• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

How Would You Vote?

  • Without money, people have no hope.

    Votes: 18 54.5%
  • Without hope of social justice, money has no use.

    Votes: 13 39.4%
  • I have no idea but I think this is exactly what I'll have to decide.

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • I don't vote.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
I agree to an extent....but government is not some autonomous entity. It's controlled and it serves the interests of some group of people...which is why class or groups within a country DO matter. It's also why looking at government vs All People is false in my opinion.

The Monarchies of Europe were controlled by the Aristocracy. They gave additional "rights" to landowners while taking away rights of the peasants. So it wasn't some automous entity that just gobbled up power...it was government serving the interests of one group of people.

Also...the Civil Rights Act gave additional powers to the Federal Government...and that power was used to break down institutional racism in the south. So you could say the rights of White Males in the South were lost while rights to African Americans was gained.

I just think this idea of "government vs citizens" is a wrong view. Government is sometimes a means of serving the interests of one group but it's not like in the absence of government equality exists.

I suppose this is where it should end between you and me, because we've stumbled across the fundamental issue. I believe that when the government's sole role is to ensure the natural rights of it's citizens, economic prosperity will follow. I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcome. It's only when the government gets involved that a system develops where certain individuals have certain privileges that others do not.
 
Last edited:
It is a shame that we do not have more viable choices, but the fact of the matter is that in this two party system, you only have two viable choices.

Being gay, it is a bitter pill for me to swallow many times. But I will always vote against ultra liberal candidates, because I believe they are ruining this country- sacrificing economic security and opportunity in the name of some bull****, nonsensical, illogical and unreasonable ideal of fairness.

It would have been most upsetting for me to have had to vote for Bachman or Perry, but I would have cast my vote in good conscience for whichever candidate runs against the current president.

Currently, it looks like there are only two choices for me: Romney, who I believe would allow Obamacare to run it's course (which would be a deal breaker for me if there were ANY other choices), or Santorum, who stated that he thinks libertarians believe in "no government," and who is as anti gay as any of the other candidates have been.

Obama isn't a choice, because he has the destruction of this country as his primary goal, IMO, calling this destruction "a fundamental transformation."

The primary in Georgia isn't until March. Between now and then, I'm trying to decide which of the GOP candidates is more likely to be able to beat Obama. Right now, I am leaning toward Santorum. I believe he would support the repeal of Obamacare (if it was placed on his desk, because I don't really think he has the leadership skills necessary to be a good president). The problem I have with Romney is that not only will the democrats make it a black vs. white election, but with Romney as the candidate, they will present the choice to stupid, mindless Americans that it is a poor vs. rich election. I have real concerns that that is a hurdle he may not overcome.

Maybe soon the libertarian party will put forward a candidate that is strong on defense, foreign policy, and border control. When they do, I support them all the way to the ballot box.
Why not Ron Paul? I challenge you to find a candidate that supports individual rights, such as the right to be gay, more than he does. I find it baffling that you would ever vote for someone like Santorum who openly admits that people like you are the work of satan.
 
I suppose this is where it should end between you and me, because we've stumbled across the fundamental issue. I believe that when the government's sole role is to ensure the natural rights of it's citizens, economic prosperity will follow. I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcome. It's only when the government gets involved that a system develops where certain individuals have certain privileges that others do not.

I was actually going to start the post off with that...that our space between fundamental views are too far to bridge.
I respect your views...but in now way agree with them.

I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcome

There's never going to be complete equality in society...I don't know of many people that make that argument. There's always going to be some stratification.

I'm curious...do think there's equal opportunity? When you look at numbers that show the largest determination of where you end up in life is based on your parents income do you think that shows equal opportunity? Taking out any assumptions what would you see statistically if everything was based on a clean slate when someoen is born and opportunity for success was equal? I don't think the two are entirely separate.
 
I'm curious...do think there's equal opportunity? When you look at numbers that show the largest determination of where you end up in life is based on your parents income do you think that shows equal opportunity? Taking out any assumptions what would you see statistically if everything was based on a clean slate when someoen is born and opportunity for success was equal? I don't think the two are entirely separate.
I think life is unfair, and that the government's attempts to make it "fair" have made it even less fair. I believe in a true free market society the poor have much better chances to change their situations than they do when the government tries to help them.

I believe that human nature is fairly easy to understand, it's driven by rational self interest. Although socialism is a great idea, it involves the idea that people in their hearts will actually put the good of the group over the good of themselves and their family, which will never happen.

