1 What issues do you wish were on the 2008 election agenda.

There are many things that neither the RESP or DEMS address! Why?
Here are some things I think would help America be a better
country,

Voting Reform:
Instant Runoff elections.
Removal of "The Winner Take All" rule.
And some how make it illegal for the Electoral College voters to vote different
from the popular vote.

Alternative Fuel R&D.
Spend more money developing an Alt-fuel Transportation infrastructure.
Stop giving Oil companies Billions $ in subsidies, and use that $ to develop
a Hydrogen/electric Car industry. Or Use it to do a trade in program:
Trade your 8 cylinder for a Hybrid,electric or hydrogen car(when available).

The Deficit
Force them to be more fiscally responsible.
I would like to some how tie pay to performance for all politicians.

School vouchers/Education reform are good too.

DEBATE:

What issues do you wish were on the '08 election agenda, but aren't?

What issues do you wish were on the '08 election agenda, but aren't?

Seems to me we are ignoring the problems associated with unemployment in this country. The little band aids given, i.e., unemployment comp and the county job services stuff, amount to very little help. The max unemployment level for my county, and I don't think this is much different from others, amounts to handing out little bags of peanuts and calling it lunch.

We measure unemployment by the rate of claims made, but contract employees can't make claims when they get cut. So the numbers of unemployed at any given time are false, even with the random phone calls that try to bolster up the value of unemployment numbers. So, what if you aren't home? What if you're out pounding leather on the job hunt? You don't count.

This situation can get deadly for the unemployed. That is swept under the rug and rationalized away. bit it's a serious social and psychological problem. Take the job away and you've taken so many reasons to live away, yet it's just doing business. Yep, and what else can you say about it? That it's also murder?

Sure that's over the top. Of course employers don't owe squat to employees. Nobody is guaranteed a job.

So that means nobody is guaranteed life either. Thought that was an unalienable right, or do we just say that without thinking what it really means? Seems that way.

John Edwards tried to bring these situations forward but was tromped down for being a pretty boy no goodnik lawyer type. Yep, nobody wants to hear about those losers who can't find jobs. Why the paper is full of jobs! Just take one, right?

Heh. Anybody who's had to do serious job hunting knows how that works. It's simply this -- you have to be able to do the job in the first place, the job has to be open, and the employer must want you for the job. Any one of those three things shutting down shuts you out.

So, what's a person to do? Keep on looking and hoping something breaks free. Maybe you'll get help from someone, maybe not. Maybe you'll get unhinged and take your kids out, your spouse out, and then yourself.

That's happened around here more than once. Very depressing. It's like nobody wants to see that any longer, so don't mention it. And we don't.

It's rather a crap shoot. I've given this quite a bit of thought over the recently passed years. I've been very lucky to have support during the really bad times, like being promised a job, having a start date, and then getting a phone call from the headhunter that the job had fallen through. It just evaporated without a word.

I'd like to see this issue come forward more. However, I doubt it ever will until this country is near meltdown. That happened in the 1930s, so I guess world-wide depression will bring this issue to light.

Meanwhile, don't be too smug. This can, and often does, happen to people who seem secure today, out on the street tomorrow.

Just like that.

On the bright side, I'm finally making real money with freelance writing. There sure are a lot of crooks out there ripping off freelancers, but it's like the music business. Sometimes you just don't get paid. Sucks. Then you find some honest people who appreciate what you can do.

Funny thing is, for me it turned out to be Canadians.



Makes me wonder what is so seriously wrong with Americans. I think I know, but that takes this down a much broader and longer path. But just food for thought -- not everyone can be a rock star.

I want to know how each of the candidates for president would answer this question:

Do you agree or disagree with how George Bush has used signing statements? Would you do the same?

QUOTE(NoMoreRepsDems @ Jan 31 2008, 02:51 AM)

What issues do you wish were on the '08 election agenda, but aren't?

It's a shame that no one's really touching on same-sex marriage this go-around since it was so very highly politicized in 2,004. Hearing what a candidate has to say on the issue provides great insight into how they view civil liberties in this nation.

CNN has a handy Issues Tracker but that does not substitute hearing what the candidates have to say about the issue for themselves.

You have the Democrats who do not support Constitutional amendments to ban it, but neither will take the plunge to support it. You've got McCain who has so many provisions and dependents that it isn't really funny. Romney can't really be trusted on any issue whatsoever, so never mind him; and Huckabee... Well. Huckabee.

