Social Issues vs. Economics

gedio

Depends on what you deem a ‘social issue’ I mean isn’t anything that happens within a society in some way a social issue? People might flag something up and they become talked about social issues and some of these things become accepted or otherwise accommodated and loose their social issue status, they become part of society not issues within that society.

Politicians at any level can help in overcoming or try and deal with these things and they can also inflame or create such issues for their own ends. It is those politicians that direct government and what government policies are followed.

So for example a politician can promote educational programmes with public money that try to lessen bigotry directed at homosexuals or a politician can ride such bigotry and remove public funds from any such programmes.

 

At the risk of sounding repetitious, a good example is gay marriage. The CEO of a typical Wall Street investment firm is not going to see data indicating a likely impact of more than +/-0.1% on his bottom line, whichever way that issue goes, so he isn't going to call up his lobbyists and insist that they take a strong position for or against. He's much more focused on the degenerating financial crisis in Greece, and what the Iranians may do in the Gulf of Hormuz. Those things could ultimately impact his bottom line by 20% this year, or more.

I could give you a long list of social issues in America that are not on this guy's radar, and it is people like him who buy and sell political influence like commodity futures.

Also, don't forget that a lot of socio-political issues are decided on a local or state level. Dollars are less important as you go down the ladder. Unless you live in a major city, no one has millions to give. Other factors are more important at those levels.

Have you not known any intelligent people who were heavily invested in issues that lie on the social side of the political spectrum? Some of them run and/or finance political action committees, some of which are large enough to make a difference in a close election. Frequently, these are also the individuals who volunteer to do important work for the party in election years, which would cost $billions if done by paid employees capable of doing things more complicated than simple labor.

Money is everything to big business, but it is only significant in politics to the extent that it is able to buy votes.

What is the immediate, measurable dollar impact of teaching children that Creationism is equal in credibility to Evolution? This is a key social issue in many American states. Most of these kids won't be voting or spending or earning money for many years. Republicans want science treated like just another belief system, rather than something that is based on serious, formal research and evidence.

Also, I live in a state that recently passed a law requiring all women seeking abortions to pay for an ultrasound scan, and view it while hearing a doctor read a prepared, standardized text explaining why abortion is morally the wrong decision to make, in all situations. (It never went into effect, struck down by a court ruling.) This law was not financially motivated, in any direct way. Abortions have a negligible effect on this state's medical cash flow, and are offset by the cost of deliveries, and lack of medical expenses for babies that would have otherwise been born. Aborted fetuses would have become voters and taxpayers in 18 years, but I don't think any politicians or business leaders are thinking 18 years down the road. Everything is about the next election.

 

Karen

And to be repetitious the one thing on you list that I though didn’t have a direct public finance/funding aspect was marriage (I don’t care if it’s homosexual or heterosexual).
Although in many places countries try to encourage marriage by giving the married tax cuts so once again it can be an area where public finance/funding can be involved.
*

Unless he (or she) happens to be a fundamentalist Christian who hates homosexuality as a sin and is happy to give a million (or 2 or 3 or 4) to lobby groups or political parties that oppose same sex marriage.
I mean below you talk of those giving their time and money to causes they believe in well rich individuals are also people with beliefs.
The thing is that he/she can give a millions of dollars to a cause while someone else can only give ten.

I have many interests like most people and so do those in high positions, I mean are you saying that your job is everything and you think of nothing else? Of course not you are here for one thing and I’m sure you have many other interests, I certainly do.

Which ‘social issues’ and what ‘guy’? Try reading - http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?threadid=314393

The sum of dollars might be smaller and/or less obvious but they are usually there in some degree or other and those degrees add up. Also there are big wigs and bastards wherever you go from villages up to nations.

I’ve done it - I know many who have – but what is your point? I mean it works for all sides there are volunteers for every point on the political spectrum, but some have more time and money to give than others.
I mean for most people volunteering can only go so far – the reason why payment for public service is needed is because otherwise the only those that have the time and especially the money can do it. That is why one of the bedrocks of democracy is public payment for public office.

You cynic, I’ve known people who work in ‘big business’ that do the things you talk about above. People are people just because through choice or circumstance they find themselves in ‘big business’ does not mean they loose all social contact (although some do).
If you live in a monetary based system, money is going to have significance at every level, the trick is to stop those with money having an influence – that can be a local squire or a multi-billion dollar corporation.

 

Karen

To me your thinking has got it the wrong way around – Ask the question why do the people pushing for creationism believe in creationism? And where are they getting the money from to push these measures? What has financed the politicians that support the idea that science should be treated like just another belief system?

