could invest in a 401(k), put money toward my children's college fund, or even donate to some worthy animal charities. I'd have to disagree with you on the Waltons. They may have shipped some jobs oversees, but the company they created, Wal-Mart, is the biggest private employing company in the world, and hires more individuals in the United States than just about any other. There company also helps lower income individuals afford things we normally couldn't at other, more expensive stores. I don't see what's wrong with that. They're helping individuals afford products at a reasonable price, and have done a hell of a job doing it, since according to you, the family has more capital than 30% of the nation. The types of spending cuts you mentioned though are minuscule at most though. The spending cuts we need, have to address the largest contributors of our debt and deficit, entitlements - Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Getting rid of farming subsidies would make only a little dent, as would cutting aid from other nations. You can't cut millions, or low billions, and hope to ease debt and deficits in the trillions. You could get rid of those things, but there has to be major structural changes to entitlements like Social Security, and two simple solutions to that would be to raise the entitlement age for Americans under 40 to 70, and also allow for those same Americans the option to opt out of Social Security all together, which is what I want. I don't want to waste giving part of my money to a program that will have ceased to exist by the time I could collect from it. And as far as the Middle East is concerned, I don't care to be there, but we are, and we have to finish the job, or the trillions of dollars, and all the blood spilled would have been for nothing. Everyone seems to forget what happened on 9/11, and why we're over there in the first place. Maybe not with Iraq, but with Afghanistan anyways. Israel is probably the only nation in the Middle East I'd still associate, and give money too. It's the only true democratic nation in the Middle East, and without help from the United States, those extremist nations around it would try and destroy it. But giving money to extremist such as the Saudis or the Pakistanis makes absolutely no sense at all. I don't see much of a need for going back to the tax levels of the 50s. Tax levels were high in the 50s, probably to pay for the vast military industrial complex needed to compete with the Soviet Union. But the tax levels worked fine in the 90s, so I wouldn't mind going back to them. Back then, the government had a surplus, and it seemed as if welfare would all but be eliminated. The real tax problem is, that with all the loopholes, the rich can get by paying little, while half of Americans pay nothing at all. And before the taxes are raised on the rich, higher than 90s tax levels, I want the rest of Americans paying their fair share first. To me, it's only fair that everyone pays at least something in taxes, no matter what income bracket you mange to fit in.

If those voters you're alluding to choose not to vote, that's their own fault. People who are registered to vote, but choose not do so, can't complain. Whether I know the candidates I support can win or not, I still choose to vote anyways. I've voted in every election I could since I turned 18. All of my candidates won in 2009, and 2010, but every single one of them lost in 2011, probably because I voted independent instead of for establishment candidates for most of my ticket. I just don't think Americans care about voting at all, and nothing can change that. There's no emphasis placed on voting anymore, such as in the schools. If kids learn early on, the importance of voting, then they'd grow up to want to vote. It's the only way people will want to vote. And as we just saw with the Iowa Caucuses the other day, every vote counts, so that's all the more incentive to go out and vote, knowing that what stands between a candidate you like and dislike, could only be 8 votes. We could take interest groups out, I don't have so much a problem with that, but I don't see it changing the status quo as far as voting is concerned. I just don't think people care anymore is all. I'll give props to Europe on one thing, and that is that in Europe, it's almost a national holiday to go out and vote. They place a lot of importance on it. I'd have to disagree though with your last part on publicly financed elections. It takes the hard work out of politics out. If even fringe candidates can receive the same amount of money as more established and electable candidates, the system just goes crazy. The whole point of fundraising, is that in many cases, you have to go to states, travel around, shakes hands, and convince people to donate to your campaign, because you are the right candidate for them. And yes, some candidates have more money than others. To compete in politics, you have to have a strong, well-funded organization on the ground, but raising money, is all part of the process, and if you're a strong, viable candidate, with a positive message, then money will come your way. I feel if you go to publicly financed elections, you'll never see the candidates on the ground, because there's no incentive to meet with the voters, when the government gives all of the candidates the money to enter an run an election. The candidates would just sit at home, and run nothing but ads. I say just keep the system as is, and let the candidates have to work to raise funds, while taking interest groups out, and placing caps on the money corporations and labor unions can contribute.