what issues are most important to you?

Cowgirl Up said:
Agricultural issues are important to me which is why I mentioned them. I was raised in it since my parents are ranchers/farmers, agribusiness is my current major in college, and before this I was very active in 4-H and FFA through high school and still active with FFA now.
Click to expand...
Well that's fine, I grew up on a farm too but that's not an exceptable excuse for being naive. Why should we favor agriculture over other parts of the economy when it currently over produces what the market can manage?

If you're true to your small government local control beliefs shouldn't we eliminate national subsidies for agriculture and price propping? How do you reconcile this with your conservative ideology or is it as the character in the classic American novel Catch-22, Major Major's Father said. "Subsidies for anyone but farmers is creeping socialism."?
 
Mr. Meeseeks said:
i am going to stay away from boilerplate "make sure the constitution is followed" type of responses. That should be a given.

1) privacy rights in general and especially for the internet/ending nsas dragnet big brother bulshit/pardon snowden
2) end the drug war
3) end foreign interventionism and democratic/neo-con war profiteering
4) end private prisons
5) abolish taxes or substantially lower them. Ideally get rid of the income tax altogether.
6) Dismantle 2/3rds of the federal budget.
6b) Decrease military spending,
6c) abolish social security (though those that have paid in should get what they are owed),
6d) abolish medicare and medicaid
6e) Abolish obamacare and forced mandatory purchases of a product

I don't know where that gets us but I know it's a big dent.

7) localize government oversight and bureaucracy wherever possible. The further degrees of separation from those that run our lives, the worse off we are. We need our rules to be close to the people.

I think that's a good 7 points for my worldview.
Click to expand...
Ok...but you're an admitted psychopath and the fact that I agree with several of your points distresses me greatly and is forcing me to reassess my entire world view.

Thanks a lot asshole.
 
Last edited:
Ok I have criticized others on that their priorities. Here's mine.

#1. We need to adhere to our traditional policy standard for military intervention and war of "A Clear and Present Danger.".
#2. We need to make major reforms and large public investment in Education.
#3. We need to make a large public investment in our national infrastructure.

#1. Is self explanatory in that any other standard causes more problems and needless loss of life and treasure. The Clear and Present danger standard is both affective and morally sound.

As for the other two it is obvious that for the U.S. to retain its status as the worlds premier super power these are public investments we simply have to make and to the tune of trillions of dollars.

The real discussion on these two is how will we pay for it and what will our priorities be? But we need to have that discussion and make those decisions. It doesn't take a Nostradamus to predict America's decline if we don't make these investments.
 
"It is guaranteed income" #32
Click to expand...
"Guarantee"? You mean like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and ...". That kind of "guarantee"? Imagine how confident your "guarantee" is to descendants of slaves.

Are you aware the Supreme Court has already ruled that your Social Security "benefit" can be whatever congress decides?
"it is also an income supplement, it does not replace a pension or 401k. You still have to "or should" save money."
Click to expand...
There are better investments.

Again, if it's such a good deal, why must it be administered at gunpoint?
"It also is used for state unemployment. It is very important, that why the law was passed."
Click to expand...
"Very" important?
To whom?
If it's so "important", then why for most of human history, why for most of American history was there no such thing? I don't recall any of the U.S. founders complaining about its absence.

Social Security promotes dependency and incompetence, instead of promoting independence & self-reliance.
The proverb warns that "You should not bite the hand that feeds you." But maybe you should, if it prevents you from feeding yourself.
psychiatrist Thomas Szasz
Click to expand...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
If you like being patronized and called simple. Personally if he'd said that to me I'd tell him to go screw a steer.
Click to expand...

I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but after reading it again I can see that he was making fun of me. It's ok though, it doesn't bother me.
 
Cowgirl Up said:
I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but after reading it again I can see that he was making fun of me. It's ok though, it doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...

He's a 60 year old man who is a troll on the Internet. His opinion of anyone is beyond meaningless
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well that's fine, I grew up on a farm too but that's not an exceptable excuse for being naive. Why should we favor agriculture over other parts of the economy when it currently over produces what the market can manage?