You’re asking where is the impact of the right wing conservative dollar going to lead and I’d say you are already there, the impact has already happened.

*

Again you are seeing the egg not the chicken – This isn’t the beginning of the process it is the end result of a lot of money and political clout. For many on the right, religion was seen as a bulwark against the heathen atheistic communists.

For example the CIA helped the Shah of Iran target the left wing elements (e.g. teachers) but mainly ignored the religious elements and when the inevitable revolution happened the country was taken over by the mad mullahs. Basically the same thing happened domestically but in a far less brutal manner the left wing was targeted helping the religious to thrive.

 

Obviously the people we elect over and over again suck. So vote their dumb asses out. Even the people that were supposed to be on my side on the issues frequently voted against me on issues.None of them pushed for transparency. None of them pushed for even the tiniest cuts in spending. Screw them all. There are a whole bunch of people more qualified or even less qualified but with higher standars that would better represent our interests out there.So vote all of the incumbents out and vote a new crop in. We don't need term limits by law. We need voters smart enough to know that Voting the same people into office over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity

 

Perhaps you missed the quote I was directly responding to?

To be fair both republicans and democrats push for exactly the same thing. The only reason people see a huge difference (that is trivial at best in practice) because they're still trapped into seeing the two party system. With that in mind it's difficult to call republicans conservatives at all. Neither political party pushes for or wants a smaller government. Though in fairness I do see a lot more democrats pushing for "X's taxes should be increased" or "Y should be regulated more".

In political terminology, no. Economic issues are well distinguished from social issues.

Sure, they can. But it's not their place. Social issues should be sorted out by society, not by an elite few. I'd argue the same is true of economic issues.

 

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Can you expand on that, what issues are you thinking of? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why not and how would you stop it? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again this isn’t very enlightening, in what way in your opinion should society ‘sort these things out’?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I mean let’s take something like dislike (even hatred) of homosexuality, it would seem to me that the best way to counter it would be through state education (Religious education might be opposed) in schools yes as well as the public at large and legal measures to counter discrimination. Both are ‘governmental’ and would involve some kind of financial commitment. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

Economic issues refer to things such as trade policies, market regulation, taxation, redistribution, anti-trust laws, monetary policy etc...

Social issues refer to things like abortion, assisted suicide, censorship, immigration, gun rights, drug laws, prostitution laws, gay marriage etc...

What right to people have to tell others how to live their lives? On the money of the very people they're commanding? The only way the state interferes with social issues is through an elite few dictating what will happen through threat of force or imprisonment (fascism) or through the majority dictating what will happen to everyone else through threat of force or imprisonment (democracy).

The government have no right to interfere with social issues and the majority have no right to dictate rules to the minority either. It's achieved through reducing & limiting the size of the government.

Why does it need to be handled by an inefficent central beuracracy? Groups like stonewall are not central and have done more for gay rights than any government (ok, maybe not as much as they could but that's a different matter).

Private charity and privately financed business > government run programmes (ponzi schemes). If peoplewant to hate me for being gay that's their right. If someone who owns a store or a bar doesn't want to serve me then it should be his right to do as he pleases with his property. It wouldn't be a very smart move financially with a free press though.

 

"THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH SOCIAL ISSUES"

Tell that to black people. Especially the old ones.

"REPUBLICANS WANT TO MAKE EVERYONE MORE OR LESS THE SAME".

Are you drunk? The sooner we become like Mexico,the happier repubs will be. No minimum wage,no safety net at all,no unions,useless schools,endless war,domain over women's bodies to be decided by law,continuing neglect of ghettoes forever where people have absolutely NO hope(while money --our money--and lots of it, is shipped overseas to ungratefull dictators)--on and on. Wake up dammit!

Are people capable of observing provable results?

 

Industrialization would have ended slavery anyway, government intervention wasn't entirely necassary.

Are youn capable of offering valid points?

 

Nothin' I can say to that. Carry on.

 

Same here. At the moment, I can't think of anything more boring or irrelevant than listening to British guys debate American politics. This thread has made a turn down a dead end road.

I wouldn't presume to tell them anything about UK politics. Most of it looks crazy from here, but it's none of my business.

 

Agree,but I do enjoy the loud give and take in which they engage when they're broadcast on PBS. Here they always say--"my good friend' so and so,even when they hate the bastard.

 

my nationality makes a difference? Perhaps you could neg rep me again because you disagree with my opinion?

And yes, British politics is fucked.

 

Physical location still makes a difference, in terms of exposure.

And even if it didn't, why would you want to spend as much time and energy learning about the politics of another country as your own? Unless your job requires this, a reasonable person is not going to do it. You're always going to care more and know more about where you live.