Amen to that. When you read over the Amendments to the Constitution, what jumps out at me is that there is no declaration of equality regardless of gender or sexual orientation, even though it is plain that discrimination exists.

It's very telling when someone is dead set against gay marriage. How does it adversely affect those people, other than to make some of them squirm, or by running counter to their religious beliefs? That is the very definition of discrimination. The only reasonable opposition I can understand is from health insurers, who don't want to expand eligibility any more than they have to.

Actually I am glad that the candidates aren't pushing a same-sex marriage debate, at least they aren't yet. Not because I either agree or disagree with the issue, but because I don't see this as a federal government issue. I am of the opinion that this is a state level issue. That is one issue that I think muddles the debates given my position on where the issue should be dealt with. I don't see how the federal government has any business on this issue.

Normally, I would agree with you. But since it was so hotly debated in the last presidential election, I don't understand why they aren't at least actively touching on the issue.

Huckabee's stance by and large is pulled from comments he made as a preacher, not as a politician. I don't think his opinion has changed much, but still.

While I very much agree that marriage should not be a federal issue, it was made one. I put it on about the same level of importance as the conflict in Iraq because each was used to divide the country in the last general election.

V, I'm a little surprised that you don't read banning gay marriage as a symptom of discrimination. If it's not a federal (Constitutional) issue at heart, what is it? A simple issue of marriage regulations?

Well, this is a different debate entirely than the question posed, but I definitely do. Which is why I would love to hear more about what these batch of candidates have to say. Just because I say the federal government shouldn't be involved with something doesn't mean I don't recognize that it oftentimes chooses to inject itself into the issue.

In a perfect world, same-sex marriage would be a simple matter of county bylaws or what have you. But since it was so polarized and so contentious in 2,004, I would love to hear what Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Romney firmly have to say about the issue since I do view it was the Civil Rights issue of our generation.

I would like to see the issue of investment into alternative fuels addressed as well.

NATO expansion should also be a topic, a well as the issue of private contractors in combat areas.

I'd like to see some direct questions asked about the situations in numerous areas of Africa. I'd be curious to see how the candidates feel about Rwandan genocide...whether we should have involved ourselves with that or not. Followed by questions about the Congo today, where the death toll in the past few years is five or six times that of Rwanda. Their responses to that set of questions would be enlightening.

I think that you have explained why it was used in the last election and why it will be in this one. It is a polarizing issue that many in this country have a strong position on and may be a deal breaker for them. I think most candidates know that there will be little if anything ever done at the federal level, but they get this fun little toy to play with to wag in front of the voters faces to invoke emotion into a race to heat up the race. This is one of those issues that creates a lot of buzz, but is not really something that is acted upon. If they did, it would not be available at re-election time. For me, it is really a non-issue. I don't give a flying fart who other people marry. I married the person I wanted to marry, so why not let everyone else? I won't be marrying another man, but that doesn't mean someone else can't. It really is stupid for our nation to put as much time, effort, and essentially money into this issue since there isn't anyone that is getting hurt by two men or two women getting married. I think the government should not take a stance on it. This would not make it legal, but it also wouldn't make it illegal. This really isn't a legal issue. This, in my opinion is a moral issue. However, with that said, making same sex marriage illegal I think makes it a civil rights issue. I don't really have a problem if the federal government makes a law allowing it; just get it done so we can focus our tax dollars on more important debates in Congress, such as the ridiculously complex and oppressive tax system, but I still think same sex marriage is best left up to the states. The only caveat that I have on making same sex marriage legal is that a church should not be forced to conduct a same sex wedding. For instance, if two women want to get married in a particular church, and the church refuses, I don't want the church being sued for not allowing the marriage. A church should be able to make these decisions based on religious beliefs without recourse. Now, if a judge refused, that is a different issue.

What issues do you wish were on the '08 election agenda, but aren't?

Obama and Ron Paul are the only candidates who could pull this off with any legitimacy but with the Iraq debacle, I would like to see some healthy debate on the Congressional War Powers Act and the unfettered latitude of an administration to send troops overseas into harms way for an undefined and often infinite period of time. Add to that debate the fact that the National Guard is being abused in this manner, when they clearly should not.

Makes me pine for the Militia Act of 1795, when the states militia's could only be called up by the Federal Government for a period of 90 days.

