Big Issues
 

If your like me you hate both parties and feel they are practicaly the same. I found Bush and Kerry so repuslive I voted third party. However, there are time when one must sacrifice principle for practicality and vote for a major party.

We have a lot of different stances on many issues, but some are more important to us. Is there any one issue where you would vote for a major party (or if you already do, the other major party) because of thier stance on that issue alone (supposing thier other stances weren't too repulsive).

Mine is education. If someone offered to switch over to a private school voucher system, and it sounded intelligent and I thought they were honest then I'd vote for them. The major challenege of the next century is keeping our nation competitive now that 3 billion people have emerged from the depths of socialism to join the global marketplace. Education is the most essential part of this. The bar would be higher for Democrats, since the Teacher's Union has them in thier pocket. However, if they really genuinly ditched the teachers union and came up with the right proposal I could actually see myself voting Democrat.

Re: Big Issues
 

Social issues.

The religious right has hijacked Washington.

Re: Big Issues
 

I'm a libertarian who would rather be a Republican.

If the GOP would stop behaving like a bunch of Dixiecrats and actually become the party of limited government and individual freedom of choice, they'd have my vote.

Re: Big Issues
 

Ummm, what if the Democrats became the party of limited govt and individual freedom?

I thought your first paragraph strange.

Re: Big Issues
 

Less likely, I guess.

1. I prefer the party that gave us Abe Lincoln over the party that gave us LBJ
2. The Democrats also have to stop sucking up to scum like Arafat & Sharprton
3. The Democrats have to stop resorting to out-and-out class warfare.

I'll accept that there may be analagous situations with the GOP, but they're still closer to libertarian than the Democrats even if only by a RCH.

Re: Big Issues
 

Try to stick to the OP. What one issue would swing your vote and why. Its a given the person you vote for will have serious flaws.

Re: Big Issues
 

Try to stick to the OP. What one issue would swing your vote and why.

Easy answer, then. No one issue will swing my vote away from the LP. One issue voters are idiots.

Re: Big Issues
 

Even if you vote LP as I did in the last election, there is concievably an issue important enough to make you vote for a major party. If tommorrow Bush announced he was going to kill random babbies on Fridays's you would vote democrat because you know that LP has no chacne of winning.

As I said in the beginning, while LP or some other party may more closely mirror your entire political ideology, they have no chance of victory. Practicality therefore states that if there were an important enough issue facing the nation you would vote for a party because it had the best chance of implementing/opposing issue X.

Re: Big Issues
 

If tommorrow Bush announced he was going to kill random babbies on Fridays's you would vote democrat because you know that LP has no chacne of winning.

Not really, since Bush would have precisely the same chance of winning my state as he did in the last election - 0%.

OK, I get your point. If I had to choose one issue it might be a re-introduction of the draft. However, I've been around long enough to know that just because one candidate says "vote for me, I won't do X and he will", doesn't make it so.

LBJ said very clearly that a vote for Goldwater was a vote for escalation in Vietnam, then he proceeded to escalate in Vietnam.

Re: Big Issues
 

You want limited govt and freedom. Right?

I could argue that over the last 20 years democrats have given more limited govt and more freedom. If you tried, I am sure you could prepare the same debating points.

Re: Big Issues
 

No argument. I'll agree that it's a Hobson's choice.

Re: Big Issues
 

I understand your point exactly. But this is a hypothetical in which you actually believe the candidate has an honest plan.

Re: Big Issues
 

Democrats started SS and Medicare. They practically pioneered the idea of business subsidies and handouts (which was later hijacked by republics). They have driven the idea into American's that things the government gives them are free and the taxpayer deserves to pay higher taxes.

On social issues they have always supported greater freedom. But that is why I vote LP instead of Repub. Because I like that plank of thier ideology. A liberal who understands economics is a libraterian.

I take issue (and bunch it)
 

Your question is quite timely. I was just thinking about the difference between big issues and small issues.

I find small ones good for quick-fix jobs like nose blowing or sweat wiping. But for cleaning up after number two, it's gotta be a big issue. Gotta be a wide issue. However, the holes which allow for cutting the issue must be serious! How many times I needed to use both hands to cut of a hanging issue mess? Not funny.

Then there was the time
<<snip!>>[/b]

Re: Big Issues
 

I like your purist libertarian line lehigh. And in this case, I actually agree with you. I'm a little worried that with our current education system, in a couple decades our country is going to be the international equivalent of the fat, middle-aged, ex-high school football star, still convinced in his mind that he's a hero, though he's spent the last 30 years sitting on his ass, drinking beer, and getting fat, while all his old admirers have passed him by and don't like to talk to him anymore because he smells bad...

