Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Campaign issues (U.S.)

Election 2004 Campaign Issues 2004

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 eechick

eechick
  • Islander
  • 4,219 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 07:47 PM

The economy and the outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries.

#22 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 08:30 PM

RPITA, on Mar 5 2004, 06:30 PM, said:

Meanwhile, back to the topic. None of the candidates are speaking to my issue: Put the 10th Amendment back in the Bill of Rights. The Federal govt has far overstepped its bounds and NO ONE in ANY party is talking about it. In fact, everyone seems to be falling all over themselves extend the Federal govt further (farther?) than ever.

That's my issue. I don't expect anyone to speak to it, though. :(

Anna
^of course not.  They'll just retcon any overstepping of boundaries as "necessary and proper"

My issues:

1. Civil rights
2. The budget, economy and job market
3. Social security & medicare <--ties in w/ the budge, but I'm actually for adding privatized options--which is damn near the only thing I actually can agree with Bush on.  I have a very conservative stance on this one, because a lot of money comes out of my paycheck for these programs and the way things are going, I'll never see that money again.
4.The war on terrorism and Iraq.


-Nick

#23 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 08:36 PM

Here's a long, but hardly comprehensive list of my thoughts on the matter.  In actuality, although it sounds rather conservative in some ways, I could actually support certain Democratic solutions for these if it wasn't for abortion and the entitlement culture that that party represents.  I'm certainly sympathetic to the more liberal notions of social justice, even though I think the liberal solutions proposed actually do more harm than good in many cases.

Points:

Ensuring free trade, and particularly working to offset the premium that Americans have to pay to keep drug prices down in countries with price caps.  I am not against confronting these countries and expecting them to pay their share instead of getting a free ride from US consumers having to foot the bill for drug research.  If this causes serious problems for their socialist medical systems, it will only be moving up the inevitable when the the price inequities in the US force our country to adopt a similarly wrongminded program and effectively cripple pharmacutical research.  

Legislation comprehensively restricting abortion except for life and death situations for the mother or possibly the determination of the inviablity of the fetus.  Most importantly, ensuring that tax money is not spent on abortion procedures, promotion of abortions or any such activity supported by foreign aid.  At the same time, legislation providing more money for teaching of sex education, including proper contraception and with emphasis on improving the ability of the unprepared to abstain from sexual activities.  Any such money would be provided with only a loose Federal mandate so states and localities may teach to community standards.

Setting up programs to help leverage our lead in some industries to allow the US to develop the new industries that are required to offset the inevitable and healthy movement of jobs to areas with a lower standard of living.  Working to move US workers away from the dependence on older industries that cannot be supported profitably in the US.  

Serious Social Security reform and activity to deal with having to support a huge number of retirees when it is very likely no money I pay in will be left over to actually support the younger generation paying into it.  

Increased diligence and effort on enforcing equal opportunity legislation, but at the same time, cut backs or removal of so-called Affirmative Action programs.  

Structuring, funding, and equipping the US military to be able to respond to its responsibilities globally.  Ensuring that military personnel are trained effectively and properly compensated for their roles.  

Resolution to complete the mission in Iraq to restore sovereignty to the Iraqi people and provide them with a stable governmental system that, even if they are not overly friendly, will still not be overtly hostile and act as a rogue state.  

Committment to space exploration with an eye to colonization and extraterrestrial resource extraction and energy sources.

Committment to high technology and *ethical* medical research.  

Committment to assisting poorer areas with medical and food issues.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#24 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 08:48 PM

Uncle Sid, on Mar 5 2004, 08:34 PM, said:

Ensuring free trade, and particularly working to offset the premium that Americans have to pay to keep drug prices down in countries with price caps.  I am not against confronting these countries and expecting them to pay their share instead of getting a free ride from US consumers having to foot the bill for drug research.  If this causes serious problems for their socialist medical systems, it will only be moving up the inevitable when the the price inequities in the US force our country to adopt a similarly wrongminded program and effectively cripple pharmacutical research.
^I strongly agree with you there.  I'm generally a pretty devout capitalist, although I 100% free trade is a mistake.  Too many jobs are going overseas, not only because wages are cheaper, but employers don't have to deal with the U.S.'s bothersome environmental, labor, and tax policies.  Free trade that compensates for that would be just fine.  I'm talking about tax penalties for job exporters and incentives for job importers--jobs can go overseas if they're really a more efficient operation, but not if the companies are just trying to get around U.S. legislation.

As for abortion . . . well, I'll agree to disagree with you there. ;)

I like your position on leveraging new industries.