This seems like an obvious point to me.

 

It seems like a non-sequitor to me, living in america doesn't know you mean any more about american politics, that's a cheap & fallacious appeal to authority. America is one of the most powerful countries in the world, not keeping up to date with it's politics would be a fairly bad idea. Especially as an investor.

 

You can say both parties are cronyisms and that's fair.

I have fairly considered the assertion that there's no difference between the left and right wing, and reject it. I can think of thousands of issues where not only the philosophies disagree but where public policy has differed. I've never heard much of a logical argument otherwise, just an insistence, sometimes involving 'shadow rulers.

Economic and social. Realistically over a parties tenure there's a lot more influence that they can have over the economy.

People like Rick Santorum who I hope to god is the candidate just so more people google Santorum consider themselves to be defenders of a tradition.

 

Gedio

Trade and employment policy can effect immigration and jobs as does fiscal and monetary policy, market regulation can effect censorship (commercial transparency of public bodies) and taxation and redistribution can effect how a society tackles social problems such as crime.
I think too often people don’t see (or want to see) the interconnection of things.

I guess it depends on what they are doing, I suppose - we have many laws that are in place to protect people from what others might want to do to them. I mean we have laws against theft or corruption and many other things, to tell people we think that is not the way to they should live their lives and they will be punished if they do.
And another example – someone wants to live off the dole and not work – many for many reasons would say they shouldn’t and try and stop them through persuasion or force – but isn’t that telling others how to live their lives?

Why not? And as I’ve pointed out above often they can’t help doing so when things are interconnected any action can have an unknowable social issue ramification.

And a minority should not dominate a political system for their own self interest? As I’ve said many times I believe in balance that is what good governance should be the balancing of different interests in the interest of society as a whole.

Shouldn’t the goal be good governance? I mean you can have a good or bad limited government.

 

Gedio

Stonewall is a great example of what I’ve been trying to explain – it was formed as a reaction to bad government policy (especially Section 28) brought in by a right wing political party to appeal to those conservative voters that disliked homosexuality a view that was pushed and supported by much of the right wing press.

Those that opposed such bigotry were mainly on the left and Section 28 was repealed by a labour government in 2003. The labour government also brought in other measures designed to improve the position of homosexuals such as the Civil Partnership Act in 2004 and sponsored numerous groups to heighten awareness and understanding of gay issues.

Stonewall is a lobbying group like many others and got wide support but there were other lobby groups that were more anti-homosexuality and campaigned for Section 28 for example the very wealthy right winger Brian Souter who privately funded a postal ballot as part of his Keep the Clause campaign.

But what if the ‘free press’ agrees with the owner (as much of the right wing press did Section 28) along with a majority of the population? I think such hate needs to be addressed or you don’t know where it might lead.

As I said in another post they is a tendency among some to think that in a debate people should just agree to disagree in some kind of belief that all ideas have equal merit.

However to me there are some ideas that seem bad or even dangerous and should not be accepted and in my opinion it is the duty of the sensible to try and counter such ideas.

So how does someone recognise a bad idea – well if an idea doesn’t stand up well to criticism then it’s probably a bad idea.


I mean here I’d ask the person why they hate gay people, had they any rational argument?

 

Karen why are you getting so huffy (and refusing to answer questions)? I’m just trying to understand your thinking here and why wouldn’t you want to discuss your ideas?

As to why I’d want to understand things, why not? I mean are you arguing that people should only be allowed to study the place were they actually live and have direct exposure to? That would mean a lot of academic and scientific inquiry would be stumped. A virologist wouldn’t be allowed to study a virus that wasn’t native to his own country, astronomy would be impossible and so would history (the past being a foreign country as the saying goes).

I mean are you honestly saying that it’s not what someone says but there nationality that is important to you and dictate who you will talk to? I suppose it is fine to be so nationalistic but as a left winger and an internationalist I find the nationalist viewpoint rather limiting and close minded.

This is another perplexing statement are you saying that no reasonable person should have any interests or hobbies that they don’t get paid for? Are you getting paid to post here?

As an intelligent person I’m sure you could get to understand it if you put your mind to it – but you have chosen to limit your world view and that’s fine but are you dictating that everyone else should so limit themselves that Americans are only allowed to talk about American politics with Americans and that anyone else should butt out because it is none of their business? And if non-Americans do decide to give an opinion their views can be summarily dismissed (without answers) because they’re obviously useless, irrelevant and boring - not because of what they’ve said but because they don’t and can’t have the superior intellectual insight that Americans so obviously have?

Come on Karen what’s the beef?