If you're true to your small government local control beliefs shouldn't we eliminate national subsidies for agriculture and price propping? How do you reconcile this with your conservative ideology or is it as the character in the classic American novel Catch-22, Major Major's Father said. "Subsidies for anyone but farmers is creeping socialism."?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to make a case for national subsidies of small farms by the federal government I was just saying that supporting agriculture is an important issue for me. I don't think the federal government should be picking winners or losers. I don't think it's good for the nation when a select few companies provide the vast majority of our food. Millions of tons of food is wasted every year because of overproduction and low prices for certain crops. If you had more competition from local farms around the country you'd have less waste and better quality food I think. Some of the contracts that small farmers have to live up to when they partner with the federal government or with a major corporation just to stay alive is pretty oppressive but in most cases if they don't get into those deals their farm will basically die.
 
I need to start getting ready for church now but I'd like to keep talking about this topic later if that's ok. Crop management and livestock management is going to be a big issue as our population grows and demand keeps going up for food. I'll check back a little later though.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Ok I have criticized others on that their priorities. Here's mine.

#1. We need to adhere to our traditional policy standard for military intervention and war of "A Clear and Present Danger.".
#2. We need to make major reforms and large public investment in Education.
#3. We need to make a large public investment in our national infrastructure.

#1. Is self explanatory in that any other standard causes more problems and needless loss of life and treasure. The Clear and Present danger standard is both affective and morally sound.

As for the other two it is obvious that for the U.S. to retain its status as the worlds premier super power these are public investments we simply have to make and to the tune of trillions of dollars.

The real discussion on these two is how will we pay for it and what will our priorities be? But we need to have that discussion and make those decisions. It doesn't take a Nostradamus to predict America's decline if we don't make these investments.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on interventionism, but not military cuts.. we've gotten to the point pilots are scrounging for parts.
We do need a robust presence in the world -the key is not getting sucked into wars.

Don't we spend more money then anyone on education? What would more money do?
 
Cowgirl Up said:
I'm not trying to make a case for national subsidies of small farms by the federal government I was just saying that supporting agriculture is an important issue for me. I don't think the federal government should be picking winners or losers. I don't think it's good for the nation when a select few companies provide the vast majority of our food. Millions of tons of food is wasted every year because of overproduction and low prices for certain crops. If you had more competition from local farms around the country you'd have less waste and better quality food I think. Some of the contracts that small farmers have to live up to when they partner with the federal government or with a major corporation just to stay alive is pretty oppressive but in most cases if they don't get into those deals their farm will basically die.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what the government did by signing free trade agreements? Didn't they pick winners and losers and grossly underestimate how many Americans would end up being losers?

I understand agriculture is important to you but I'm asking you is it that important nationally that it should be subsidized by the government and doesn't that contradict you small government views?
 
Last edited:
anatta said:
I'm with you on interventionism, but not military cuts.. we've gotten to the point pilots are scrounging for parts.
We do need a robust presence in the world -the key is not getting sucked into wars.

Don't we spend more money then anyone on education? What would more money do?
Click to expand...
No we spend more money on defense and defense related items and with that being the case that by not adhering to the clear and present danger standard we have over extended our military even though we spend more on defense than the rest of the world ombined?

I'm not advocating cuts in defense spending. I'm pointing out that our future standing, including our military, depends on our investments in education and infrastructure.

What would more money do? It would lower the cost of post secondary education for a college, vocational, trade or technical skills education. Just as importantly it would enhance our ability to prepare our youth for post secondary education. It is critical that in the new 21st century free trade economy that we provide the educational means for people to be able to participate without straddling them with massive amounts of debt.

Yes it will cost vast sums of money on those two investments but let's not forget that these investments have large measurable returns on investment that will create prosperity and reduce economic inequality which is politically destabilizing.

