which single issue do you think is most important

[Pogo]

Ah, so when you say "money in the pocket" what you actually mean is "food for the children". Ok then.

You could almost call that a liberal position of caring that all persons not just the "successful" are exempt from fear of falling into poverty.

 

[Kathryn]

Or you could call that a position of simply caring for one's kids.

 

[Koldo]

You could almost call that a liberal position of caring that all persons not just the "successful" are exempt from fear of falling into poverty.

Call what? That what?

 

[Pogo]

Call what? That what?

What you said.

 

[crossfire]

In my system of giving weight to the issues, human rights issues are primary. So abortion rights and the humane treatment of immigrants carry the most weight with me this election cycle. I really don't have much patience with those who simply brush human rights issues aside with quips like "aside from abortion...blah blah blah" thinking that taking human rights issues off of the table is going to pursuade me.

 

[Wirey]

In my system of giving weight to the issues, human rights issues are primary. So abortion rights and the humane treatment of immigrants carry the most weight with me this election cycle. I really don't have much patience with those who simply brush human rights issues aside with quips like "aside form abortion...blah blah blah" thinking that taking human rights issues off of the table is going to pursuade me.[/B]

That's hard to disagree with. What other purpose does a society serve if it can't protect the humans who form it?

 

[crossfire]

That's hard to disagree with. What other purpose does a society serve if it can't protect the humans who form it?

Exactly!

 

[PureX]

no polls.. too lazy and too much work. Just what issue does it kind of come down to for you. Or if it is all of them at once, explain how that works please

Until we stop the wholesale bribery and corruption of our government by big money interests, no other issue matters, because they will never be effectively addressed.

 

[Pogo]

That's hard to disagree with. What other purpose does a society serve if it can't protect the humans who form it?

I'll be curious to see the answers.

What other purpose does a society serve if it doesn't protect the humans who form it?

ETA change can't to doesn't.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

cost of living

So many Americans are complaining about this -- and much else about the economy -- and yet, somehow or other the American economy at present is the envy of the world. Yes, prices went up because of inflation (although wages are moving faster!), but this happened everywhere, and I've tried to explain why before. But this time, I'm going to try to fluff it out more fully, to see if I can get people to understand what the alternative would have been, had governments not spent vast sums just keeping people and businesses alive during and after the pandemic.

One of the biggest problems was that, while many people (myself included) could keep working -- from home or through some other arrangements, millions couldn't. How does a restaurateur and his staff work from home? How do all the bars and shops we frequent do that from home? Small stores can't afford the technology to suddenly become e-merchants with computers and drone delivery systems? Same with health clubs and so many other business.

If the government had not provided significant financial support to those impacted by the closure of stores, restaurants, and other in-person services during the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic and social consequences would have likely been severe:

• Widespread Financial Hardship: Without government aid, millions of unemployed individuals, especially those in service industries like cooks and servers, would have faced immediate financial crises. Many people live paycheck-to-paycheck, so the sudden loss of income could have led to an inability to pay for basic needs such as rent, food, and utilities.
• Massive Wave of Business Closures: Small businesses, especially in sectors like hospitality, retail, and dining, would have faced insolvency without assistance. Many of these businesses were forced to shut down or severely reduce operations, and without aid, they would have been unable to pay rent, cover fixed costs, or keep employees on payroll. This could have resulted in a much larger wave of permanent closures, especially for businesses that couldn't pivot to new models, like delivery or online services.
• Increased Poverty and Homelessness: The financial strain on individuals would have led to increased evictions, foreclosures, and homelessness. People unable to pay rent or mortgages would have been forced out of their homes, overwhelming shelters and social services. The poverty rate would have risen sharply, as millions would have fallen into destitution.
• Economic Collapse: Consumer spending is a huge driver of the economy, especially in sectors like retail and hospitality. If people couldn't afford to spend, demand for goods and services would have plummeted, rippling across the economy. This would have worsened the downturn, leading to a deeper and more prolonged recession or even a depression. Financial markets and sectors that seemed more insulated would have eventually felt the effects due to reduced consumption and business failures.
• Worsened Public Health Outcomes: If more people had been driven into poverty and homelessness, the ability to practice social distancing or follow health guidelines would have been compromised. Poorer living conditions, overcrowding in shelters, and a lack of access to health care would have exacerbated the spread of COVID-19, leading to higher transmission rates and worse public health outcomes. Mental health issues would have also surged, given the extreme financial stress and insecurity.
• Social Unrest and Political Instability: The widespread financial hardship and lack of government support could have led to social unrest, as people protested the lack of assistance. As inequalities deepened, public anger might have been directed toward both government institutions and wealthier sectors of society that were less affected by the crisis. In some countries, economic downturns and stark inequalities have historically led to political instability or even unrest.