Re: Big Issues
 

Honestly, I can't think of any "single issue" that would change my vote. The fact that I voted Dem in 2004 was itself a change (I'd been a third-party voter for the previous 12 years), but even that wasn't just a "one issue" change. It was a whole spectrum of issues that all pointed to the same conclusion.

As to the issues on your poll? For me, they fall out pretty much the same way.

Education -- There is no (seriously conceivable) stance that the Republican party could take on this that would sway me one way or the other. Their "vouchers" proposals are simply another backdoor way to drain resources from a public service that they consider "socialist". Bush's NCLB proposals are a different means to the same end -- create tests designed to be failed, then declare the system itself to be failing, then "reform" it to an early death. The Republican game plan is both blatant and dishonest as hell, and there is absolutely no way they could repackage it that would make it stink any less.

Defense/Foreign Policy -- If the Dems were to suddenly become even more hawkish and fascist than Bush and his team have already shown themselves to be, then I would go back to voting third party. However, that's setting the bar pretty high, as even the worst of the Dems (and there are plenty of terrible ones in this catagory) don't even come close to the insanity and bloodlust of the Bush people.

Taxation/Spending (Gov Debt) -- I wouldn't believe a word the Republicans say on this issue, because they have proven themselves to be liars so many times on fiscal matters that any further discussion is simply redundent. The Dems, under Clinton, balanced the budget. Every Republican since Reagan has run the national credit card up to the max, applied for higher limits, then run it up some more. There is a record here that can't be ignored, no matter what new round of lies the Republicans come up with to justify it.

SS + Medicare -- If the Dems were to abandon these services, I would also seriously consider going back to third-party voting.

Abortion/Social Issues -- I would like to see the Dems broaden the tent on this one (frankly, because I think progressive politics is about a hell of a lot more than just Roe v. Wade, and I'm tired of having it reduced to this single issue as some sort of hardline litmus test). As to "social issues", I think that's so broad that it's hard to really know where to begin. Ending the drug war (and the mass-incarceration and mass-voter-disenfranchisement it has created) is a BIG issue for me, and this is one that would be a potential crossover issue for me. (And, yes, I do realize that the Libertarian Party supports ending the WoD -- the problem is that their economic stances are utterly repulsive, and most of their members are even further to the right than your average Republican, which is NOT a compliment).

Environment/Energy -- Neither party has adequate stances on these issues, and 50 years from now history will be judging them for it.

Trade + Immigration -- Again, neither party has an acceptable stance on these issues (both support "free trade" agreements that are little more than an internationalization of laissez-faire idiocy). However, that being said : the Republicans' increasingly "Auslander 'Raus" rhetoric is so sickening that I can't imagine *anything* that would swing me over to them in this area. Their habit of blaming "the gays", "the Mexicans", "the immigrants", "the French", "the liberals", "the college professors", "the media" (etc, etc, etc) is just another example of fascist scapegoating in action. The world has gone bad, they say, and somebody must be to blame. And, lo and behold, they have a whole list of culprits at the ready : that horrible Fifth Column that is Corrupting The Society and must be Purged From Our Midst. One can hear the jackboots tramping in the background. Nothing on earth could make me sign on with people like that. Nothing.


q/q

Re: Big Issues
 

Right now... The patriot act.

Re: Big Issues
 

I really wish you would give school vouchers another look. I spent grammer and middle school in my towns public school. Although it was considered a "good school" I found them completely terrible. My public school expereince was a miserable failure. The teachers don't care, the administration steals whatever they can, the curriculum is dogshit. My Mom works for one of the "best" NYC schools and her school is even worse then mine were. Public school are a miserable failure.

But they don't have to be. When I went to high school I went to a county charter school. Our school was the best in the state. We were #1 for math in the entire country. I knew kids doing PhD level math work in high school. Kids that patented inventions and made tens of thousands of dollars, kids that god published in medical journals for their research projects. Nearly half of our high school went to the top ten Ivy League colleges. And the rest got practically free rides to state schools or other privates. We had a 99% college placement rate, and I'm not talking community college.