We need to have the political courage to make these decisions then have an adult conversation on how we shall pay for them.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No we spend more money on defense and defense related items and with that being the case that by not adhering to the clear and present danger standard we have over extended our military even though we spend more on defense than the rest of the world ombined?

I'm not advocating cuts in defense spending. I'm pointing out that our future standing, including our military, depends on our investments in education and infrastructure.

What would more money do? It would lower the cost of post secondary education for a college, vocational, trade or technical skills education. It is critical that in the new 21st century free trade economy that we provide the educational means for people to be able to participate without straddling them with massive amounts of debt.

Yes it will cost vast sums of money on those two investments but let's not forget that these investments have large measurable returns on investment that will create prosperity and reduce economic inequality which is politically destabilizing.

We need to have the political courage to make these decisions then have an adult conversation on how we shall pay for them.
Click to expand...
so you and Bernie are basicaly saying let the fed's pay more for education/

Yopu mention defese -but do we not lead the world on education spending? are we leaders on education? (no)
So "lowering the costs" does what? I'm all for improving education - but just throwing more money at it without figuring
how to improve it doesn't work.

Defense cuts are hurting our readiness, there is stilla large part of the world that depend on Pax Americana.
We need to fund NATO,and sea lanes, and countr Chinese expansion in the PAcific .
I hate we have to do it -but it's our role
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Isn't that what the government did by signing free trade agreements? Didn't they pick winners and losers and grossly underestimate how many Americans would end up being losers?

I understand agriculture is important to you but I'm asking you is it that important nationally that it should be subsidized by the government and doesn't that contradict you small government views?
Click to expand...
The gov't putting up tariffs is protecting certain industries at the expense of the whole. Free trade deals which lower tariffs is not picking winners and losers. Certain industries may get hurt but that is capitalism.
 
"Crop management and livestock management is going to be a big issue as our population grows and demand keeps going up for food." #50
Click to expand...
OK

But how much of a role do you think government should play in that? Don't you think the private sector, and market forces are handling it pretty well?
"Every Presidential campaign is an epidemic of economic illiteracy, but this year is a particularly egregious case when talking about the manufacturing [jobs] crisis. What that means is manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment is declining. True. [It] Has been for 60 years. We make steel today, we made steel 20 years ago. We just make 1/3 more steel today with 2/3 fewer steel works who have gone on to other points of employment. If we have a crisis in manufacturing ... we have a calamity in agriculture, because in 1940 19% of our employers were in agriculture, 4% by 1970, 2% today. That's a triumph of American productivity, not a problem." George Will (several election cycles ago)
Click to expand...
 
sear said:
"Guarantee"?
1) You mean like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and ...".

2)That kind of "guarantee"? Imagine how confident your "guarantee" is to descendants of slaves.

3) Are you aware the Supreme Court has already ruled that your Social Security "benefit" can be whatever congress decides? There are better investments.

4) Again, if it's such a good deal, why must it be administered at gunpoint?

5) "Very" important?

6)To whom? If it's so "important", then why for most of human history, why for most of American history was there no such thing? I don't recall any of the U.S. founders complaining about its absence.

7) Social Security promotes dependency and incompetence, instead of promoting independence & self-reliance.
Click to expand...

1) You are citing the Declaration of Independence, we have already succeeded from the Crown sucsesfully.

2) Red Herring, the descendants of slaves are covered under Social security.

3) Yes I am aware of that, are you aware that all investments carry rick? And as I already pointed out Social security is an income supplement, you still have to save money for retirement.

4) It is not; your statement is over dramatic, you can opt out by not working.

5) For all working Americans.

6) The founders gave us the machinery to enact laws for the common good. The founders also did not give us, the interstate highway system, Waste water Treatment Plants, Interstate Rail,and Air system organization, automobile Safety standards, uniform Building codes, or meat, and dairy inspection. Just because the founders did not have a crystal ball is hardly an excuse for progress.

7) How - by having a guaranteed income based on your earnings at retirement age? Hardly a disincentive to work, the statement is absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top