Which is more important to you: Economics or social issues

[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.

[Republican Michigander]

Both to some degree. Economics overall, but the life and 2nd amendment issues are litmus tests to me.

I am a major opponent of nanny state, and that cuts across both economic and social issues. I oppose smoke bans, seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, etc.

[Bono]

I see the crazy wingnuts as a more immediate threat than the extremely naive libertarians.

Care to base this generalization with anything?
I hope it's not that tired old argument about believing in the inherent goodness of mankind.

Libertarians seem to believe in the inherent goodness of multi-national corporations.

Total strawman.
Many libertarians, myself included, don't even support the existance of corporations!
Besides, we don't believe in the inherent goodness of anything, despite what angus likes to claim. We know people act to search a better state of affairs for themselves, we only see the results of that competiton as beneficial, based on a praxeological deduction process.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I see the crazy wingnuts as a more immediate threat than the extremely naive libertarians.

Care to base this generalization with anything?
I hope it's not that tired old argument about believing in the inherent goodness of mankind.

Libertarians seem to believe in the inherent goodness of multi-national corporations.

Total strawman.
Many libertarians, myself included, don't even support the existance of corporations!
Besides, we don't believe in the inherent goodness of anything, despite what angus likes to claim. We know people act to search a better state of affairs for themselves, we only see the results of that competiton as beneficial, based on a praxeological deduction process.

Very interesting. It seems that there are wildly different strains of libertarianism. What do you support instead of corporations?

Corporations have been given more or less unchecked powers in the US since the 1886 Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific SCOTUS ruling gave them "corporate personage".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[Bono]

I see the crazy wingnuts as a more immediate threat than the extremely naive libertarians.

Care to base this generalization with anything?
I hope it's not that tired old argument about believing in the inherent goodness of mankind.

Libertarians seem to believe in the inherent goodness of multi-national corporations.

Total strawman.
Many libertarians, myself included, don't even support the existance of corporations!
Besides, we don't believe in the inherent goodness of anything, despite what angus likes to claim. We know people act to search a better state of affairs for themselves, we only see the results of that competiton as beneficial, based on a praxeological deduction process.

Very interesting. It seems that there are wildly different strains of libertarianism.

There is nothing wrong about a bunch of people pooling their money together and announcing to people who enter business with them that they are only liable as far as that money goes, exempting personal liability, as long as the people they enter busienss with accept that by contract.
The problem comes when they try to impose limited liability on people who have never done business with them--which can only be done with state cohercion. For instance, in case a plane crashes right in the middle of a house, the responsibles should be personally liable.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I see the crazy wingnuts as a more immediate threat than the extremely naive libertarians.

Care to base this generalization with anything?
I hope it's not that tired old argument about believing in the inherent goodness of mankind.

Libertarians seem to believe in the inherent goodness of multi-national corporations.

Total strawman.
Many libertarians, myself included, don't even support the existance of corporations!
Besides, we don't believe in the inherent goodness of anything, despite what angus likes to claim. We know people act to search a better state of affairs for themselves, we only see the results of that competiton as beneficial, based on a praxeological deduction process.

Very interesting. It seems that there are wildly different strains of libertarianism.

There is nothing wrong about a bunch of people pooling their money together and announcing to people who enter business with them that they are only liable as far as that money goes, exempting personal liability, as long as the people they enter busienss with accept that by contract.
The problem comes when they try to impose limited liability on people who have never done business with them. For instance, in case a plane crashes right in the middle of a house, the responsibles should be personally liable.

So you oppose the ability to form a limited liability corporation, where you risk at most the money you invest in it? While I know that Abe Lincoln may have agreed with that, it's pretty hard to find any major player in current day American politics with those views.

Here's the Lincoln quote, BTW.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bono]

I see the crazy wingnuts as a more immediate threat than the extremely naive libertarians.

Care to base this generalization with anything?
I hope it's not that tired old argument about believing in the inherent goodness of mankind.

Libertarians seem to believe in the inherent goodness of multi-national corporations.

Total strawman.
Many libertarians, myself included, don't even support the existance of corporations!
Besides, we don't believe in the inherent goodness of anything, despite what angus likes to claim. We know people act to search a better state of affairs for themselves, we only see the results of that competiton as beneficial, based on a praxeological deduction process.

Very interesting. It seems that there are wildly different strains of libertarianism.

There is nothing wrong about a bunch of people pooling their money together and announcing to people who enter business with them that they are only liable as far as that money goes, exempting personal liability, as long as the people they enter busienss with accept that by contract.
The problem comes when they try to impose limited liability on people who have never done business with them. For instance, in case a plane crashes right in the middle of a house, the responsibles should be personally liable.

So you oppose the ability to form a limited liability corporation, where you risk at most the money you invest in it? While I know that Abe Lincoln may have agreed with that, it's pretty hard to find any major player in current day American politics with those views.

Here's the Lincoln quote, BTW.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not about the shareholderers really--given that most debts are indeed incured with people who dea with the company voluntarely, they would agree to limited liability. It's mostly in situations of accidents and externalities that external agents come to play, and for those, there is always insurance, and plus, it'd be mostly the people working there that made the decisions that would be liable, not shareholders who were not responsible.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

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.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I wonder why conservatives think that a union employee making $17 an hour is overpaid, while a CEO making millions a year is not. Talk about your double standards!

I know!

[Richard]

A CEO's work is harder and requires a higher initial investment.  Furthermore, a $17/hour worker doesn't go home fretting about possible business decisions he will have to make tomorrow.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I really could care less about economics. Social issues are the important things.

[Platypus]

A CEO's work is harder and requires a higher initial investment.  Furthermore, a $17/hour worker doesn't go home fretting about possible business decisions he will have to make tomorrow.

Which justifies a salary difference of say, $100,000 a year; but not $3mil. Also, the second point is not too strong; and maybe th CEO´s work isn´t harder-what would you find easier, running a company or spending 8 hours a day ironing?

[Jake]

Economic Issues I guess, primarily the health care, education, etc. stuff, though I tire easily of discussing them. Issues like trade policy, tax policy, etc. are not interesting or important to me.