How did my school do it. Not because it had more money. We recieved 3/4 of the tax money our school districts of origin got to educate us, and they had to pay to bus us in. Despite this, our teachers were paid far more money. The starting salary for a physics professor with a BA was $60,000. Teachers with admin rolls could make six figures. They got the money by utilizing the resources available to them. First, our school day was longer (8-4:30) and our school year was longer (an extra 6 weeks). Teachers who worked these extra hours were given overtime pay. Since this overtime pay was not bound by the Teacher's Union policy of senoirity pay it gave our principle a chance to award teachers based on merit and responsibilities. Those that performed well got extra overtime which payed a huge rate. Were did the money come from, not taxpayers. We simply became more useful. Teachers of certain subjects were expected to teach classes on the weekend to private companies that gave our school grants. For instance, we had the most advanced computers donated every year and during the nights and weekends the comp sci teachers would train company employees. We also had an engineering lab where machines could physically make something you developed in cad from a block of material you put in. That two was used for training on the weekend. We had the fastest broadband internet access at the time because we ran the counties police and fire services through our servers. We had an electrical engineering lab were students would be able to do research for companies developing new products/methods. The companies made money of the research and in exchange provided us materials. Our auditorium was used for private theater and other events every weekend and we were able to get the latest lighting and stage equipment with the money from renting it out. Any excess school space not used was rented out to private businesses to raise funds. You don't have to hit up the taxpayer to improve public schools, you just have to manage them correctly.

I also worked in another charter school my senoir year as part of our Wendsday internships. This one was in a poor black and latino district and it also provided a much better education to those kids that they could never get elsewhere. It operated like a private business just like my school and merit, not senoirity, was rewarded.

Unfortunetly, local Democratic politicians and the Teacher's Union have been trying to shut my school and the one I worked in for years. They use that same bullcrap line about draining public school resources. What they really mean is they will be out of a job if everyone realizes they have been doing things completely wrong. The Teacher's Union's job is to protect lazy overpaid teachers with senoirity and tenure that do nothing all day. The idea of longer school years, merit pay, school choice, and efficient operating principles stands directly in the way of that mission.

Charter schools are about school choice, and the good ones operate like private businesses. Therefore, I think that a voucher system that provided children with enough money to choose the school they wanted to go to would do immense good for our system. It's time to stop chaining children to the school districts they live in, a practice that has disenfrachised the poorest among us for too long.

Re: Big Issues
 

I personally feel that voters should, of course, not base their picks on a single issue, and there is no one issue that could swing my vote towards the republicns, since i think they're mostly wrong on all the issues.

however, education and the environment are much more important to the long-term prosperity of our nation than all the other issues put together, and the U.S should be trying much harder to lead the world in both areas.

as far as vouchers go, i am against them. accountability, adequete teacher salaries and certification, tax money going to religious schools, etc, are my problems with any of the voucher proposals that i've seen. It would take a gigantic post to explain my positions on education, maybe i'll get to it soon. we haven't had a good discussion of the fedral government's role in education in a while...

here's the gist of my position:

we need to immediatly and totally tear down and rebuild our national educational paradigm and infrastructure from the ground up. we have to completly re-evaluate the curriculum, standardized testing, and the goals of the system, with more emphasis put on physical sciences and math. subjects like english, history, etc, should be less about providing a well-rounded education and be more about turning out competent communicators. Phys-ed should be completly eliminated. less emphasis should be put on simply graduating as many students as possible.

Ideally, subjects would not be compartmentalized like they are now- why do we not write as we learn about math, or learn science and history together? I once took a 15 credit course in CC called 'the power of place: how our sourroundings affect our attitudes, thoughts, and actions", in which we learned about how environmental stimuli combined with psycological ones, both of which we wrote about at length. writing about the subject matter helped our understanding of it's intricacies, and the knowing the subject matter thoroughly focused and improbved the writing. i feel that i learned far more than 15 credits worth. I would like to see high school students have the same oppurtunity- can you imagine how effective a class like "Maps- a history of cartography" (which would include math (geometry, trig, etc) science (geography, physics) english (the students would write essays, seminar papers, and journals about what they studied and be graded on the writing AND the content) and history (students would learn about historical trends influenced the science, etc) vs just taking a math class (Boooorrrrring, 'when am i gonna use this crap) an english class ('i don't know what to write...') a history class (what do i care about a bunch of dead guys?), etc....

it's all about CONTEXT, which i believe our schools disregard to a huge degree. our students learn how to solve
differential equations, but not how to apply them, they learn how to puncuate a sentance, but not how to come up with one that aplies to their situation, they learn about the events that led up to the american revoulution, but are not told a thing about montesque and locke...

I am in favor of reducing the size of the avarage secondary school to under 500 students, class size is less important, but the number of classes hat a student addends in a day should be reduced: one can learn a lot more in a single two-hour class than they can in two one-hour blocks, especially in math and science. i would like to see high school reduced to two years, with graduated students immediatly proceeding to either a trade school or community college setting, and after that, into the work force or university.