By providing financial support, governments were able to cushion these economic and social shocks, helping to maintain stability and prevent what could have been an economic and humanitarian disaster. The aid packages, like Canada's CERB or the U.S.'s PPP and stimulus checks, were critical in mitigating these outcomes, even if they introduced large deficits in the short term.

Now, would you have preferred that all that happen, just so you don't have to spend a bit more at the store? When everybody was hurting, would you have been willing to hurt the rest some more, just to protect yourself?

What government could hope to campaign on the detritus of such a disaster?

 

[Pogo]

So many Americans are complaining about this -- and much else about the economy -- and yet, somehow or other the American economy at present is the envy of the world. Yes, prices went up because of inflation (although wages are moving faster!), but this happened everywhere, and I've tried to explain why before. But this time, I'm going to try to fluff it out more fully, to see if I can get people to understand what the alternative would have been, had governments not spent vast sums just keeping people and businesses alive during and after the pandemic.

One of the biggest problems was that, while many people (myself included) could keep working -- from home or through some other arrangements, millions couldn't. How does a restaurateur and his staff work from home? How do all the bars and shops we frequent do that from home? Small stores can't afford the technology to suddenly become e-merchants with computers and drone delivery systems? Same with health clubs and so many other business.

If the government had not provided significant financial support to those impacted by the closure of stores, restaurants, and other in-person services during the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic and social consequences would have likely been severe:

• Widespread Financial Hardship: Without government aid, millions of unemployed individuals, especially those in service industries like cooks and servers, would have faced immediate financial crises. Many people live paycheck-to-paycheck, so the sudden loss of income could have led to an inability to pay for basic needs such as rent, food, and utilities.
• Massive Wave of Business Closures: Small businesses, especially in sectors like hospitality, retail, and dining, would have faced insolvency without assistance. Many of these businesses were forced to shut down or severely reduce operations, and without aid, they would have been unable to pay rent, cover fixed costs, or keep employees on payroll. This could have resulted in a much larger wave of permanent closures, especially for businesses that couldn't pivot to new models, like delivery or online services.
• Increased Poverty and Homelessness: The financial strain on individuals would have led to increased evictions, foreclosures, and homelessness. People unable to pay rent or mortgages would have been forced out of their homes, overwhelming shelters and social services. The poverty rate would have risen sharply, as millions would have fallen into destitution.
• Economic Collapse: Consumer spending is a huge driver of the economy, especially in sectors like retail and hospitality. If people couldn't afford to spend, demand for goods and services would have plummeted, rippling across the economy. This would have worsened the downturn, leading to a deeper and more prolonged recession or even a depression. Financial markets and sectors that seemed more insulated would have eventually felt the effects due to reduced consumption and business failures.
• Worsened Public Health Outcomes: If more people had been driven into poverty and homelessness, the ability to practice social distancing or follow health guidelines would have been compromised. Poorer living conditions, overcrowding in shelters, and a lack of access to health care would have exacerbated the spread of COVID-19, leading to higher transmission rates and worse public health outcomes. Mental health issues would have also surged, given the extreme financial stress and insecurity.
• Social Unrest and Political Instability: The widespread financial hardship and lack of government support could have led to social unrest, as people protested the lack of assistance. As inequalities deepened, public anger might have been directed toward both government institutions and wealthier sectors of society that were less affected by the crisis. In some countries, economic downturns and stark inequalities have historically led to political instability or even unrest.

By providing financial support, governments were able to cushion these economic and social shocks, helping to maintain stability and prevent what could have been an economic and humanitarian disaster. The aid packages, like Canada's CERB or the U.S.'s PPP and stimulus checks, were critical in mitigating these outcomes, even if they introduced large deficits in the short term.

Now, would you have preferred that all that happen, just so you don't have to spend a bit more at the store? When everybody was hurting, would you have been willing to hurt the rest some more, just to protect yourself?

What government could hope to campaign on the detritus of such a disaster?

The even bigger question is what is a Trump presidency going to do about this.

