What do you guys see as the real issues in this election? Border security, moral issues, the war, etc?

 

Because, to be honest, I watch these debates, and it seems like they are debating issues that, in my opinion, aren't all that important. Border security is up there with gay marriage as the most useless issues to try to turn an election on, but obviously a large segment of the population disagrees.

 

In my opinion, the biggest issue is figuring out what we are spending and why. Do we need to spend such a large portion of our budget on defense? Should we be spending more money on social programs, or allocating the funds we currently have better? Do we need to revamp tax code? Is it fair to tax someone more because they make more? Is it fair to cut massively from social programs (not to mention infrastructure) in order to ensure the tax code is fair? Does SS still need to be reworked?

 

So what do you guys think? I'm extremely curious, because I see people mention issues that I honestly can't believe we are even talking about.

Zombie rights.

Yeah, too much of these debates are spent on who's attacking who, and all that kind of BS. It's hard to even get an idea of where the different candidates even stand on a lot of these issues, and plenty of that is the fault of the candidates, but also the fault of the networks, who use these debates as fodder to turn the campaigns into petty brawls and to drive up ratings.

 

Anyway...the spending issue is obviously a big one. For me, before I start worrying about how much is going where, I'd like to see this country commit to some fiscal responsibility. Obviously, we can't keep borrowing like we are. So, it's either cut spending, raise taxes, or both. I would like to see the candidates discuss whether they're going to do that, and, if so, how. And then I'd like to hear what they want to prioritize in their budget.

 

For me, right now, the biggest issue is really protecting America...and not from terrorists so much as from itself. I would love to hear a debate on the limits of executive power in this country, especially since the current crew doesn't believe there are any limits. What could be more un-American? We've heard some debate on torture...I'd like to see that continue. This is a big issue for me because its symbolic of how the candidates envision America and America's role in the world. The enviornment has always been a big issue for me too, and that includes not just stuff like global warming (a controversial topic, I know) but also things like searching for alternative energy sources (not as controversial, unless you're Big Oil, or being funded by Big Oil).

 

If a candidate hits home on those issues, he/she will probably be my guy/gal.

To me the main thing that matters is keeping America strong, which sounds cheesy, but it's what I believe. We need to have a strong, stable economy and not be in debt to everyone else. We also need to have a country that cannot be threatened by any foreign nation. Basically, I want to keep America as the strongest country in the world. Everything else, gays marrying, Mexicans being in the country etc. is just rubbish.

IMO, the least important issue in this election, but the one that I hear the most in the GOP debates, is abortion and evolution.

 

The most important are ending the occupation of Iraq, re-establishing our foreign policy so that it makes sense, and trying to keep the economy from slipping into the toilet. I too would also like to see something done about the Chinese trade imbalance, or our general trade debts. They are way too big.

Evolution is an issue....how?

This being my first election with the right to vote, fiscal responsibility is the number one priority basically for me. Never before have taxes been cut in a war time period. I don't honestly care how unpopular it would be but we need to raise taxes in the short term and cut spending in the long term. Taking a little from the liberal view and the conservative view.

 

 

Environmental issues are also big to me. But Mabdul pretty much spelled them out for me.

The role of government. Particularly our federal government.

 

In my opinion, the vast majority of the problems we face is because the federal government is doing things it has no business doing and has delegated things that only it shouild be doing.

 

The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to regulate education, provide health care, put a tax on personal wages, regulate what you want to put in your body, or to establish a central bank.

 

It does give congress the sole authority to create our money using gold & silver. Not only is there no backing for our money, but congress doesn't create our money. They have given that right away (unconstitutionally) to a PRIVATE bank, a for-profit business called the Federal Reserve system. And so instead of our elected and accountable congress being in control of our money supply, they BORROW money from the PRIVATE "Federal Reserve" banks with INTEREST. Interest on our debt is the only thing our income taxes pay for. Do a little research on the subject.

 

I think most of us agree that paying off the national debt would be a wonderful thing that will save coming generations from a lot of problems. If you want to learn a lesson about that from history then look at the only US President who ever paid off the national debt in full - Andrew Jackson. He didn't think that was his biggest accomplishment though. In his own words - "I killed the bank".

