whats important to you?

[oldman420]

whats important to you?
what are the most critical issues in your real day to day life ?
for me i would say the economy is the biggest thing that effects me and second would be national security.
thanks in advance for you input:beer:

 

[nageov3t]

economy is #1... for second most important, I'd have to say social issues, lumping together issues like abortion, gay marriage, and gun regulations.

 

[kage69]

The economy getting more votes than national security, wow that depresses me...

 

[Linflas]

The economy follwed closely by taxes and national security. I have my own views on "social issues" and have 0 desire to make others conform to them. All I ask is they stop picking my pocket and regulating my life to support and conform to their social views no matter what they are.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Energy prices are going to make or break the economy for most people.
Higher costs of fuel will be passed to the consumer and further impact the national economy.
It becomes an inflation issue & compounds the problem.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: kage69
The economy getting more votes than national security, wow that depresses me...

without a healthy economy, We have no National security. The Two are dependent on each other.

Without NS you cant have a healthy economy.


Its personal opinion which is more important.

 

[dardin211]

You left out Healthcare as a option. I guess that could fall under economy though.

 

[oldman420]

added healthcare

 

[kage69]

without a healthy economy, We have no National security. The Two are dependent on each other.

No, you have it backwards. Look at NK, their doctrine of chuche has been economic suicide, yet they have a large, well equipped, well trained military with arguably some of the tightest borders in the world.
There's a hierarchy of needs for peopleto live, and a healthy economy is not at the top. It would be kinda hard to enjoy those tax breaks and cheap gas if dirty bombs were going off in multiple cities, no? Kinda hard to take advantage of college tuition assistance if the kids have already been drafted to go fight a war.
This attitude, the hallmark of my greedy, materialistic countrymen, is what shames me. Single issues voters, uncaring for the big picture, is what is killing this country. Because of this apathy, we get 'leaders' like Bush. It's so sad. Greed and the acceptance of mediocrity will be our undoing.

 

[nageov3t]

I'm a lot more likely to have to pay rent than be targeted in a terrorist attack.

 

[cmdavid]

national security...

 

[LordMagnusKain]

the war on terrorism
national security

same thing: security.

The economy getting more votes than national security, wow that depresses me

we all work, and as a secondary concern security is getting more votes.

abortion/security

 

[cmdavid]

i think you should put the war on terror and nat'l security together...

 

[maddogchen]

with a healthier economy, we will have more money to buy high-tech weapons to improve our national security.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: kage69
The economy getting more votes than national security, wow that depresses me...

without a healthy economy, We have no National security. The Two are dependent on each other.

Without NS you cant have a healthy economy.


Its personal opinion which is more important.

How does the economy directly (or indirectly) impact national security? The money will be spent on it regardless of tax revenues.

Would people choose the same things if the poll were instead 'Which issues will decide your vote in November?'

 

[Spamela]

the economy, followed by health care.

 

[kage69]

I'm a lot more likely to have to pay rent than be targeted in a terrorist attack.

Agreed, but respectfully, that's no mentality to adopt when you're at war. We've underestimated the terrorists on many occasions, changing our mindset on the nature of this war is the first step in effectively fighting it. I seem to recall Condi Rice beating one issue into the ground, that the odds of commerical airliners being used as missiles were so small no one took the threat seriously (this despite the 3 training excerises we had for that scenario in 97 I blieve it was - looks like somone thought the odds were good enough to warrant consideration).

 

[Harvey]

My first priority is getting rid of the Bush administration. Doing that will be the best thing that can happen for all my priorities in any order, including the economy, national security, the environment, health care, energy costs, women's rights and more.

 

[Ryan]

National Security
The Economy

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Harvey
My first priority is getting rid of the Bush administration. Doing that will be the best thing that can happen for all my priorities in any order, including the economy, national security, the environment, health care, energy costs, women's rights and more.

