QOD

Filed in National by on September 10, 2008

As a voter what issues are important to you? How are they important? Why should they be important to the rest of the country? Are they things the government should be asked to be involved in?

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (26)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. delawaredem says:
    September 10, 2008 at 9:06 am

    Healthcare.
    Civil Liberties.
    Social Security.
    Equality of Opportunity.

    I want my government to provide a social safety net. I view my government as your backup. Someone to pick you up when you are done. It should help you, not hinder you. What you do in life is your own business and your own choice, but the government should help get every child a great education, and the government should provide healthcare for the sick.

  2. Duffy says:
    September 10, 2008 at 9:28 am

    1. Defense of the realm
    2. Protect Constitutional rights of citizens
    3. Law and Order
    4. Courts for civil and criminal complaints
    5. Dramatic reduction in the involvement in lives of citizens

    We need to change the mindset of government. We are oriented toward safety and control. We should be oriented toward liberty. We treat our citizens as either children or idiots and we’re surprised when they act like it.

  3. mike w. says:
    September 10, 2008 at 9:40 am

    Biggest issue – The size & scope of government and its overbearing involvement in the lives of citizens. I.E. the nanny-state concept of the role of government that seems to have taken hold in this country.

    I don’t view things like providing healthcare as a legitimate role of government. Then again, my views on the legitimate role of government differ greatly from how a liberal (and many social conservatives) would see things.

  4. Von Cracker says:
    September 10, 2008 at 11:03 am

    Defend and uphold the Constitution.

    Defend and uphold the Constitution.

    Defend and uphold the Constitution.

    Protecting your safety is a chicken-shit response. Anyway, it’s inherent with the 3 mentioned above…but you wouldn’t know that if you drank the GOP elixir of stupidity!

  5. mike w. says:
    September 10, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Von – And yet both sides have no problem gutting certain parts of the constitution in the name of “public safety.”

    Don’t even start to act as if that’s somehow limited to the GOP. Obama and liberals are no better

  6. mike w. says:
    September 10, 2008 at 11:12 am

    DD – Social Security?

    The governments done a bang up job with that so far, yet you still trust them with it? Why?

  7. Joe M says:
    September 10, 2008 at 11:30 am

    In no particular order:

    1. Education
    2. Healthcare
    3. Equal civil rights for all Americans
    4. Science funding
    5. Separation of church and state

  8. DavidV says:
    September 10, 2008 at 11:40 am

    Personal liberty and privacy
    Healthcare I can afford
    The right to self defense
    Fundamental change in energy production
    Federal debt reduction – balanced budget
    A tax structure that makes sense
    A drug war that makes sense
    Medicinal pot
    Freedom of expression without censorship
    Prosecution of Bush&Co.

    We need to get back to being innocent until proven guilty. We have a fundamental right to life, liberty, speech and action and should oppose all attempts by government to abridge or censor these freedoms.

  9. Duffy says:
    September 10, 2008 at 11:58 am

    “Protecting your safety is a chicken-shit response.”

    VC: Are you suggesting we disband the justice department? No more police?

  10. mike w. says:
    September 10, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Duffy – I guess VC favors getting rid of all gun laws as well, since the entire (flawed) premise behind them is that they promote “public safety.”

  11. Von Cracker says:
    September 10, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    No, I’m not suggesting that. Nice try at putting words in my mouth though…

  12. Von Cracker says:
    September 10, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    I have no issue with repealing gun laws.

    I say let every fucker strap-up!

  13. mike w. says:
    September 10, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Just poking a little fun at the line Duffy quoted von.

  14. Von Cracker says:
    September 10, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    but if the gov’t wants to restrict gun onwership (types and such)…I have no issue with that either, since I would still be able to arm myself, though maybe not with a AK108.

  15. Geezer says:
    September 10, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    “I don’t view things like providing healthcare as a legitimate role of government.”

    We live in an age when the cost of care in the last months of life can consume more money than most people earn in a lifetime. Nobody LIKES the idea of government involvement in health care. But without it, the poor would die in misery. It doesn’t take much first-hand experience with a dying parent to turn many people who otherwise value self-sufficiency into people who think government should step in.

    There is no easy solution to this, which is why I don’t think you’ll see it happen even under a President Obama.

  16. Von Cracker says:
    September 10, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    The whole safety-security-homeland bullshit gets on my nerves. It’s so anti-American spirit and reeks of cowardice.

  17. mike w. says:
    September 10, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    Geezer – That doesn’t change the fact that something which must be provided BY the government and necessitates a coerced obligation on the part of a non-consenting party is not a right. It’s merely legal plunder, legitimized because the “benevolent government” is doing the plundering.