The War Powers Act was passed by Congress in 1973 and at the time was seen as a limitation of the powers of the Commander in Chief to commit the US military to hostile engagements. Nixon vetoed it, Congress overrode that veto. There is nothing undefined or infinite about it. From the War Powers Resolution.......




Nothing ambiguous there at all.

As far as the National Guard is concerned, that goes back to General Colin Powell's doctrine following the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was part of the "peace dividend" where he sought to transfer much of this nation's defense responsibilities from active duty military forces to the Reserve and National Guard. A number of friends of mine who were active duty at the time were "RIFed" out of the military (RIF = Reduction in Force (same as civilian sector lay-offs or "downsizing")). Didn't agree with it at the time, don't now, but it's what we have. One hopes we can learn from our mistakes.


Aquilla

Waving Goodbye to Hegemony
While I do not agree with all of the article, the more I evaluate where we stand globally and what we are really facing I wonder if we are capable of dropping the simplistic left or right mentality we are being pavlov'd into and be capable of staying ahead of a global world that is rapidly making industrial leaps.
In terms of our economy and our debt and the rate we seem to be on our way of becoming a wholly owned foreign subsidiary(citigroup) I get nervous at not just our course but our mindset .
Energy is THE most important form of power in the future and who controls what will determine who controls who. I stand by statements I have made in the past that crack whores have more pride than we do in terms of petrol. Will we get aggressive in earnest in the quest for better technology and replacements to break the increasing hold others have over us? Also what about the potential profit and power from controlling it?
China and the much maligned EU are making huge strides and do not face the geographic isolation we do in terms of making energy and resource transport possible.
The middle east? China is quickly laying claim everywhere we are disliked and even russia is silently getting in on the deal (even if russia is on its way out of existence)

Where is American influence? We seem to be more and more prone to staying home and the world's students are increasingly going elsewhere--and will not be available to us.

Is what is good for Wall Street good for Main Street?
Business IS in business to make money. The big corporations seem perfectly willing to sacrifice us for profit. Even worse they seem willing to sell us to our competitors either for profit or to bail their backsides out after really STUPID business deals.
Good business can destroy a community and seems to me to be causing huge problems for the structure of America's families. Gay marriage isn't killing the nuclear family, economic insecurity (low paying jobs and lack of decent bennies), debt are the fuel for the increasing rarity of parents active in the household as they try to keep up with higher costs and lower wealth.

Our foreign policy has the world starting to scramble to find 7 steps of independence from us and free themselves of the possibility that we ever do get pushy. We may not truly be empire builders like Rome but the world doesn't want to be us or be under our thumb either.


I would love for any so called leader in America raise some of these issues and from the beginning start out saying we may have to make big uncomfortable changes at home just to survive globalization let alone remain (a\the) world leader.

If you don't watch CNN's Ballot Bowl, it's worth the time to see their coverage of Clinton. A new segment of her stump speech discusses alternative energy resources such as solar and wind. I can't find an exact link, but she has been moving in the direction of addressing it.

Here's my laundry list:

1.)Campaign finance reform-Especially since nearly $1 million has been spent alone on the super delegates. Will we decide the nominee, or will someone who wrote a huge check decide? And yes, my "free speech" argument opponents, I do not believe that having more money should equal more free speech rights. We all should be restricted to a level playing field.

2.)Health insurance-Our current system is a sham and someone needs to do something about it. As proven in a previous thread, you cannot go out and buy private insurance and keep the shirt on yourback, it's laughable to contend that you can do so and get adequate coverage.

3.)Electoral reform & the media-Inclusion of all candidates, no excluding based on poll numbers. The set criteria should be if you make the ballot in all 50 states. What FOX News did to Ron Paul was absolutely astonishing, even if he is a moonbat.

The Democrats would call this "Universal Healthcare." Their systems all have some kind of an answer in terms of the private insurance providers and the quotas or floors, etc.

I would like to add the economy to the list. I have not heard much talk of our continued deficit spending and its effect on the economy long term. The federal budget is as much of a disaster as the Iraq War. The correction in the market is just beginning. The economy is going to have a profound effect on November elections and no one is daring to touch the issue except Ron Paul, who is not given a voice via the media.

The reason deficit spending isn't being discussed is because there are very few politicians that are willing to put their name on a position opposing it in fear of hypocrisy, and rightly so. I don't care if they are Democrat or Republican, they all have your money in their account and have no problem spending you dry.

