Which is more important to you: Economics or social issues

[Nym90]

Economics. Social issues are overrated for the most part; not that I don't care about them, but I think that by and large the problems that are presented in social issues can be solved through economic issues.

Abortion and crime, for example, are both problems that in my opinion can't be solved except by economic issue solutions.

[Nym90]

I would argue the relationship is the other way around in many cases; economic conservatism hurting the poor and middle class (as these groups tend to be harmed far more by spending cuts than they are helped by tax cuts), leading to higher crime rates which then require social conservatism to get tough on crime.

Obviously extreme policies in both directions can be destructive. But I think that overall most social issues are best solved through economic issues like education and health care; government polices that reward hard work by giving people the tools to be successful and economically upwardly mobile.

[Nym90]

I would argue the relationship is the other way around in many cases; economic conservatism hurting the poor and middle class (as these groups tend to be harmed far more by spending cuts than they are helped by tax cuts), leading to higher crime rates which then require social conservatism to get tough on crime.

Obviously extreme policies in both directions can be destructive. But I think that overall most social issues are best solved through economic issues like education and health care; government polices that reward hard work by giving people the tools to be successful and economically upwardly mobile.

I don't agree with your first paragraph at all.  First off, crime rose at the same time social spending did in the 1960s, both to record levels.  What does that tell you? 

I also strongly disagree that the middle class is more hurt by spending cuts than tax cuts.  In the pre-Reagan era, the middle class was being taxed to death, as inflation pushed people with moderate incomes into higher and higher tax brackets.  At the same time, the middle class does not greatly benefit from most social programs, nor should they.  They're better off keeping their own money than getting snared into the vortex of well-intentioned but destructive government social programs, as have the poor.

Many of the social programs that you claim benefit the poor have ended up reinforcing poverty.  Honestly, you could probably argue that we would have been better off doing nothing than enacting many of the 'anti-poverty' programs that we put in place in the 1960s.

I agree that people should have the tools to be successful.  I have many times called the GI Bill one of the best examples of enlighted and beneficial liberalism which greatly benefitted the country, far far in excess of the amount of money that it cost.  Still, I have a subtle but important difference with your reasoning.  Government cannot 'give' people the tools to be successful.  It can help them to acquire those tools, and it should, but the onus is still on the person to put in the required effort to acquire those tools.  And sadly, we see that a certain percentage of people without the tools to be successful were simply not willing to put out the effort to acquire them, and if that's the case, nothing can help them.

Inner city education is a scandal, but who is running that show?  Hint:  it's not conservatives.  There, I think helping people acquire tools needed for success requires that those interested in doing such being provided a means to escape the current schools they're in, in which it is virtually impossible in many cases to get a decent education.  But this is not really a matter of money per se, but of political correctness and the hypocrisy that lies behind it.

Well, first off, I don't think anyone is supporting a return to 1960s era policies, at least not anyone in any position of power, so it's a bit of a non-sequitor.

I agree that high taxes on the middle class are certainly bad. Taxes in the 1970's were overall too high, I agree with that. But I think the response to this swung things too far in the opposite direction.

I think that cuts to things like education, health care, social security, transportation infrastructure, environmental protection etc. all harm the middle class far more than tax cuts for the wealthy help them. In this regard supply-side trickle-down economics created an ever widening schizm between the classes that was very harmful for the economy as a whole.

Of course, the "keeping their own money" argument rests on the premise that government does nothing to help people to earn more money, which it clearly does. I agree that subsidizing welfare for people who choose not to work is a bad use of government funds and these types of programs should be largely eliminated. If people benefit from government without having to pay the costs of it, obviously this helps to breed irresponsibility, which is definitely not good.

I definitely agree that some people can't possibly succeed no matter how much we do for them, and obviously one of the challenges is to identify who those people are. So I don't think people should be given anything, but rather that government should act as a partner to help acquire the tools. Unfortunately I don't think that policies like supply-side economics encouraged this, rather it harmed the effort. Tax cuts for the wealthy don't provide much trickle down effect for the lower and middle class, and to the extent that they do provide benefit, it is outweighed by the loss of services or by running up large deficits that must be paid by future generations.

Regarding education, I agree that it needs to be improved vastly in cities. I think that the best way to do this long-term is for government to create incentives for businesses and residents to move into these areas to help improve the quality of these neighborhoods; obviously it's a long process but combinations of government grants and tax incentives can shift the climate. And of course there is the matter of personal responsibility, which requires a combination of government not subsidzing poor lifestyle choices and also government acting as an active partner to help people to acquire the tools they lack, often through no fault of their own due to a poor upbringing and family background.