Schoold should be built differently, classes should be taught differently (we should focus more on teaching a student HOW to learn, rather than WHAT to learn), students progress should be evaluated diffreently, and so on... okay... appearently i got to rambling there... i'll clarify all of this in another post. please feel free to ignore this one, as it's a bit disjointed and wanders a bit.

Re: Big Issues
 

You forgot "drug war". I'd vote for Saddam Hussein if he promised to end the war on drugs.

natedogg

Re: Big Issues
 

Here is the fundamental problem with the school vouchers.

It does not help most people.

A private school in NY costs upwards of 20K a year. A few thousand dollars in school vouchers is unlikely to swing the ability of average parents to send their kids to these schools. The rich parents would get a rebate they dont really need at the expense of the public schools.

There are of course constritutional issues if tax payer money is going to non-profit churches that are running schools.

I think that the system of local govts running local schools from local tax dollars is in general a good idea.

This assumes of course if you believe that every child should have access to education -- as I do.

Re: Big Issues
 

I've seen lots of successful school that provide educational benefits for much less then 20k. My own school and many others I know of are good examples. We did better with far less then our local towns were given.

Also, with the administrative costs of places like the BOE removed you could provide much higher amount in voucher money to kids then they recieve when they go to public school.

Lastly, in this system everyone would get an equal scholarship rather then children from wealthy school districts having an unfair advantage.

School vouchers would help poor children in bad schools the most. Hence why DC area schools were the first to institute them (opposed by Dems of course they wanna keep the poor black people in DC stuck in their crappy schools so they can clean thier houses and do their laundry).

Re: Big Issues
 

[ QUOTE ]
Phys-ed should be completly eliminated

[/ QUOTE ]

Stupid idea. Phys-ed is a very valuable part of the curriculum. Have you seen how many fat kids there are these days? God, they are like soooooooooo fat. It's going to cost us lots of money in the future if we don't take care of the problem now.

Every kid should have to do 1 hour of Phys-ed, every day, in their public school. This is far more important than a class like Health, or a double lunch period.

Re: Big Issues
 

[ QUOTE ]
Have you seen how many fat kids there are these days? God, they are like soooooooooo fat.

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm... i suppose if it weren't for gym class, all the others would be fat too... next time, think before you call someone else's idea stupid. geez. (look at the RoI on phys-ed, and you'll understand my point)

Re: Big Issues
 

We don't need physical education in school. We need physical activity in school.

I don't care how you get that done.

Re: Big Issues
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the fundamental problem with the school vouchers.

It does not help most people.

A private school in NY costs upwards of 20K a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vouchers would do far more than simply provide a subsidy to rich folks who send their kids to private school.

It would create a system where *public* schools had to become competetive in order to get those vouchers. And it would also create new private schools that competed for those vouchers too without charging a penny more. There might even arise private schools that offered such a good deal they would give a rebate to parents while still giving their kids a solid education. (This goes without saying since many private schools currently operate for less $ per child than public schools.)

Current public schools are beholden to administrators and the teacher's union and the school board. These entities have lots of very important agendas, none of which include actually educating children.

With vouchers, these schools would overnight become beholden to *parents* and no one else.

School vouchers might possibly be the best single policy we could implement to help this nations' poor underclass (other than eliminating all public spending on health care [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).


natedogg

Re: Big Issues
 

Also, since I just read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/op...7tierney.html?

Re: Big Issues
 

[ QUOTE ]
We don't need physical education in school. We need physical activity in school.

I don't care how you get that done.

[/ QUOTE ]

good point. PE is the biggest waste of money in our public schools these days (well, maybe not THE biggest, but it's a big one.) and 90% of the time in a PE class, the students are sitting on their asses, learing sports that require little expertion, or walking slowly around the track, happy to get a D. it's a joke, and one that's too expensive to continue. perhaps we could have high school PE classes that are more like college sports classes- you take volleyball, for example, and really learn to PLAY it.

Re: Big Issues
 

What was the point of PE anyway. Kids would get a lot more out of having extra recess. At least then they'd play sports. If anything PE should be like a sports program that taught kids how to play lots of different sports.

Re: Big Issues
 

That's a good idea. My point wasn't that they need PE, but just that they need to be exerting themselves for an hour a day during school- Volleyball, basketball, soccer, whatever. Just something instead of sitting on their ass and drinking Cokes that they bought from the machine down the hall because the school district signed a deal with the company.

Re: Big Issues
 

If you think that federal money is destroying public schools, then school vouchers are not something you should be supporting. School vouchers would turn private schools into clones of public schools. Take a look at private universities in this country, for example. They are beholden to the federal aid money from Washington, and Washington loads them down with pages and pages of regulations- gender equality in sports, etc.