I'm going in on education but I feel (well I know) that the whole voucher issue is a classical political red herring... more like the Chewbacca defense really...

I'd like to see something more along the lines of California education study produces nationwide to identify the problems and the resources needed to solve them.

Unless anyone actually expects Congress to fund millions of vouchers for every student in a failing school.

Ha Ha tell another one...

I'd like to see race issue discussed more openly none of this post-racial society garbage...

Basically I'd like to see reality return to the White House after eight years.

Vouchers would be a win win solution. If we gave 50% of what it takes to (not) educate a child in the public
school system and gave it to parents to sen their kids to a private school every one would win !
For every child that leaves the Public School System they will still get 50% of the money that is already
alotted for that child ! So now they can get more money for the schools, and the children going to a private
school will get a better education and will pay higher taxes to pay for the mistakes of the REPS&DEMS!

I also feel schools with competitive pressures have a higher quality of education (vouchers good).

I'm most upset that there hasn't been a real discussion on the environment. It gets neglected every election season, what a shame.

First "competition" through vouchers has been shown to have an affect on public school performance... but only by forcing states to funnel more money into the public schooling system... which they could do anyway if we just forced them to.

Second there will never be enough funding to given every child in a failing school a voucher.

Third 50% isn't nearly enough.

I have to give a nod the those who mention the deficit. The fact is we can't start slashing government revenue and then hope that the red will magically disappear.

Turnea, its the competition, not the money, that improves the quality of school education.

From the economist:

Economist
Does Competition Among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers?

I do not believe you would find a similar increase in education if the same amount of money were poured into our current schools.

What issues do you wish were on the '08 election agenda, but aren't?

1. A time line accompanied by a plan for energy independence.
a. Relatedly I would like to see a plan for fossil fuels losing their public subsidies over a specified period and the consumer made to pay full costs.

2. A plan to totally overhaul foreign policy, to wit getting out of the business of foreign ownership whether here or there.

3. Radically changing our economic policy from growth to steady state.

4. Making it a requirement for all companies that manufacture goods for sale to take full responsibility for recycling those products or restoring them to the earth in a healthy way.

5. Along with the present discussion of comprehensive medical care which is getting some play should be a discussion of what wouldn't be covered so the program would be economically viable.

6. I'd like to see the issue of self-sufficient communities brought up and along with that a discussion of appropriate technologies as opposed to the the usual fawning over the latest whiz-bang development.

7. I'd like to see a plan to integrate us into the ICC (International Crime Commission).

8. I'd like to see a plan for shutting down all our bases around the world and removing all our troops except those that are part of internationally established peace keeping operations and ending all but humanitarian aid.

That'll do for now.

Clearly not all the studies agree:

Link

Study after study link higher classroom resources to higher performance. I've had this debate many times, but I always love a chance to repeat if you want.

Oh god, not sociology versus economics.

I'm generally busy right now, but will hit you up if time allows and my interest hasn't diminished. (I have read the previous discussion: Failing Our Children

You mean we don't have enough judicial red-tape to cut through as it is as Americans? Goodness, I can't see any clear reason why we would want to delegate authority to an international body when we have our own system that's served us [fairly] straight and true with no need for international oversight for two hundred years.

I would love to see the failing American education system addressed. It is high on my list; not as high as how to appropriately address the problem of illegal immigration. Ironically, if we had an administration with the balls to put forth an aggressive solution for the problem of illegal immigration, it would inadvertently help solve the problem of California's failed public school system.


* Prop 38 (of 2000) proposed to give $4000 to each child to spend on tuition at any private school. Gov. Davis, at the time, was completely opposed to it, saying it would "erode the quality of public schools, eliminate accountability, and create chaos." Has he toured a public school in Southern California lately? It's a shame what is going on. I feel sorry for the legal citizens who cannot afford private school and have no choice but to send their children to what is nothing more than a tax-paid, glorified babysitting service, and a poor one at that.

I hear that it coasts about $10K-$12K to put a kid in CA. through school(Per yr). If CA gave people $4K for Private school, each kid that
left would free up $6K-$8K each year to be spread out for the school they left!!!

That would mean smaller classes whith more money per student! Doesn't the school system keep saying that they have too many kids and
not enough funding ? Boy looks like our politiican missed(Keep Missing) a great oppertunity to make America better!!

But foreget about that ,let's just keep voting them (REPS&DEMS) back in office!