I believe the government makes poor people poorer. Take the community reinvestment act in the 70's. They took a bunch of poor people, spent untold millions to build projects and stuck them all in there. This segregated them from the rest of society, and their new homes quickly fell apart literally at the seams. Instead of seeing how the rest of the world is, and how people can become successful, they were among only poor people, in an unbelievably high crime area, which perpetuated that condition.

Human beings can only be motivated to dream and strive when failure is not an option. It's a sink or swim world, and coddling people doesn't do anyone any good, most certainly not the poor.
 
I think life is unfair, and that the government's attempts to make it "fair" have made it even less fair. I believe in a true free market society the poor have much better chances to change their situations than they do when the government tries to help them.

There are varying degrees of trying to help. There are things like education provided for all and grants and subsidized loans for the poor. There are also programs like WIC which provides formulas to poor parents which is to help poor children to get what they need to develop. What are you views on these types of programs?

I believe that human nature is fairly easy to understand, it's driven by rational self interest. Although socialism is a great idea, it involves the idea that people in their hearts will actually put the good of the group over the good of themselves and their family, which will never happen.

That's not necessarily true. There are varying degrees and I personally believe that there are things that help society as a whole and should be done by the government. I don't believe that everything should be based on some "greater good" or if it's the "greater good" it should be implemented. It should be a consideration.

I believe the government makes poor people poorer. Take the community reinvestment act in the 70's. They took a bunch of poor people, spent untold millions to build projects and stuck them all in there. This segregated them from the rest of society, and their new homes quickly fell apart literally at the seams. Instead of seeing how the rest of the world is, and how people can become successful, they were among only poor people, in an unbelievably high crime area, which perpetuated that condition.

I don't agree that was the CRA that caused that. It was the collapse of the manufactoring sector and jobs that previously provided lower income less educated individuals decent paying jobs. That's the difference between the 1950's and the 1970's or now. You could be someone who wasn't destined for college or some fancy white collar job but could get a job that would provide for you and your family...it was a pipeline out of poverty for a lot of individuals.

it's possible to move up the ladder out of poverty but it's a lot more difficult if there are missing rungs...

Human beings can only be motivated to dream and strive when failure is not an option. It's a sink or swim world, and coddling people doesn't do anyone any good, most certainly not the poor.

I don't think it's coddling people...I think ultimately it providing stability. I don't buy this idea that people choose to live in poverty because they are ensured food. The fact is...if we have millions of people that are faced with "failure" it causes problems. Say right now...with people out of work for over a year...those social safety nets bridge the gap through a bad economy.

I also disagree that monetary award is the end all be all. Look, I'm sure you're the same way...I personally make a very good salary...I also love my job and find it challenging....the money (though nice) is not my main incentive. I like the challenge. Steve Jobs enjoyed the challenge. If all he was worried about was profit he wouldn't of created machines that took forever to build and perfection wouldn't of been his goal. Good enough to sell would be his goal. He enjoyed taking his vision and making something live up to his vision.
 
There are varying degrees of trying to help. There are things like education provided for all and grants and subsidized loans for the poor. There are also programs like WIC which provides formulas to poor parents which is to help poor children to get what they need to develop. What are you views on these types of programs?
I believe education should be on a voucher system, those who wish to partake in the government system can, and those who do not are not stuck with the bill. This also would require that government schools would have to strive to remain competitive, instead of wallowing away in their state run monopoly. I'm not against WIC, per se. I think such programs that offer coupons for very specific items can be a good thing, after all, it's not the child's fault that the family is poor. I am not 100% against a social safety net. I certainly think there should be one, but there should be very strict requirements, and a quid pro quo between the government and the recipient. There should be a time limit, and one must show that he is actively and aggressively pursuing work. Germany (although not an example of libertarian economics) has a system somewhat like this. They attempt to retrain or rehab the out of work back into society. We just let them hang out for as long as they want, no strings attached.




That's not necessarily true. There are varying degrees and I personally believe that there are things that help society as a whole and should be done by the government. I don't believe that everything should be based on some "greater good" or if it's the "greater good" it should be implemented. It should be a consideration.
Some programs, perhaps, but there are VERY few that the free market would not take care of. If there's a desire in the free market, rest assured that it will be met.


I don't agree that was the CRA that caused that. It was the collapse of the manufactoring sector and jobs that previously provided lower income less educated individuals decent paying jobs. That's the difference between the 1950's and the 1970's or now. You could be someone who wasn't destined for college or some fancy white collar job but could get a job that would provide for you and your family...it was a pipeline out of poverty for a lot of individuals.

it's possible to move up the ladder out of poverty but it's a lot more difficult if there are missing rungs...
It wasn't the CRA that caused it, it was the CRA that made it worse, all the while wasting tax dollars in the process. I believe the collapsing of the middle class, and "missing rungs" as you put it are due to government intervention in the economy, but that's another discussion altogether.

