Social Issues vs. Economics

Originally Posted by Karen_J

What is the financial interest in the gay marriage debate? I haven't heard of any studies that show a link between gay marriage and anyone making or spending any more or less money, except for the trivial costs of weddings. Married or not, these couples can already live together and share expenses.

Yeah but gay marriage is a wedge issue. Its a state issue. It doesn't matter if national politicians agree with gay marriage or not; it doesn't prevent states from allowing it. Thats also the beauty of states' rights; if you don't like the laws in one state you have the option to move.

As far as supporting local politicians in issues like gay marriage, NO politicians in my state support gay marriage lol. I don't generally vote in local elections at all. I don't enjoy voting for someone just because they're the lesser of two evils. If I don't agree with someone socially AND financially (which is generally the case in local politics) then I would rather not vote.

Another example; I live in a state that has lots of alcohol restrictions on Sundays. If those were lifted, some businesses would make more profit, and none would make less. Money is not controlling that issue.

same here, and I happily went to the polls a couple of years ago to vote on a provision that allows Sunday alcohol sales in my town. It passed.

This takes us back full-circle to the OP. The politicians don't work for the economic best interests of the voters, but many of those voters have other priorities. If you are a hard-core supporter of one specific issue other than money, you may think your Senator is doing a fantastic job for you, if he always votes the way you want him to on that one issue, or a narrow range of issues.

I think that people are too willing to settle with politicians. Like I mentioned above, most people vote for the lesser of two evils when we should be standing up and demanding representation from someone who will take our best interest to heart.

How many of your friends and relatives would say that making and hanging onto more money is their biggest problem and number one priority in life? Surely it can't be 100% of them.

of course not but i dont understand the relevance of the question.

If a politician squanders money but they do a lot to support the gay community, that doesn't mean they're worth my vote. It means they're trying to get the gay vote so they can get voted into office and waste more money and fuck over people in other areas of life.

How a politician spends or takes money IS important. For one thing, it serves as a moral compass for voters. If a politician takes a lot of lobby money from corporations then ultimately they will serve the corporations. It doesn't really matter to me what they SAY their stance is regarding social issues, the fact of the matter is they're taking a lot of money from corporations and will therefore act in ways that I don't regard as morally respectable both monetarily and socially.

Originally Posted by Meliai

If a politician squanders money but they do a lot to support the gay community, that doesn't mean they're worth my vote. It means they're trying to get the gay vote so they can get voted into office and waste more money and fuck over people in other areas of life.

But on election day, your only other choice may be someone who is going to squander money and support putting gay people in prison. I'll take no more than two seconds deciding which one to vote for.

Originally Posted by Karen_J

I have read many threads in this forum about left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican, conservative vs. liberal, in which people point out the similarities in the way all politicians deal with big business and monetary issues. I get it. I understand. No matter which of the two major parties wins the next US election, or which faction within that party has control, the big banks and multinational corporations are going to be well taken care of by Uncle Sam, and the ordinary guy is going to get thoroughly fucked again. It's a done deal. Case closed.

Unless Ron Paul wins. I hate to be that guy but it's true.

But what about social issues? Government doesn't just deal with economic things. It decides who you can marry, what you can eat and drink, how clean your water and air are going to be, what you can build on your own property, what you can do in your car, what rules your church has to operate under, what your kids are taught in public school, and all kinds of things pertaining to your relationship with your doctor, which may determine if you live or die this year, or have a baby that you don't want. Some of these social issues can have significant financial consequences for big business but most don't, so the big financial players don't give a shit about them.

The federal government have no place mandating or regulating social issues. again, RP.

I have never heard anyone say that the two main American political parties are the least bit alike when it comes to social policy.

Not in policy but they tend to be in practice. That's why so little things ever change,, people have a choice between two parties where the only real difference is that one is a bit more Christian than the other.

If the party that wins the next election is going to kiss the ass of Big Money no matter what, then isn't it true that social policy is the only thing where the voters still have a voice that matters? If so, then why aren't we talking about it more?

In my eyes the only accceptable social policy is to not have one.

Originally Posted by tuesdaystar

alls I really have to say is it confuses my brains out when people that are very liberal are also "fiscally conservative"

It's like - my nature is good and just but my social tool loves money and therefore supports some convoluted theory that crackeads should be banned from making welfare babies and corporations should be profitable at all costs

Knuckleheads

It confuses my brains out When people lump together corporations and actual capitalism.

Originally Posted by Gedio

It confuses my brains out When people lump together corporations and actual capitalism.

Mine, too. Corporatism and capitalism are two different things.

Originally Posted by Gedio

It confuses my brains out When people lump together corporations and actual capitalism.