I've already vented about social security. :)  I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I haven't really decided where I stand on the Equal Opportunity vs. Affirmative Action debate . . . I'm on the fence with that one.

The rest I agree with you pretty solidly on.  One caveat tho--ethics in medical research.  I'll go out on a limb here ;) and assume you're pretty strongly against human cloning, stem cell and embryo research.  To me, it's not a big deal.  The trouble with ethics is that there's not much concensus on what's ethical and what's not.  AFAIC, the jury's still out on that one.

-Nick

#25 ArmourMe

ArmourMe
  • Islander
  • 500 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 09:52 PM

Kosh, on Mar 5 2004, 09:03 PM, said:

Quote

Armour Me are you wanting to go back to the way things were done before 9/11? There are parts that this law actually are helpful to the way things are done.


Those who would give up freedom for security, deserve neither. Ben Franklin.
*ak - edited cause I hugged the wrong bird :D  hugging Kosh now LOL*

Quote

QUOTE from Enmar
QUOTE (ArmourMe @ Mar 5 2004, 10:14 PM)
1) What will the candidate do to get rid of the Patriot Act and further advance civil rights?
:welldone:
*huggs Enmar as well!*

Edited by ArmourMe, 05 March 2004 - 09:59 PM.


#26 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 10:49 PM

I won't look for any particular issue - but genuine proof that the candidate is sincerely thinking about the issue, and not just pushing a party line.  I've lived long enough now to know that actual deliverables after the election bear no resemblance to what is promised - and I don't blame presidents for this.  They have to negotiate w/ congress, find the budget, and they walk into office (when they aren't incumbents) only after getting a full briefing from the prior leader - none of which we get to hear about.  This tells me that as soon as they get there, their priorities shift at least somewhat.  SO for me - I want a candidate that isn't just saying anything to get elected - he's got his own convictions, and an ability to think things through, taking into consideration all the available information.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#27 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 11:31 PM

The most important issue to me, and the one I don't see being addressed in a serious way, is the ongoing decline of the American middle class.  I see a society where economic inequality is growing, and more importantly, social mobility between the classes is decreasing.  And whether you're liberal or conservative, these are not good trends.  

I really don't want the U.S. to become a Brazil-like society that's polarized between the top 10 percent, a harried and shrinking middle class, and a huge and growing (and angry) underclass.  It's a recipe for economic decline and social instability.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#28 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 11:58 PM

Delvo, on Mar 5 2004, 01:34 PM, said:

Taxes
Overall Federal spending
Social Security and health care and old-age funding
These are some biggies for me too.  But separation of Church and State and reproductive rights are just as important to me as well.  

Also, I am very concerned by Kerry's apparent isolationism.

Lil
Posted Image

#29 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 06 March 2004 - 12:05 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 6 2004, 04:56 AM, said:

Delvo, on Mar 5 2004, 01:34 PM, said:

Taxes
Overall Federal spending
Social Security and health care and old-age funding
These are some biggies for me too.  But separation of Church and State and reproductive rights are just as important to me as well.  

Also, I am very concerned by Kerry's apparent isolationism.

Lil
How is a guy who says he wants the U.S. to "rejoin the family of nations" isolationist?  I thought the rap on Kerry is that he's too internationalist and would surrender too much American freedom of action in favor of some sort of squishy multilateralism?
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#30 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 06 March 2004 - 12:08 AM

^  Zack I don't remember which thread it was on but it had to do with Kerry's position that the only time the US should engage military hostilities is when attacked on US soil first.  Again, I don't remember which thread it was but I think it was at least a couple of months ago.

Lil
Posted Image

#31 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 06 March 2004 - 12:09 AM

I would also National Security is hig up there. Defiantly tightening the spending without endangering  security.

As to Social Security it has been raided since the 60's and holds just IOU's and I do not expect to get a single penny from it.  So it's not a big deal for me.

As to abortion I want it left alone as the states have taken care of the issue and it works for their populations.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#32 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 06 March 2004 - 01:11 AM

Looking through this thread, I see a conflict in what most people want that hasn't been addressed by anyone as far as I know.

Practically everybody wants to stop the "movement of jobs to other countries" where labor is cheaper. They use it to attack their oppositions' policies on other subjects that have nothing to do with this international imbalance in labor costs and thus can't really affect the trend, like tax rates, unemployment benefits and welfare, and education and training programs.

But then they also say stuff about wanting free trade internationally and not wanting to keep the upper class far above the lower class. Free trade moves money from where it is to where it isn't, and the USA is the rich upper class of the world. So if you're into free trade and/or financial equalization, then you want to do stuff that will inherently degrade the economy and quality of life in the small rich elite that is the USA, most visibly in the form of increasing unemployment... and if you're into keeping the USA highly employed and as wealthy as it has been, you need to try to cut us off and block the natural way of things, the movement of jobs to where labor is cheaper that just wants happen like osmosis of water.