I understand why the 1960's and 70's are your frame of reference since that is the era in which you grew up in, and obivously it helped shape your political preferences thusly (and of course many positive things came out of these eras, too, they were by no means entirely negative, and you've acknowledged many of these). But I don't see any significant percentage of people advocating a return to the excesses of these eras, so I question how salient it is as a current topic of discussion.

[Nym90]

Social issues are much more important to me in terms of choosing a candidate.  I believe government, first and foremost, has to provide a balance between keeping order and protecting freedoms. I am more more concerned that a government who goes too far to keep order and a "civilized culture" will overreach and begin to deny personal choices.

Certain business regulation, especially for protecting citizen's health, is also an important issue, but I'm not sure that's the economic the question is asking about. I am much more concerned with social issues than creating or maintaining either a welfare state or protecting entrnched bureaucracies.

For me, the issue is not so much about denying personal choices, but government subsidizing bad choices.  The AFDC program is a sterling example of this, and is probably single-handedly responsible for the largest share of the social breakdown experienced by poor families in this country since it was enacted.

How do you feel about seat belt laws, gun control, excessive cigarette taxes, etc?  Do you see these as an infringement on personal choices?  Or are you only concerned about the Christian right?

I think you bring up a good point, in that someone's support or opposition for government restrictions on behavior largely rests on how much you trust the people who support those restrictions.

I personally oppose seat belt laws, am in the middle on gun control, and am not a huge fan of excessive cigarette taxes, though I can at least see some logic to them. But then I'm not quite as repulsed by the Christian right as most Democrats are either, though I do support church/state seperation.

[Nym90]

"Economics" by far... I think I could greatly complicate things by saying that, for me, moral issues are the most important ones. I have an unusual definition of the term "moral issue"...

That's not at all unusual; I see economic issues as moral issues, too, plus as I've said earlier I think that economic issue solutions can fix the problems that social issues are designed to fix much better than social issue solutions can.

[Nym90]

"Economics" by far... I think I could greatly complicate things by saying that, for me, moral issues are the most important ones. I have an unusual definition of the term "moral issue"...

Well the Iraq war is definitely an economic issue, too.

I agree, as the money spent on it would have been better utilized on other things, whether those be increased spending in other areas or tax cuts.

[Nym90]

"Economics" by far... I think I could greatly complicate things by saying that, for me, moral issues are the most important ones. I have an unusual definition of the term "moral issue"...

Well the Iraq war is definitely an economic issue, too.

I agree, as the money spent on it would have been better utilized on other things, whether those be increased spending in other areas or tax cuts.

You really think we need increased spending in other areas?  Hasn't this 'conservative' administration gone on a spending orgy that would make LBJ blush?

If things were so great under the previous administration with lower spending, why is increased spending at this time so important?

I didn't say that it was necessarily; I simply meant that it would be more beneficial than increased spending on Iraq. Even if all of it went to a tax cut, I think that would still provide more overall benefit, although it wouldn't be my preferred way to use it.

Some combination of health care, transportation, alternative energy research, economic development grants, and education spending (for all levels of education, including increased college scholarships), tax cuts for the middle class on down, and paying down the debt would be a good use of the funds.

[Nym90]

"Economics" by far... I think I could greatly complicate things by saying that, for me, moral issues are the most important ones. I have an unusual definition of the term "moral issue"...

Well the Iraq war is definitely an economic issue, too.

I agree, as the money spent on it would have been better utilized on other things, whether those be increased spending in other areas or tax cuts.

You really think we need increased spending in other areas?  Hasn't this 'conservative' administration gone on a spending orgy that would make LBJ blush?

If things were so great under the previous administration with lower spending, why is increased spending at this time so important?

I didn't say that it was necessarily; I simply meant that it would be more beneficial than increased spending on Iraq. Even if all of it went to a tax cut, I think that would still provide more overall benefit, although it wouldn't be my preferred way to use it.

Some combination of health care, transportation, alternative energy research, economic development grants, and education spending (for all levels of education, including increased college scholarships), tax cuts for the middle class on down, and paying down the debt would be a good use of the funds.

Spending on Iraq leaves the country, so it's not beneficial in the short run.  However, if spending in Iraq helps us to defeat the terrorist threat, then it will have been worth it.  Time will tell; we probably won't really know for a decade.

In any case, a high percentage of the spending increases under this administration have been for discretionary domestic items, not the military or Iraq.  If you listened to most liberals, you would think that 90% of the federal budget went to the military, when it's probably more like 20%.

I agree that we can't be sure yet on Iraq. If a democracy is established there, it will be a great victory for freedom worldwide; certainly we all should be hoping for this outcome. However, it is beginning to look less likely.