I don't think it's coddling people...I think ultimately it providing stability. I don't buy this idea that people choose to live in poverty because they are ensured food. The fact is...if we have millions of people that are faced with "failure" it causes problems. Say right now...with people out of work for over a year...those social safety nets bridge the gap through a bad economy.
Already answered the first part above. The boom/bust business cycle is a direct product of the federal reserve, but once again, for another thread.

I also disagree that monetary award is the end all be all. Look, I'm sure you're the same way...I personally make a very good salary...I also love my job and find it challenging....the money (though nice) is not my main incentive. I like the challenge. Steve Jobs enjoyed the challenge. If all he was worried about was profit he wouldn't of created machines that took forever to build and perfection wouldn't of been his goal. Good enough to sell would be his goal. He enjoyed taking his vision and making something live up to his vision.

Of course, money is not everything in life, the more important thing is to be challenged and fulfilled. In our society in compared to past generations this is exceptionally harder to do, and I know why.


Lastly I want to point out that even though we are on opposite sides of the spectrum, I really enjoy debating with you. It remains intellectual and civil. I can't stand the mud throwing that goes on around here.
 
Lastly I want to point out that even though we are on opposite sides of the spectrum, I really enjoy debating with you. It remains intellectual and civil. I can't stand the mud throwing that goes on around here.

I agree entirely...the reason I come to these websites isn't to agree with someone with the same position but to have my views challenged. Like you I prefer it to be a civil intellectual debate.

I believe education should be on a voucher system, those who wish to partake in the government system can, and those who do not are not stuck with the bill. This also would require that government schools would have to strive to remain competitive, instead of wallowing away in their state run monopoly. I'm not against WIC, per se. I think such programs that offer coupons for very specific items can be a good thing, after all, it's not the child's fault that the family is poor. I am not 100% against a social safety net. I certainly think there should be one, but there should be very strict requirements, and a quid pro quo between the government and the recipient. There should be a time limit, and one must show that he is actively and aggressively pursuing work. Germany (although not an example of libertarian economics) has a system somewhat like this. They attempt to retrain or rehab the out of work back into society. We just let them hang out for as long as they want, no strings attached.

Actually I'm all for reform and making government better. I think any Liberal should agree with you...I think everybody (Liberal and Conservative) should take a pragmatic approach...who does it better, where do we get most bang for a buck...things that government should be doing how do we make it more efficient. I don't agree things should be ideologicaly driven (and you seem to have the same view) that Government is the answer for everything or that Government is never the answer.

I actually agree with a voucher system. I don't think that privat ran schools are better based on being private...I take issue with the whole structure of our education system. Kids from bad neighborhoods forced to go to school where all the kids are from bad neighborhoods. This is why I'm for a voucher system...when someone is slated for a "bad" school, whose parent is involved and the kid has potential....keeping him in a troubled school could potentially ruin his chances. I think they should be given the opportunity to get a voucher and go to a school where like minded parents and kids are.

I do think most of the positive numbers coming out of school choice are based on those situations. it's a self selecting populations where from the start the parents are interested enough to get those vouchers and apply for their schools. I think the voucher system does empower parents to make decisions on their kids education. It does leave all the "trouble" kids with no support or what not but at least....we can't just leave them alone...the good thing is when you have a population of like kids you can better institute changes that are geared towards those specific types of kids.

Anywho...yeah...completely different discussion but I agree. I also agree with your Germany example. I have no problems with some kind of program that helps but also leads towards someone providing for themselves. I think that's a very rational approach.

Some programs, perhaps, but there are VERY few that the free market would not take care of. If there's a desire in the free market, rest assured that it will be met.
Maybe for certain populations and above...yes the market will meet most of the needs of middle class and above individuals. I don't think the market meets the needs of the poor....because well they are poor. They don't have the disposable income to make it worthwhile to provide services.

I believe the collapsing of the middle class, and "missing rungs" as you put it are due to government intervention in the economy, but that's another discussion altogether.
Very true...I'm sure there will be a future thread where that pops up and we can have it.

Of course, money is not everything in life, the more important thing is to be challenged and fulfilled. In our society in compared to past generations this is exceptionally harder to do, and I know why.
I agree....I do think there's much higher stratification with younger generations. I think the middle class families are taking their kids to piano lessons and stimulating their minds and they are competitive in a global economy. I worry about the growing poor who seem to be falling behind...that's a major problem.
 