I think people lump them together because that's what's going on in the world

We could talk about capitalism like we talk about socialism... like a *theory* that we are all just exchanging on the market

That should be reserved for :Economics in the Classroom: or the discussion thereof because it's quite DRY

In the real world corporate power is polluting all of humanity with consumerism and industrial waste

It's more relevant than Free Market Trade

Originally Posted by tuesdaystar

I think people lump them together because that's what's going on in the world

We could talk about capitalism like we talk about socialism... like a *theory* that we are all just exchanging on the market

That should be reserved for :Economics in the Classroom: or the discussion thereof because it's quite DRY

In the real world corporate power is polluting all of humanity with consumerism and industrial waste

It's more relevant than Free Market Trade

It's true that corporate power is running wild due to a corrupt system of mind boggling tax laws and fucked up lobbyist-led regulation. To me the state of the world is the best argument for decentralization. Not everyone's view though.

Karen

I’d recommend a book published in the UK as

What's The Matter With America?: The Resistible Rise of the American Right

What's The Matter With America?: The Resistible Rise of the American Right

(but was published in the US as What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America) by Thomas Frank

It basically shows how many Americans were taught to vote against their own economic interests (and for those of the few), by being sidelined into social issues. As I believe Karl Rove once told campaigners to concentrate on – ‘god, guns and gays’, the idea being that if people were shouting about those things people wouldn’t notice that were benefits and jobs were disappearing and their wages were stagnating or falling.

Thing is of the list you gave in the OP I could only find one (marriage laws) that wouldn’t be of interest to businesses and where it wouldn’t mind having deregulation or privatisation.

Deregulation
Health and safety laws
Environmental laws
Property zoning
Charity (many charities are like big businesses*)

Privatisation
Education
Healthcare

* Enterprising? Ambitious? Looking for a well-paid career? The young might well consider working for a charity, perhaps even starting one if a determined 'social entrepreneur'.What we once thought of as an area for devotion and sacrifice has become very much big business these days. The average highest salary in the top 500 charities is apparently £83,000 a year!Fifty-six of these chief executives earn over £100,000 a year, according to the admirable think-tank Civitas in its new booklet Who Cares? It is not too difficult to display devotion to good causes with rewards like that available. The Daily Mail 9/2/07
*

Originally Posted by Balbus

I’d recommend a book published in the UK as What's The Matter With America?: The Resistible Rise of the American Right ...

It basically shows how many Americans were taught to vote against their own economic interests (and for those of the few), by being sidelined into social issues.

This book explains how people were duped into voting Republican to support conservative social issues. Social liberals who vote primarily on social issues generally do not vote against their own economic interests, unless they happen to be extremely wealthy.

I am a Democrat who believes deeply in the importance of social issues, just like many American hippies of the 1960's and early '70's. I wasn't old enough to vote at the time, but I was greatly influenced by their thinking.

I agree that every political issue has some economic impact, but in many cases, it is extremely limited. Tax policies, banking regulations, and import/export policies have far more financial impact than everything else put together. Other political issues are not going to be decided on a financial basis, because the money wars are going to be won or lost on other battlefields.

Money can and does buy votes, but there are other ways to buy votes, and at the end of the day, votes are the only things that matter to any politician. Otherwise, Warren Buffet would be President now, to be followed by Mark Zuckerberg in November, and preceded by Bill Gates eight years ago.

Originally Posted by Gedio

It's true that corporate power is running wild due to a corrupt system of mind boggling tax laws and fucked up lobbyist-led regulation.

Off topic.

Originally Posted by Gedio

The federal government has no place mandating or regulating social issues.

This is essentially the position of social liberals in the USA. Republicans want to make everyone more or less the same, in every way. Democrats (and Libertarians) push for less government intervention in private life, especially with regard to sex and reproduction and recreational drugs (incuding alcohol).

I think you and I are in agreement on this, but I'm not sure.

I wish the US was more like Europe in this regard.

karen

I agree that every political issue has some economic impact, but in many cases, it is extremely limited.

Sorry I’m not sure of your thinking here - in what way would the impact be “extremely limited”?

I mean if the money isn’t there it’s unlikely to get done. I mean you talk of state education and healthcare, the funding and how it is allotted would have a great impact on its delivery, same with many of the other things you mention in the OP.

Tax policies, banking regulations, and import/export policies have far more financial impact than everything else put together.

Not to the person on welfare because they can’t find a job or trying to find a good school for their kids or medicine because they’re unwell.

Other political issues are not going to be decided on a financial basis, because the money wars are going to be won or lost on other battlefields.

Sorry are you saying that education, healthcare, environment polices etc are not influenced by financial considerations?