    Hell, anything provided by government is not a right, since it is conditional and can be rescinded at anytime.

    Von – Care to apply comment # 16 to all rights?

  18. Steve Newton says:
    September 10, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    We live in an age when the cost of care in the last months of life can consume more money than most people earn in a lifetime. Nobody LIKES the idea of government involvement in health care. But without it, the poor would die in misery.

    If we can get beyond the ideological stereotypes, this is a critical question you’ve raised. Having watched three of my wife’s grandparents and one of my own go through a mental decline that none would have agreed to during better days, only to be kept physically alive–often at the cost of increasingly invasive treatments and increasing dehumanization–I think we need to be talking about quality of life rather than cost.

    What kinds of options–ranging from the full-blown Kevorkian down to the last-ditch efforts to squeeze a few more breaths out of a vegitative corpse–should society tolerate, or pay for?

    Do I have the right to five extra years of non-functional physical survival at State expense? If not, what happens? If so, who pays?

    Better answer this now, as the boomers are getting ready to hit the nursing homes over the next decade.

    [a dv-type question, albeit more long-winded]: If you had a budget of 10 billion dollars and you could only use it for one of the two following items, which would you choose:

    1) Geriatric care in the “whatever it takes” mode that would prolong the lives of 1,000 people 85+ years old for another decade;

    OR

    2) Public health measures (immunizations, cancer screenings, prenatal care, etc.) that could improve the quality of life and extend the lives of 5 million people for several decades

    How would you justify your decision to the relatives of either class you did not choose?

  19. mike w. says:
    September 10, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    “How would you justify your decision to the relatives of either class you did not choose?”

    I guess you could choose # 2 and make the argument that keeping younger Americans healthier serves the greater good of the country more than keeping 1000 old people alive. Plus you’d need to keep those people healthy and productive so that the government would have funds with which to provide care. I chose #2 solely for the sake of discussion.

    I’m not saying I think either option is “better” or that either one would matter to the relatives of the side not receiving government help.

    You raise some excellent moral questions Steve.

  20. kaveman1 says:
    September 10, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    #1 Perserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foriegn and domestic.

    Let’s get the basics straight first, then we can move on to pet projects.

  21. pandora says:
    September 10, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    Steve, wouldn’t the application of number 2 help decrease the number of people in #1?

    And as far as justifying the “choice” to my relatives… not a problem. My family’s worst nightmare is being kept alive with no quality of life. All of us have the necessary paperwork; living wills as well as medical directives.

  22. Jeff the Baptist says:
    September 10, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    “We live in an age when the cost of care in the last months of life can consume more money than most people earn in a lifetime. Nobody LIKES the idea of government involvement in health care.”

    Has it occurred to you that once you put someone in charge of the healthcare system, the solution they adopt may be to simply cut the old people off from that incredibly expensive care in order to hold down total costs? At which point all the old people would be cut off, not just the poor ones.

    My political priorities change with the level of government. I have different thresholds I’m willing to tolerate at fed, state, and local. I definitely don’t want healthcare nationalized until we have at least one state with a socialized program that actually works.

  23. pandora says:
    September 10, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    We’re heading into Logan’s Run territory again.

    Sanctuary!

  24. mike w. says:
    September 10, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    Jeff – That’s what we see in the UK and Canada’s healthcare systems.

  25. Steve Newton says:
    September 10, 2008 at 5:14 pm

    Steve, wouldn’t the application of number 2 help decrease the number of people in #1?

    Actually, it would eventually increase the number 1 category–more people living longer healthier lives has the demographic downside of more geriatrics 40-60 years down the road.

    My policy predisposition is to support only those governmental healthcare initiatives that (and I’m about to say this awkwardly because I am really fried, so please read sympathetically) involve a general improvement in the health and living conditions of the entire American populace in an economically responsible way rather than meeting the needs of every individual.

    In other words (trying to at least get my idea out), I have no problem with the government offering a basic array of preventative services in a public health model (vaccinations, etc.) whereas I don’t necessarily think it the govt’s responsibility to pay for Great Aunt Sally’s rehab at age 97….

  26. Tom S says:
    September 10, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    On A Federal Level:
    1. Freedom from Fear…security, health, environment, civil rights, retirement, retribution
    2. Education
    3. Equality/fairness of opportunity

    Give Americans 1-3 and we can handle the rest.

    Suggest you add a blog
    “Issues I DON’T care about”
    1. Who, when, where or what a candidate slept with
    2. What the candidate did or who they associated with in their adolescent life
    3. What a friend of a 3rd cousin twice removed thought of a candidate
    4. Issues downgraded to 10 second sound bites

«
»