If anybody who doesn't like the existence of an isolated, impenetrable rich elite class, is in favor of free trade, and yet also wants the USA to prosper and prevent job exporting, that's fine if they address the conflicts and propse a way around them. But the closer we come to this fork in the road where we'll end up going one way or the other whether we really choose it or not, the more annoying it'll be to continue hearing politicians talk about wanting to take both paths' good aspects and the bad aspects of neither without explaining how, or even just imply choosing one path over the other one without acknowledging the drawbacks and stating why that's the choice they favor.

#33 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 06 March 2004 - 02:39 PM

^I disagree.  Free trade doesn't have to move money from where it is to where it isn't, only to where it's the most efficient.  That's what capitalism's all about.  Where we need tighter regulations to stem the flow of jobs and capital to other nations lie in the unequal factors between nations beyond wages and efficiency.  I've said before--I'm talking about tax loopholes, and more lax regulations that make these foreign nations so attractive to employers in the first place.

All else being equal, Bob's widget factory in the U.S. can make widgets for $2.00 a pop.  Their overseas operation employs naked retarded children and beats them, eats babies, gets around taxes, and doesn't have to spend money on community improvement stuff, property taxes, healthcare, or OSHA mandated safety stuff.  So they make widgets for $1.00 a pop--counting the costs of shipping and inefficiencies incurred in having your managers in one place (here) and front-line employees another place (West Elbonia).

The West Elbonia factory isn't using scarce and limited resources any more efficiently than the U.S. factory, and is probably wasting more (they're naked retarded children, after all).  So this isn't capitalism doing what it does best--it's a corporation taking advantage of non-productive differences in the two areas and winds up wasting more resources, yet not having to pay for them (which capitalism
just hates).

Now, if the West Elbonia factory was actually a more efficient operation--power to them.  But my stance is this:  I support free trade to a point.  Tax the outsourcing companies sufficiently to close the gap a bit so that they'll only outsource when it's actually a more efficient operation.

Of course, there's no one-size-fits-all tax law you can implement, it's gotta be studied and analyzed to be industry specific . . . but that's the jist of it.

Corporations aren't evil, they just try to do things as inexpensively as possible . . . which is usually better . . . except when it isn't.  Outsourcing jobs overseas is one of those times when it isn't, and the government needs to step in and compensate for that.

-Nick

#34 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 06 March 2004 - 05:29 PM

You're never going to solve the issue by creating artificial barriers like taxes and tariffs.  It simply doesn't work that way.  The problem is that you can pay someone less than a dollar an hour to do what someone in the US does for 10 dollars an hour.  Those factories could only be 20% as efficent as an American factory and still make a profit.  Sure there's waste, but if the waste doesn't subtract from the bottom line, and the workforce doesn't show this tiresome tendancy towards striking, companies will do whatever they can to continue to use that labor.  And what can the government do?  Tell them "No?"  Raise taxes further?  Good luck.  If it even tried, you'd just have those same companies shutting down entirely in the US and moving offshore.  How would that help American workers?  

What America has going for it is that it has educated people with high technology backing them, as well as it's own resources.  What we need to be working on are the *next* big technologies, instead of wasting the money on keeping business afloat artificially that are just going to fall apart anyway.  There *has* to be a real effort towards retraining and retasking workers in more obselete fields towards newer industries.  If you really did want to be Big Brother, you'd probably be better off setting a quota of how many people are allowed to go into a certain field, like textiles or typewriter manufacturing.  That way people aren't logjamming themselves into a field that they will eventually get laid off from.  

I know that could be very difficult to do from the standpoint of creating new jobs, but the longer someone spends working in an obselete industry, the harder it is going to be for them to actually get a job elsewhere and land on their feet.  

We need to face the fact that to maintain a higher standard of living, we have to be able to do something that no one else can, and the fact is that in terms of building cars, or even writing software, we just don't have the edge we once had.  In the end, ignoring that and trying to stave it off with a rickety dam of artificial restrictions, taxes, and tariffs is just going to make the flood that much more powerful and destructive when it hits.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#35 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 07 March 2004 - 10:19 PM

^I think a mixture of both approaches is in order--revising taxes to keep the companies from moving jobs overseas so quickly so trends can be identified and re-training and development steps can be taken *before* too many are out of work.

-Nick



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election 2004, Campaign Issues, 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users