The SAME thing would happen if you tried to implement a nationwide voucher system. The federal government would tell the private schools what should be taught and what other policies to implement- and by then the school would be beholden to the federal aid and private/religious secondary and elementary schools would become like our public secondary and elementary schools. Do you really want that?

Re: Big Issues
 

It would create a system where *public* schools had to become competetive in order to get those vouchers.

So, the solution is to starve the schools. So they can be fixed up. Remember that public schools have to take all type of students and private schools can pick and choose.

Why not just eliminate public funding of schools? That would really starve the current schools and the parents (who pay property taxes) can use the money to send their kids to any school. The parents who dont and cant afford to pay tuition -- well perhaps they can send the kids to India for an education.


Current public schools are beholden to administrators and the teacher's union and the school board. These entities have lots of very important agendas, none of which include actually educating children.

Private schools are beholden to the owners of the schools, who try to maximize profits. Or are beholden to church groups, who will twist the childs mind.

There is no doubt that vouchers will help some kids. But the question remains what is the goal of public funding of the schools in terms of access to education.

Re: Big Issues
 

It would also drive up the cost of private schools. Consider that if I owned a private school and knew that half the parents in my school were getting subsidized to the tune of, say, 2000 dollars a year from the govt -- I would look at trying to raise the fees to try and squeeze a bit more profit out of these parents.

Vouchers are a dumb idea. A gross transfer of public money intended for a public purpose to private hands.

Re: Big Issues
 

I am not advocating the draft or anything, but I don't think that the draft was always bad. For vietnam or for Iraq is might seem wrong to people.. Do you believe it was wrong in ww2?

Re: Big Issues
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you think that federal money is destroying public schools, then school vouchers are not something you should be supporting. School vouchers would turn private schools into clones of public schools. Take a look at private universities in this country, for example. They are beholden to the federal aid money from Washington, and Washington loads them down with pages and pages of regulations- gender equality in sports, etc.

The SAME thing would happen if you tried to implement a nationwide voucher system. The federal government would tell the private schools what should be taught and what other policies to implement- and by then the school would be beholden to the federal aid and private/religious secondary and elementary schools would become like our public secondary and elementary schools. Do you really want that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't support having federal govt involved in any way. State governments should do no more than provide a no-string-attached voucher which provides admission to any school.

Private schools that take vouchers could easily be required to have an open admissions policy. I would have no problem with that. (But I believe the state should have *no* say whatsoever on the school's discipline and expulsion policies. This is something else that parents can vote on with their feet.)

natedogg

Re: Big Issues
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am not advocating the draft or anything, but I don't think that the draft was always bad. For vietnam or for Iraq is might seem wrong to people.. Do you believe it was wrong in ww2?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was absolutely wrong.

natedogg

Re: Big Issues
 

[ QUOTE ]
It would also drive up the cost of private schools. Consider that if I owned a private school and knew that half the parents in my school were getting subsidized to the tune of, say, 2000 dollars a year from the govt -- I would look at trying to raise the fees to try and squeeze a bit more profit out of these parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think happens with colleges? Why do you think ti costs so much to go to college in this country? It's more than tripled in cost(even when adjusting for inflation) since 1950. That's because it's like a runaway train. Washington raises the aid amounts, and the college raises the tuition. Rinse and repeat. When will we ever learn?

Re: Big Issues
 

In a market with a great deal of competition you wouldn't be able to raise tuition without providing extra value. Parents would enroll thier kid in another school the next year if tuition got out of control. How many schools are in your county? A lot. How many more would probably spring up under this system? Parents would shop around for the best best education they could get at the best price, just as we all did when we applied to college.

Right now we get taxed and the money goes to greedy government administrators and incompetent teachers that are squeezing parents and providing no value whatsoever. And parents can't do jack about it because if they don't like the way thier school is run TOUGH [censored]. They can't stop paying taxes and they can't send thier kid to another school.

Re: Big Issues
 

Yeah, I can see parents switching schools every day, month or even year to get the best deal. Tuition does not have to get out of control, just increase it at 2-3 times inflation. An extra 500 dollars every year from 200 students is 10,000 in my private school magnate pockets. Now perhaps I can get another student into each class, funded by the stupid tax payers -- ah what a country.

I also see well run private schools on every block in the town of plainfield connecticut (or other small town) offering unlimited supply and a great deal of competition.

Re: Big Issues
 

Your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of markets and capitalism. But then again that is the AMerican left these days.