Food Costs: deporting the many agricultural workers and disrupting and frightening their families after often many years in this country is in no way going to reduce the cost of food, In fact the opposite, depriving the food industry of its least expensive and best source of labor is only going to raise prices. Unless Trump also has a plan to defeat drug dependence and apathy from those who do not see a way forward removing those who do not have those problems is not going to solve any problems, they have already said that the jobs on order to immigrants are not for them.

Economic policy as best can be determined is to cut taxes so that the government has less money to perform it's functions and to make up the shortfall in that which cannot be avoided, to borrow the money like paying the mortgage on a credit card at five times the interest rate. .

To make up for this shortfall we will add a tax on those purchases that are generally unavoidable to the average person, This tax looks to be five times the average return from his tax cuts. Oh, and this new tax while it won't even nearly compensate for the loss of revenue is supposed to somehow allow for new programs that don't even have any definition.

That is enough typing for now,
I think I will order 2 lbs of Canadian porridge and some hydrochloric acid and baking soda to go with it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think I will order 2 lbs of Canadian porridge and some hydrochloric acid and baking soda to go with it.

Oh, dear! As a Canadian porridge eater myself, I much prefer a little brown sugar and a splash of 2% milk.

 

[Pogo]

Oh, dear! As a Canadian porridge eater myself, I much prefer a little brown sugar and a splash of 2% milk.

Oh dear! can I please blame my inadvertently hilariously idiotic post on Canada's oldest continuous food export?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh dear! can I please blame my inadvertently hilariously idiotic post on Canada's oldest continuous food export?

I would have thought that might be pemmican!

 

[amorphous_constellation]

More housing doesn't entail food prices going up per se, unless active farms are being turned into housing complex and no new farm is arising. You are seeing a contradiction where there is none.

All my life I've watched suburban developments, which are pretty big, go up over the land of bought out farms, here in the midwest. And now, we get ads talking about politicians wanting to control rising food prices. I suspect this area of the country has the best potential farmland. But show me some articles that defend what you are saying

 

[amorphous_constellation]

All of them at once.....

While Ecological Overshoot (EO)(from which Global Warming is a symptom) is the over-arching most important issue to deal with; it is also true that any support of the anti-science party of The Insurrectionist will certainly doom even the most specious attempt at resolving EO/GW. Therefore, tRump and MAGA must be removed, for any chance that rationality and facts will ever have anything to do with the US government, ever again.

Of course, by voting down the MAGATs and supporting Progressives (Dems being a wee step in the right direction), we simultaneously improve our chances at
- Border Security
- Stable international relations
- lowering the risk of international wars, as well as US involvement in such wars.
- better economy, with responsible taxes on corporations and the rich, as well as lower taxes on the middle-class and poor.
- human rights, at home and abroad. (abortion, racism, labor laws,
- decreasing pollution
- improved child and adult education levels
- etc....etc....

Yeah I don't really know if either party has the kinds of goals that ultimately question growth.. So until that happens, the talk will be about 'improving the economy,' and 'decreasing pollution' (restriction measures so more growth can happen). As to international affairs, it looks like things can happen out there with or without america's input. I don't know if the Left wants better border security, you'd have to expand on that. I don't understand how we affect human rights abroad. On education... I'm not really sure, I think a lot of my time was wasted in the education system

 

[amorphous_constellation]

In my system of giving weight to the issues, human rights issues are primary. So abortion rights and the humane treatment of immigrants carry the most weight with me this election cycle. I really don't have much patience with those who simply brush human rights issues aside with quips like "aside from abortion...blah blah blah" thinking that taking human rights issues off of the table is going to pursuade me.

Well it's complicated.. I think before we get to human rights, which is important, we have to really address what human nature actually is. It is good, I think, to maximize freedom in a context where it can be maximized, but what are we? Maybe to start with, I would say that all of us are potentially corruptible, and most of us ultimately seem to live in a state of reaction, as opposed to a state of being self-determinant.

So where scarcity exists, or is produced, I think we all kind of turn into people that kind of want to claw our way to the top. Where a ton of space exists, the broader behavior of the public likely gets a lot better, but the leaders probably would continue to see all the open space itself as capital. I don't really know what the solution is, but seems like 'human rights' is always going to be a context issue. Human rights in what context

 

[Pogo]

I would have thought that might be pemmican!

