Which is more important to you: Economics or social issues

[nclib]

Social issues are more important to me.

[TomC]

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.

[dazzleman]

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?

[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.

[TomC]

I am against most gun control, but might favor denying the production or sale of certain weapons, especially relating to explosives. I am against seat belt laws, I am against laws banning cell phone use. (Though insurance companies may well have a right to deny paying a claim for policy holders who refuse seat belts or use cell phones while driving, but that's a private matter, not public.) As for cigarette taxation, I am totally against it as a means to curb the behavior. However, since we do have government health care, and smoking is a big cause of disease, I am not opposed to collecting revenues that way to offset the cost, especially since in our health care system, we customers will pay one way or another. (Note: I am a smoker.)

But yes, these days I am more concerned about the Christian right.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

[Democratic Hawk]

Economics

Dave

[dazzleman]

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.

So Eric, you're calling me old.

Honestly, few liberals even admit that there were excesses in the 1960s and 1970s.  They generally argue that their policies didn't go far enough.  So in effect, they are not only arguing for a return to those excesses (which is misleading in itself, since many of those policies have not truly been abandoned), but that they should be taken even further.

You talk as if things like education, social security, etc, have been cut.  They most certainly have not been.  Social security taxes have massively increased, and social security payments have been effectively indexed to wage increases, which are higher than the rate of inflation.  Likewise, education spending has increased at a rate far greater than the rate of inflation, with no real positive results.  The argument that lower tax rates forced 'cuts' in these areas is absurd, frankly.

Inner city education can't be fixed until the family structure is fixed.  If you think people can be 'encouraged' to send their kids to a school in which second graders carry weapons (I'm exaggerating a little, but I think you get the point), you're mistaken.  It will never happen.  People have to be given an ALTERNATIVE to that type of environment, and as long as that is denied them, they will stay away from the cities.  I might add that it is a liberal policy that continues to deny them that alternative.

In all honesty, I think the policies of the 1960s and 1970s are highly relevant, since we are still living, for better or worse, with the effects of those policies, and understanding them and why they either failed or succeeded, as the case may be, provides a good historical context and indication of what can be expected to work today.  Those who don't know the past are condemned to repeat it, and I find the ignorance of many people about even the recent past very disconcerting.  So in that sense, I strongly disagree with your comments in that regard.

[Ebowed]

Social issues concern me more.

[Max]

Social issues concern me more.

Otherwise you would probably not be a Democrat, would you? (Just looking on your PC results!)


For me, "it's the economy, stupid!"

Also there are some social issues that are more important than economy, for example I would never vote for a rascist or for someone who wants to forbit all religion (opebo), even if their views on economy would be 100% like mine.

[John Dibble]

In general, economics. First and foremost, I want an environment in which I don't have to worry about food shortages and whatnot. The only two social issues I might consider more important are freedom of speech and gun rights, as those can be important in changing economic systems if the current one sucks(preferably you use the former, but the latter is needed in extreme cases).

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Liberal social engineering as just as bad as conservative social engineering. That's why I'm a (moderate) libertarian and not a liberal.

[J. J.]

Generally economics.  On some things, e.g. civil rights, I might be more likely to vote on social issues.

[Platypus]

Social issues. The major parties are more or less the same on economics, even if that´s also true for social issues.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

"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"...

[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.

[Democratic Hawk]

"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"...

Matters economic are very much moral issues

Dave

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[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.

[dazzleman]

"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?

[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.

[dazzleman]

"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%.