 

So yeah, sound money is #1. When we have people working in the US refusing to get paid in dollars, parity with the Canadian dollar, and all these other economic problems going on should raise red flags. If we return to sound money with a real, set backing and force the government to only spend money they actually have, the rest of these problems like unnecessary wars, oversized government, and loss of liberties.

Iraq and border security. Having worked in the inner-city, I have seen first hand the effects and costs of an influx of illegals. More importantly, in the middle of a war, we should not have such pourous (sp) borders.

Spending and the deficit. If that problem isn't fixed, we can expect a train wreck coming very soon.

What I think should be the issues and what they'll end up being are worlds apart.

 

I expect to see Iraq, oil and probably gay marriage as the front burner issues, abortion as a dark horse because the next president could appoint as many as 2 new justices to the Supreme Court.

 

I'd much rather hear how to fix the dollar, save SSI and the housing market collapse. But since economic issues are complex candidates will have a hard time talking about them and the general public will have a hard time understanding.

here's my issue i would like to have heard (but not likely): who is more influential in national policy, lobbyists from multi-national and foreign corporations or the people themselves? because i feel that individuals have decreasing influence in national policy and sometimes, mega-corprates run the country to a point.

 

my other big issue is environmental policy. just because something is there doesn't mean we can do what the heck we want with it. i feel that in many aspects right now, the game is to use whatever we want, only caring for the short term goals instead of looking at long term impact. for example, just because there are lots of oil on our coastlines, should we sacrifice the ecosystem and our usage of the ocean to get a few extra years of oil, when we could instead try to actually reduce dependence on oil long term.

 

abortion, gays and evolution are secondary arguments, as long as you aren't ignorant of the issue, i don't care too much.

The only issue I care about is Afghanistan. Everything else is meaningless to me.

I don't care what the media, candidates, or nation deems the important issues, the real issues for me are the ones I care about.

 

Iraq Handling/pull-out

Education/Teacher Pay

Welfare Reform/Few to no Government handouts

Legalization of Marijuana

No handling or regulating moral/personal issues from Washington

 

Some others but for me those are the big ones.

I don't care what the media, candidates, or nation deems the important issues, the real issues for me are the ones I care about.

 

Iraq Handling/pull-out

Education/Teacher Pay

Welfare Reform/Few to no Government handouts

Legalization of Marijuana

No handling or regulating moral/personal issues from Washington

 

Some others but for me those are the big ones.

Aside from Iraq, that sounds like Ron Paul's platform.

What has Paul said about increasing Teacher pay and/or Education reform that does not just mean throwing money at it?

What has Paul said about increasing Teacher pay and/or Education reform that does not just mean throwing money at it?

Actually, Dr. Paul recognizes that the federal government has no authority to do anything with regards to education (it's just not in the constitution). So in that respect, I'm not sure what they meant. He would prefer to see the Federal Dept of Education abolished along with crap like NCLB, which no teacher I know supports (I am a teacher in a public high school just for reference).

 

Either way, it sounds like you should take a good look at Dr. Paul's platform.

Iraq is going to be the mother of all issues. National security and international relaions obviously will always be an issue in the post-9/11 world.

 

Domestically, social security and other programs obviously will always be discussed.

What has Paul said about increasing Teacher pay and/or Education reform that does not just mean throwing money at it?

Actually, Dr. Paul recognizes that the federal government has no authority to do anything with regards to education (it's just not in the constitution). So in that respect, I'm not sure what they meant. He would prefer to see the Federal Dept of Education abolished along with crap like NCLB, which no teacher I know supports (I am a teacher in a public high school just for reference).

 

Either way, it sounds like you should take a good look at Dr. Paul's platform.

 

From what I know of Paul, isn't he more interested in, essentially, allowing the free market to take over schools?

Paul wants the Federal government to have nothing to do with schools.

Paul wants the Federal government to have nothing to do with schools.

True. He believes that states and localities can make better decisions concerning the education of their population than some far off, impersonal, bureaucracy in DC. Plus, a free market approach to education would reward better teachers with better pay and mediocre teachers with less. Charter schools and high end private schools better compensate teachers. Regular publics and parochial schools pay less. In my honest opinion, because I am an educator, teacher pay has very little to do with the quality of education (and research shows the same applies with class size.) The problems with America's education system are largely cultural and the result of the public school monopoly that exists. If schools compete, like in Belgium, they would be better.