This is why I brought up whether these priorities are the same for selecting a candidate in the election. The president doesn't control the economy, energy costs, or gun ownership (past amending the Constitution). If you choose to vote for someone based on these factors, then you're misinformed.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This is why I brought up whether these priorities are the same for selecting a candidate in the election. The president doesn't control the economy, energy costs, or gun ownership (past amending the Constitution). If you choose to vote for someone based on these factors, then you're misinformed.

It you who is misinformed. Over time (say four years), the administration, headed by the President, does influence the economy, especially if they champion tax, fiscal and trade legislation, as well as through policies enacted by executive and departmental orders.

When the President's closest buddies, for example, "Kenny Boy" Lay, from Enron, and others from the big energy concerns are the only ones to meet secretly with the Vice President, who also comes from running major energy concerns, to decide the nation's future direction and policies about energy and pollution, you'd better believe they are having an immediate effect on both energy policy, itself, and the economy.

When they propose a dreadful, shameful sellout to the major drug companies, who are also major campaign contributors, and they call it medical care reform, and they specifically bar any negotiation with the drug companies for price reductions, they are having an impact on both health and economic issues.

When the President and his adminstration alienate our allies by playing shoot-em-up cowboy in an elective war in Iraq, and stretches our military resources far too thin, instead of working with our allies to finish the correct fight against the terrorists in Afghanistan and around the world, he is having a seriously negative impact on our security.

When he squanders billions of dollars, putting us three quarters of a trillion dollars in debt, depriving us of sufficient resourses for fire, police and other local responders, as well as military forces, he is a walking disaster area for both our security and our economy.

I believe you are the wannbe rebel without a clue. :roll:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This is why I brought up whether these priorities are the same for selecting a candidate in the election. The president doesn't control the economy, energy costs, or gun ownership (past amending the Constitution). If you choose to vote for someone based on these factors, then you're misinformed.

It you who is misinformed. Over time (say four years), the administration, headed by the President, does influence the economy, especially if they champion tax, fiscal and trade legislation, as well as through policies enacted by executive and departmental orders.

When the President's closest buddies, for example, "Kenny Boy" Lay, from Enron, and others from the big energy concerns are the only ones to meet secretly with the Vice President, who also comes from running major energy concerns, to decide the nation's future direction and policies about energy and pollution, you'd better believe they are having an immediate effect on both energy policy, itself, and the economy.

When they propose a dreadful, shameful sellout to the major drug companies, who are also major campaign contributors, and they call it medical care reform, and they specifically bar any negotiation with the drug companies for price reductions, they are having an impact on both health and economic issues.

When the President and his adminstration alienate our allies by playing shoot-em-up cowboy in an elective war in Iraq, and stretches our military resources far too thin, instead of working with our allies to finish the correct fight against the terrorists in Afghanistan and around the world, he is having a seriously negative impact on our security.

When he squanders billions of dollars, putting us three quarters of a trillion dollars in debt, depriving us of sufficient resourses for fire, police and other local responders, as well as military forces, he is a walking disaster area for both our security and our economy.

I believe you are the wannbe rebel without a clue. :roll:

The president can influence the economy, yes. However, what he does does not have any necessary effect on the economy. Consumer confidence is the driving force for everything that happens in our economy - the price of stocks, purchasing houses and other goods, you name it. The president has an effect only by tax policy and influencing government spending, neither of which he directly controls. Cutting taxes and increasing government spending are both said to be good for the economy, both of which Bush has accomplished. How much it has effected the economy is for historians to decide.

Energy prices are more dictated by oil prices than any other factor, including any conspiracy theories you have about Enron. Call the cost of drugs whatever you like - I doubt you'll be complaining when one of these drug company brigands comes up with a drug that saves you or a loved one.

Try taking the personal attacks out of your arguments and using more factual statements rather than just sounding bitter.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Abortion. Everything else, as strongly as I feel about it, pales in comparison to genocide.

 

[Infohawk]

I think someone may need to look up genocide.

Do you know what is important to ME? Getting the chimp out of office-- that's what's important. Can that be an option?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I think someone may need to look up genocide.

Do you know what is important to ME? Getting the chimp out of office-- that's what's important. Can that be an option?

Go back to your hole.