I think life is unfair, and that the government's attempts to make it "fair" have made it even less fair. I believe in a true free market society the poor have much better chances to change their situations than they do when the government tries to help them.
Are opportunities artificially closed to them now?


I believe that human nature is fairly easy to understand, it's driven by rational self interest. Although socialism is a great idea, it involves the idea that people in their hearts will actually put the good of the group over the good of themselves and their family, which will never happen.
Completely disagree. Human nature is IRrational self-interest... or selfishness. Pure free market/libertarian philosophies imply that people will include the good of the group with their own good... which will never happen, either.
 
I'm curious...do think there's equal opportunity? When you look at numbers that show the largest determination of where you end up in life is based on your parents income do you think that shows equal opportunity? Taking out any assumptions what would you see statistically if everything was based on a clean slate when someoen is born and opportunity for success was equal? I don't think the two are entirely separate.

There is equal opportunity, and in fact, likely more opportunity for those who come from backgrounds considered disadvantaged. There will never be true equality, because no two individuals are the same. Even if they had the same intelligence level and identical educational background, the differences in humans are too numerous to expect equality in outcomes. Pretend that you and I have equal intelligence and educations. You may be frugal by nature, invest your money well, and very successful, whereas I may be generous with my money and spend it on stuff that I just want to have, and end up penniless in my old age. The only thing that government can really guarantee is that the opportunities are there for those who are willing and able to pursue them.
 
I don't know what you're asking. Perhaps you could give an example.
Do poor people have the opportunity to open their own businesses and thrive now, or is the current system set up to discourage or thwart them?

or

What's to prevent a poor person from being an entrepreneur? (Except maybe start-up money, which would be only a speed bump to a determined person, not a road block.)
 
There is equal opportunity, and in fact, likely more opportunity for those who come from backgrounds considered disadvantaged. There will never be true equality, because no two individuals are the same. Even if they had the same intelligence level and identical educational background, the differences in humans are too numerous to expect equality in outcomes. Pretend that you and I have equal intelligence and educations. You may be frugal by nature, invest your money well, and very successful, whereas I may be generous with my money and spend it on stuff that I just want to have, and end up penniless in my old age. The only thing that government can really guarantee is that the opportunities are there for those who are willing and able to pursue them.

Of course...I admitted in the post you will always have some stratification unless you create some bottom that no one can rise above and at that point you're just holding everyone down.

The thing is...when you look at the data of income mobility parental income is the leading predictor of a childs lifetime income. Granted...there are things the government can't do, how would you provide the advantage of a college educated parent for example. If opportunity was truly equal then parental income would not be a predictor. We talk about a classless society of opportunity but that's not what data shows. Data shows pretty drastic differences in opportunity.
 
Do poor people have the opportunity to open their own businesses and thrive now, or is the current system set up to discourage or thwart them?

or

What's to prevent a poor person from being an entrepreneur? (Except maybe start-up money, which would be only a speed bump to a determined person, not a road block.)

There really isn't a "current system" that we are dealing with. New start-ups have happened since the dawn of capitalism, and both poor and wealthy have started them. It's really not so much about systems as it is about creativity and understanding market demand, then meeting that demand.
If you don't want to be a business owner or entrepreneur, then you can always go the route of determining what the future demands will be in various job sectors, then getting educated and/or experienced to fill a job that will likely remain in demand.
 
Of If opportunity was truly equal then parental income would not be a predictor. We talk about a classless society of opportunity but that's not what data shows. Data shows pretty drastic differences in opportunity.

It's more likely that parental income is not the predictor, and that parental attitudes and values are. As an example, I was born and raised in a poor environment relative to the standards of many Americans. Neither of my parents were college educated, and my father was a high school drop-out in the 10th grade. You might think that my childhood environment would have made me disadvantaged, but that wasn't the case at all. My father was a very industrious man who worked long hours to support his wife and 4 daughters. He was a man who could build or fix just about anything himself. He never had much money, but he was a really good, clean, decent, hard-working man. Those values were instilled in me. I was the first in my family with a college degree. When I was young, I looked at the potential job market, and I could see that there was a chronic nursing shortage. Therefore, I applied for nursing school, was accepted, and have worked in that profession for almost 30 years. I will never be wealthy, but I am able to meet my needs and have a little left over for things that I enjoy doing. My work ethic is very strong, and I managed to have foresight to secure my job future.
 
Why not Ron Paul? I challenge you to find a candidate that supports individual rights, such as the right to be gay, more than he does. I find it baffling that you would ever vote for someone like Santorum who openly admits that people like you are the work of satan.

I like a LOT of things about Ron Paul. There are a few things though that make it impossible for me to support him in this election.