We could argue fruitlessly over that's origin, but i tried and Amazon says maybe November, Is it really "a thing" in modern parlance,

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Yeah I don't really know if either party has the kinds of goals that ultimately question growth.. So until that happens, the talk will be about 'improving the economy,' and 'decreasing pollution' (restriction measures so more growth can happen). As to international affairs, it looks like things can happen out there with or without america's input. I don't know if the Left wants better border security, you'd have to expand on that. I don't understand how we affect human rights abroad. On education... I'm not really sure, I think a lot of my time was wasted in the education system

Agreed. No party, including the Green Party, want to suggest population control; which of course will be necessary..... if we don't want it thrust upon us via famine.
Willingly and in a controlled manner, or unwillingly with horror and violence, it will eventually happen.

Yes. The US Left definitively want better border security from illegal crossings. But it was The Insurrectionist himself who single-handedly shot down the best chance we had at it, both in 2016, and in the last 6 months; when large, sweeping changes and immense financing was laid out by Dems and Pubs together.
In 2016 as POTUS, he erroneously bragged that he could haggle better, and ended up losing..... badly. And most recently, because he saw passage of the bilateral bill as a threat to his candidacy; as it would decrease his ability to fear-monger the naive voters into electing him.

Rights are influenced internationally, both by example (The Insurrectionist praises dictators who oppress their citizenry. And other autocratic groups and individuals follow his lead). . As well as by military and financial influence with open markets for goods from nations with poor human/worker rights. (actually, The Insurrectionist's plan to increase the existing tariffs on China is a tiny but non-saving point in his favor - but of course he's handing out too many tariffs, and usually for vendetta reasons, not sound financial and human rights reasons.)

Education of the general public (see my signature) is the ONLY way to make any Democracy work. Jefferson was correct. When they are misled, as the MAGA Trumpettes (MAGATs) so readily are, then a would-be dictator can seize power, and all aspects of government can be turned against the best interests of the people (with them cheering and applauding the whole way down).

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Agreed. No party, including the Green Party, want to suggest population control; which of course will be necessary..... if we don't want it thrust upon us via famine.
Willingly and in a controlled manner, or unwillingly with horror and violence, it will eventually happen.

Yes. The US Left definitively want better border security from illegal crossings. But it was The Insurrectionist himself who single-handedly shot down the best chance we had at it, both in 2016, and in the last 6 months; when large, sweeping changes and immense financing was laid out by Dems and Pubs together.
In 2016 as POTUS, he erroneously bragged that he could haggle better, and ended up losing..... badly. And most recently, because he saw passage of the bilateral bill as a threat to his candidacy; as it would decrease his ability to fear-monger the naive voters into electing him.

Rights are influenced internationally, both by example (The Insurrectionist praises dictators who oppress their citizenry. And other autocratic groups and individuals follow his lead). . As well as by military and financial influence with open markets for goods from nations with poor human/worker rights. (actually, The Insurrectionist's plan to increase the existing tariffs on China is a tiny but non-saving point in his favor - but of course he's handing out too many tariffs, and usually for vendetta reasons, not sound financial and human rights reasons.)

Education of the general public (see my signature) is the ONLY way to make any Democracy work. Jefferson was correct. When they are misled, as the MAGA Trumpettes (MAGATs) so readily are, then a would-be dictator can seize power, and all aspects of government can be turned against the best interests of the people (with them cheering and applauding the whole way down).

I don't know, I read some books the border recently, and it isn't clear to me exactly what's been happening in the last 20 years. Generally I think people just keep coming here, and our politicians argue over how lenient it should be. I am not exactly interested in building a big border wall, or having harder laws.. Political instability and human growth seem to drive contemporary human movement, and those are things that people might address. The people coming here, are coming here from places that could potentially be wonderful themselves

And I have to go to work.. so, I can't just sit here forever, but again, as I said earlier, I don't want to frame the growth stability argument as like a downer argument. I want to talk about this from the standpoint of hope and optimism, not from the standpoint that it is some kind of a tragedy that we should question growth. Probably most people who bring this kind of thing up are doomers, or preppers, or blackpilled types... I am not that

Modern political figures... trump, kamala, all of them are kind of in the same boat, going the same direction, they all want growth, really. So I don't get excited when thinking about any of them. Whether people follow the maga movement, or listen to hard titling left wingers on youtube, I think maybe they all are dissatisfied, and it probably has something to do with the conditions of modern life - so I say why not have hope, and frame the ideas of how things might be setup in a better way for everyone