[TypicalRonPaulSupporter]As a rich 20 year old who has never had to work for anything in my life, I fully support any measure that allows the rich to get richer and keeps the poor down, while creating an ever smaller middle class.[/TypicalRonPaulSupporter]

Paul wants the Federal government to have nothing to do with schools.

True. He believes that states and localities can make better decisions concerning the education of their population than some far off, impersonal, bureaucracy in DC. Plus, a free market approach to education would reward better teachers with better pay and mediocre teachers with less. Charter schools and high end private schools better compensate teachers. Regular publics and parochial schools pay less. In my honest opinion, because I am an educator, teacher pay has very little to do with the quality of education (and research shows the same applies with class size.) The problems with America's education system are largely cultural and the result of the public school monopoly that exists. If schools compete, like in Belgium, they would be better.

 

A free market system would reward better teachers with better pay and therefore improve the system, but teacher's pay has very little to do with quality of education? Am I missing something? In theory, wouldn't increasing the salary of a public school teacher make it more lucrative competition wise and therefore more likely to attract good teachers and on the same field as private schools?

 

I'm guessing you are trying to say we should make teachers compete for their salary? Something like "the more students in your class who get As or who get better test scores, the higher you are ranked, the more your salary becomes", right? And the worse you do, the lower your salary or you lose your job? I agree that bad teachers need to lose their jobs and federal control over schools might be too distant, but how does Ron Paul address any of this?

 

And how exactly do you equalize situations? Isn't it implicit that the teacher who teaches in a wealthy public neighborhood has a better chance of success than a teacher who teaches in inner city school? Less distractions, more cooperative students, better parents to help, tutors, small class sizes because of small class populations.

 

If I am a top of the line teacher, why would I go to a situation that would make me less likely to succeed, such as an inner city school, vs. a situation that would make me more likely to succeed?

 

Chicago has this exact situation. The out suburbs pay teachers much much more, and they actively steal teachers who teach in the city by offering higher salaries and benefits plus better kids. The city can never keep its good teachers.

 

Don't you think parachial schools do better because they have more funding too?

 

But maybe your point is that a privately run school works better at weeding out bad teachers than publicly run schools which have to keep on teachers? Perhaps. But what stops a privately run school that looks at profit margin and sees other factors other than its employees as preventing max profit margin? What if they start kicking bad kids out? What if they feel an inner city school is hemorging their profits so they reduce resources because it isn't benecial to keep it open? Don't we have major problems in the health care world including HMOs rejecting necessary procedures because they look only at the bottom line?

 

How does a private entity do better at running an inner city school with the same problems that the public school has in terms of competitive disadvantages?

Thats a very good post, F_M and one that deserves hopefully just as well thought out of a response.

 

I'll plead ignorance on a lot of the situation but I will offer up my opinion/stance on pay. I'll preface this by saying my mother has been a high school teacher for years and my wife is an elementary school teacher who plans to make her career in education. So obviously I feel strongly about it and emotionally I'll admit I may be biased and not factual or at all times realistic.

 

My wife, as a first year teacher, gets paid a ridiculously low amount for what she actually does. I won't allow her to do more out of classroom time then she has to based on her pay and what her hourly wage is when you combine out of classroom time. I strongly disagree with the notion that higher pay would not equal better teachers and thus a better learning environment for the teacher. If my wife was paid more, she'd put in more time out of the classroom and in turn, give a better experience to her students.

 

F_M points out that better pay means recruiting better teachers. I agree and would take it a step further and say we should raise the pay for teachers to level that not only attracts good, current teachers but also can get the best students from our Universities. It is rare you see a top student not go in to a career in medicine or law but in to education. Why? The most simple reason is pay.

 

The biggest problem with education right now to me are the teachers. Underqualified and undercompensated people are used to fill a shortage of teachers hurts the overall quality of our education. One of the reasons the US is falling behind other countries is we are not educating ourselves to the level of other countries right now or for quite some time.

Privatizing the education system will make things even worse than they are right now, I guarantee it. However, I'm sure some people on the far-right would love to see this happen, just like they have privatized the military with groups like Blackwater (which happens to be owned by a Bush supporter).

 

Privately owned schools will just allow the people with money to get good education, while those who can't afford it won't be able to go to school, or will end up at an awful institution.

 

The reason people want more privatization is because they want to help their business friends make more money, while society as a whole will suffer.