1) While I support a mainly non-interventionist type of foreign policy, I believe there are circumstances in which intervention (not humanitarian aid, but interventions that protect, preserve, and further American security and economic interests) are sometimes necessary. For example, protecting trade routes waterways in the middle east from countries like Iran. I do not believe Paul would support intervention in that circumstance. I think a hands off approach to foreign policy (while his would certainly be better than the current president, whose solution to losing a top secret drone to a hostile foreign government was to ask "pretty please, can I have it back?") provides opportunity for America's enemies.

2) Borders/Immigration. While I certainly don't support a fence, I support strict control of the borders for security (among other) reasons. Paul doesn't seem to be supportive of strict border control.

3) In this election, Paul can not win. That will be clear to him pretty soon, I think. We need the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama. Frankly, I am afraid if Paul got enough of a share of the votes in the primary, he would come into the general election as a third party candidate. This would be disastrous as it would dilute the GOP votes. Liberals would vote for Obama. Independents, Moderates, Centrists, Libertarians and Conservatives would be split between the GOP nominee and Ron Paul. Just like Ross Perot was the conduit to Clinton's election in '92, Ron Paul would, as a third party candidate, be the conduit through which Obama secures reelection.
 
I think the answer lies somewhere in this:

9b0db59874cc7c1cc97abd52402520fe.png

:)
 
I would rather live in a MORAL third-world nation than in an IMMORAL first-world nation.


so youd rather live in a nonfree country thant a free one? got it

because since YOUR morals are SUBJECTIVE to YOU a country that matched your morals and your morals only could never be free :shrug:
 
so youd rather live in a nonfree country thant a free one? got it

because since YOUR morals are SUBJECTIVE to YOU a country that matched your morals and your morals only could never be free :shrug:


To answer the OP it would depend on th economy and how much he was against equal gay rights.

If he wanted to try and push laws to further discriminate against americans I have trouble voting for him and probably couldnt because even if he had good economic ideas it be hard to back anybody who was in favor of discrimination.
 
I would think that if you live by your conscience, the only answer would be "No--I wouldn't violate my conscience when I vote."
 
There really isn't a "current system" that we are dealing with. New start-ups have happened since the dawn of capitalism, and both poor and wealthy have started them. It's really not so much about systems as it is about creativity and understanding market demand, then meeting that demand.
If you don't want to be a business owner or entrepreneur, then you can always go the route of determining what the future demands will be in various job sectors, then getting educated and/or experienced to fill a job that will likely remain in demand.
Yes, I know. I was attempting to get the person I was responding to to address a particular aspect of one of his statements by considering it differently than they were.
 
Completely disagree. Human nature is IRrational self-interest... or selfishness. Pure free market/libertarian philosophies imply that people will include the good of the group with their own good... which will never happen, either.

Self-interest is entirely rational. Sacrifice of self is martyrdom, which may not be bad if it's a part of your religion, but if you have a normal human desire to survive, it's not rational at all. It may be a good thing if you're Jesus, and if you desire to die so that others may live, but it's certainly not a philosophy born of reason or rational thinking.
 
so youd rather live in a nonfree country thant a free one? got it

because since YOUR morals are SUBJECTIVE to YOU a country that matched your morals and your morals only could never be free :shrug:

You are correct on both points.
 
It's more likely that parental income is not the predictor, and that parental attitudes and values are. As an example, I was born and raised in a poor environment relative to the standards of many Americans. Neither of my parents were college educated, and my father was a high school drop-out in the 10th grade. You might think that my childhood environment would have made me disadvantaged, but that wasn't the case at all. My father was a very industrious man who worked long hours to support his wife and 4 daughters. He was a man who could build or fix just about anything himself. He never had much money, but he was a really good, clean, decent, hard-working man. Those values were instilled in me. I was the first in my family with a college degree. When I was young, I looked at the potential job market, and I could see that there was a chronic nursing shortage. Therefore, I applied for nursing school, was accepted, and have worked in that profession for almost 30 years. I will never be wealthy, but I am able to meet my needs and have a little left over for things that I enjoy doing. My work ethic is very strong, and I managed to have foresight to secure my job future.

Sure that would make you an outlier. If you lived in a disadvantaged background and went to schools with other disadvantaged kids....how did they turn out? I too lived in such a background and the majority of my past class mates did not increase their living standard above those of their parents. They have stayed in the same socio economic classes. Like I mentioned, every individual family is different and there are a lot of variables. When looking at socio economic groups as a whole....if you pick someone out randomly...most likely you would be able to predict their economic class based just on their parents economic class...that's a fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom