US Presidential Election - What Should the Issues Be ?

[Shady]

If I work in the private sector, the private sector pays my salary and then I pay taxes to the goverment.A government worker gets paid by the taxes of those working in the private sector and others working in the government. The bigger the government the more taxes you need to collect from the private sector to operate the government.

Exactly. A government worker, in most cases, pays taxes with money that's already been taxed from somebody else.

[Moonlight Graham]

Campaign finance and regulation of lobbying/interest groups

- This issue has massive control over every other issue, thus is of the greatest import IMO. Powerful interest/lobby groups have increasingly hijacked democracy in many western liberal democratic countries in the last several decades, & in the US it's a huge problem. When the power of money (or the fear of losing it) has as much or arguably more control over US policy as the votes of the public, both in the White House and in Congress, then what kind of democracy is left? The US resembles more of a plutocracy.

Who controls Washington? Big oil, the defense industry (see: military-industrial complex), big banks/Wall Street, big pharma, big agriculture, AIPAC/Israel Lobby etc....or the people? 1 person 1 vote, not 1 dollar 1 vote.

A lot of the money needs to be taken out of politics, both in the US and Canada, but IMO it's definitely a bigger problem in the US. It's long been to the point where if a presidential candidate doesn't play along with the game, they almost certainly won't be nominated by the 2 major parties which are controlled by this game, & if they by miracle are...good luck on winning a general election with that much money & power against you.

I bundle all of this under one issue, but it's complex with many sub-issues involved. It will never be changed much unless there's a populist demand for it by voters.

[bush_cheney2004]

Who controls Washington? Big oil, the defense industry (see: military-industrial complex), big banks/Wall Street, big pharma, big agriculture, AIPAC/Israel Lobby etc....or the people? 1 person 1 vote, not 1 dollar 1 vote.

Your bias is showing....you conveniently left out trial lawyers, teachers unions, big labor, transportation, construction, and other health care:

Lobbying expenditure by sector

The top sectors and their total spending between 1998 and 2010 were:

Client 	                                 Amount Spent 	Percentage of Total

1 	Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 	$4,274,060,331 	14.53%
2 	Health                          	$4,222,427,808 	14.53%
3 	Misc Business 	                        $4,149,842,571 	14.11%
4 	Communications/Electronics 	        $3,497,881,399 	11.89%
5 	Energy & Natural Resources 	        $3,104,104,518 	10.55%
6 	Transportation 	                        $2,245,118,222 	7.63%
7 	Other 	                                $2,207,772,363 	7.50%
8 	Ideological/Single-Issue 	        $1,477,294,241 	5.02%
9 	Agribusiness 	                        $1,280,824,983 	4.12%
10 	Defense 	                        $1,216,469,173 	4.13%
11 	Construction 	                          $480,363,108 	1.63%
12 	Labor 	                                  $427,355,408 	1.45%
13 	Lawyers & Lobbyists themselves 	          $336,170,306 	1.14%

Total 	                               $28,919,684,431 	98.23%

[dylan87]

eyeball & dylan87 - what specific aspects of foreign policy need to be looked at in your opinions ?

As meantioned by others after me:

US wars: now that Irak is gone the Strategy in Afghanistan should be the main talking point. Obama has his plans on the table, the main question is: what are the Republican canidates thinking besides their usual "Iran is bad" "Terrorists are bad" rhetorics.

As I meantioned earlier: The current economic crises is already a huge topic in the current primaries, but completely neglecting the world wide connections the US economy depends on.

Republican canidates have very much made clear by now what they think about Europe, but do they realize that the debt crises (which they never talk about ever) actually could have a pretty heavy (or has) impact on the US economy?

A point of interst would be, what is the next president going to do about it, besides dealing with their own huge deficit.

[Michael Hardner]

Your bias is showing....you conveniently left out trial lawyers, teachers unions, big labor, transportation, construction, and other health care:

Thanks you for closing out the spin cycle on this, I was just going to add these !

[Michael Hardner]

As meantioned by others after me:

US wars: now that Irak is gone the Strategy in Afghanistan should be the main talking point. Obama has his plans on the table, the main question is: what are the Republican canidates thinking besides their usual "Iran is bad" "Terrorists are bad" rhetorics.

Maybe it makes more sense to de-couple the discussion from specific countries and geopolitical situations.

For example:

What are the basic criteria for intervention and what types of intervention are appropriate for different situations ?

Nuclear capability warrants a reaction, for sure. We haven't yet gone to war over countries getting nuclear capability.

As I meantioned earlier: The current economic crises is already a huge topic in the current primaries, but completely neglecting the world wide connections the US economy depends on.

Republican canidates have very much made clear by now what they think about Europe, but do they realize that the debt crises (which they never talk about ever) actually could have a pretty heavy (or has) impact on the US economy?

A point of interst would be, what is the next president going to do about it, besides dealing with their own huge deficit.

What they are planning to do about European debt, you mean ?

[Argus]

If I work in the private sector, the private sector pays my salary and then I pay taxes to the goverment.A government worker gets paid by the taxes of those working in the private sector and others working in the government. The bigger the government the more taxes you need to collect from the private sector to operate the government.

This argument is just plain stupid. I've seen it before, and it never gets any more intelligent.

If you have a job that needs doing you need to pay someone to do it. It doesn't matter if you have the public sector do it, or if it's all dumped on you like some libertarian wet dream, and you have to pay for your own private sector roads, police, fire protection, health care, etc. You still need to pay the money. To try and somehow pretend that people working for the government aren't legitimate tax payers because they work for the community at larger - as opposed to workers working for, say, private police or private health care - is nothing more than the product of resentment.

[Argus]

I think the major issue ought to be the people's so-far unfulfilled desire for representative government. It's clear that the politicians don't really represent the will or interests of the people, don't do what the people want, and aren't responsive to the people's needs. This is especially crystal clear on the part of the Republicans, who clearly don't give a damn about anyone who doesn't pay them to do so.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... To try and somehow pretend that people working for the government aren't legitimate tax payers because they work for the community at larger - as opposed to workers working for, say, private police or private health care - is nothing more than the product of resentment.

Spoken like a true government employee!

[GostHacked]

This argument is just plain stupid. I've seen it before, and it never gets any more intelligent.

Or maybe you just don't grasp the concept of what I am trying to get across here.

If you have a job that needs doing you need to pay someone to do it.

Granted. So how does that person get paid? Where does the money come from?

It doesn't matter if you have the public sector do it, or if it's all dumped on you like some libertarian wet dream, and you have to pay for your own private sector roads, police, fire protection, health care, etc. You still need to pay the money. To try and somehow pretend that people working for the government aren't legitimate tax payers because they work for the community at larger - as opposed to workers working for, say, private police or private health care - is nothing more than the product of resentment.

I did not call them illegitimate. Government employees pay tax yes, but their salaries are all paid for by the taxpayer. How many taxpayers do you need to pay one government employee a salary for one year?

I am simply pointing out that the larger government gets, the more taxes need to be collected to pay for government operations. It's not a hard concept to grasp. But ignoring the fact that the government always spends more than it collects in taxes shows me there is a huge problem already, even without getting into this kind of discussion about where the taxes come from.

Let's say the country is 10 people. And two work for the government. The taxes from the other 8 pay for the 2 government salaries. What if the 2 spend more than the 8 can pay? And why would you hire a 3rd person, so it is 7-3 now. So the 7 need to pay more in tax to pay for that 3rd person. You can't expect the taxes that the 3 government employees pay to make up the lack that the other 7 can't.

[August1991]

This argument is just plain stupid. I've seen it before, and it never gets any more intelligent.

If you have a job that needs doing you need to pay someone to do it. It doesn't matter if you have the public sector do it, or if it's all dumped on you like some libertarian wet dream, and you have to pay for your own private sector roads, police, fire protection, health care, etc. You still need to pay the money. To try and somehow pretend that people working for the government aren't legitimate tax payers because they work for the community at larger - as opposed to workers working for, say, private police or private health care - is nothing more than the product of resentment.

Argus, you're right. We all want clean streets and clean clothes and we typically pay someone else to do this for us.

There's a difference however in paying taxes and paying the dry cleaner on the corner. The dry cleaner can't deduct money from my bank account or use my credit card at will. Civil servants do exactly that and the potential for abuse is great. I think that is GH's point.

[Moonlight Graham]

Thanks you for closing out the spin cycle on this, I was just going to add these !

I listed most of the big ones. I forgot unions and a few others. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, only that it hijacks democracy and should be much more regulated. It's a bipartisan issue in that both major parties, with a few exceptions, support the status quo because they are controlled by it.

[Argus]

Argus, you're right. We all want clean streets and clean clothes and we typically pay someone else to do this for us.

There's a difference however in paying taxes and paying the dry cleaner on the corner. The dry cleaner can't deduct money from my bank account or use my credit card at will. Civil servants do exactly that and the potential for abuse is great. I think that is GH's point.

Our nurses are paid by tax dollars. US nurses are paid for by an insurance company, which is funded by his insurance premiums. How are the taxes paid by our nurses somehow less legitimate than the taxes paid by US nurses?

Edited January 13, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

Or maybe you just don't grasp the concept of what I am trying to get across here.

I get the concept. I don't get the point.

Granted. So how does that person get paid? Where does the money come from?

In either case it comes from the pockets of the general public.

I did not call them illegitimate. Government employees pay tax yes, but their salaries are all paid for by the taxpayer. How many taxpayers do you need to pay one government employee a salary for one year?

But all workers salaries come from the community at large, from those who consume the services or goods which those workers are responsible for. The only difference is that the services produced by public service workers are presumed to be needed by ALL citizens, and so rather than being offered to those who want them by a private sector company they're provided by the government. Roads, schools, Police, the military, health care, etc. These benefit the entire community so everyone must pay for them.

I am simply pointing out that the larger government gets, the more taxes need to be collected to pay for government operations.

Is that a point which needs to be made?

Ultimately, the size of government is generally related to the number of services the community feels it needs or wants. If, for example, the people of Ontario didn't feel they needed smaller classrooms, they wouldn't have to employ as many teachers. The federal government has become, after so many years under liberal governments, everyone's mother, offering a plethora of services to satisfy the desire of Canadians that the government handle all perceived wants, needs and desires and take care of all problems.

I note the continuing howls of protest in Toronto the good, whenever their pudgy mayor even hints at cutting back some of the services the city offers, as one example. Everyone wants a balanced budget, but at the same time they want the government to take care of all this 'stuff', and that takes money.

[bush_cheney2004]

In either case it comes from the pockets of the general public.

Except that one is coerced by force of law, while the other is a voluntary paid premium.

[Michael Hardner]

Except that one is coerced by force of law, while the other is a voluntary paid premium.

That's the libertarian argument. Quite philosophical and interesting, but we never get to that level of depth.

More often, we hear some idea idea that paying civil servants to do necessary work is a waste of money... somehow.

Thanks for pointing this out Argus.

[Shady]

One term I'd like to hear less of is the term "civil servant." Which implies some act of sacrifice. I'm sorry, but doing a job in which you have a complete monopoly, for better pay and benefits than the tax payers paying your salary is hardly any kind of sacrifice. I think we really need to do away with the term civil servant. It's vastly outdated.

[Michael Hardner]

One term I'd like to hear less of is the term "civil servant." Which implies some act of sacrifice. I'm sorry, but doing a job in which you have a complete monopoly, for better pay and benefits than the tax payers paying your salary is hardly any kind of sacrifice. I think we really need to do away with the term civil servant. It's vastly outdated.

Civil servant isn't a compliment, it's just a description. The implication is in your mind only.

I would say that the term comes with positive and negative assumptions. Working in a monopoly has a huge downside as well. You don't have any freedom of movement to sell your labour. Lack of labour mobility is one of the reasons why the civil service is static, unresponsive, political IMO.

But, I'll bite: what should the new term for Civil Servants be ?

Be nice !

[Shady]

Civil servant isn't a compliment, it's just a description. The implication is in your mind only.

No, it's not in my mind. It's built in to the very meaning of the language. Please look up servant in the dictionary for me.

But, I'll bite: what should the new term for Civil Servants be ?

How about just civil workers, or civil employees, or public employees, or public workers? It's not rocket science.

[Michael Hardner]

No, it's not in my mind. It's built in to the very meaning of the language. Please look up servant in the dictionary for me.

You're saying that calling someone a servant is generally regarded as a compliment ? I don't think so, but ok.

How about just civil workers, or civil employees, or public employees, or public workers? It's not rocket science.

Well, you're the one who had a problem with the common term so... Yes, the last few terms are clear IMO.

[Shady]

You're saying that calling someone a servant is generally regarded as a compliment ? I don't think so, but ok.

No, I said nothing about a compliment. But it does invoke a type of sacrifice or servitude. Again, just look up the word servant in the dictionary. It's not rocket science.

[Michael Hardner]

No, I said nothing about a compliment. But it does invoke a type of sacrifice or servitude. Again, just look up the word servant in the dictionary. It's not rocket science.

You said it implies sacrifice, and took exception with that. I take that as a sort of compliment but ok.

It's not science, it's communication - which is open to interpretation. Stanislavsky used to do an exercise with actors where they would say a word in 50 different ways.

[Shady]

You said it implies sacrifice, and took exception with that. I take that as a sort of compliment but ok.

It's not science, it's communication - which is open to interpretation. Stanislavsky used to do an exercise with actors where they would say a word in 50 different ways.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

[Michael Hardner]

I guess we can agree to disagree.

On what?

I accepted your preferred words, so... ?

Do you insist that your interpretation is the only one?

[dylan87]

Maybe it makes more sense to de-couple the discussion from specific countries and geopolitical situations.

For example:

What are the basic criteria for intervention and what types of intervention are appropriate for different situations ?

Nuclear capability warrants a reaction, for sure. We haven't yet gone to war over countries getting nuclear capability.

What they are planning to do about European debt, you mean ?

First two points are good. The second one very important, especially since Republican canidates are taking such an extreme position on Iran already.

Right, of course Europe has to solve it's problem by themselves. But America can of course aid their European partners in some points. The IMF is a huge player, and has a lot of US funding. The rating agencies are based in the US, thus the government has influence there as well.

But in the first place, ackknowledgeing the problem and it's impact on America would be a plus.