Question

[stevenash]

If you had to choose between these two candidates for President, which would you choose:

 

Someone with little background/success in leading/managing ( particularly from a fiscal standpoint) but with whom you agree on abortion, gay marriage, and gun control.

 

Someone with considerable background in leading/managing( again with emphasis on the fiscal side) but with whom you disagree on abortion, gay marriage, and gun control.

[team first]

I choose the first one. Little background 

[LumRaiderFan]

We have to have someone that can lead and be fiscally responsible and at least attempt to downsize the Fed gov.

All social issues should be left to the states...I hold strong opinions on them but they should not be mandated from Washington.

[stevenash]

I choose the first one. Little background

Always glad to have another liberal contributing.  Many thanks

[tvc184]

I would vote on the one that I agree with. 

I think the fiscal managing is a foolish issue. I believe that the sometimes mantra of "running the government like a business" is bogus. 

[stevenash]

Not running the govt like a business has a lot to do with 18 trillion in debt that is growing exponentially.

[tvc184]

Not running the govt like a business has a lot to do with 18 trillion in debt that is growing exponentially.

Not really. 

While it sounds good, the government is not a business and cannot be run like one. It is a great catch phrase however. 

[tvc184]

I would tend to agree more if it was, "run the government like a household".

[LumRaiderFan]

Lol...let's let the thread degrade into an argument over whether the gov should be run like a household or business.

Either way, it shouldn't spend more than it takes in...and there is never a need for the Fed gov to borrow money.

 

Edited August 13, 2015 by LumRaiderFan

[stevenash]

My original point was that I feel that we elect people based soley on social issues.  I am contending that if we dont pay more attention to the fiscal side of the operation, we will not be able to deal with social issues.  Greece is my evidence.   Sound business principles, which include proper debt management, deserve more attention from my perspective, regardless of how you label. it.  I think those who live in Detroit would also concur.

[tvc184]

Spending more money that you are taking in is a conscious choice. It doesn't matter if you are the CFO of a Fortune 500 company or a person living paycheck to paycheck. You don't need some kind of track record in business to know that if you make $100 a week and spend $150 a week, then each week you will go another $50 in the hole. 

Businesses sell goods and services in order to make a profit. Governments cannot make a profit and only take money from others and provide a service. It is like me telling LumRaiderFan that I am going to mow the grass and charge what I like. What if LRF doesn't want the grass mowed? Oh well, the government has decided what is best and you will pay the bill.

That is not any business model. 

The issue of government spending is what they spend it on and how much they are going to force others to pay. 

Social issues are sometimes everything. What matter is it if you are a great business person but feel so strongly about giving welfare that you do not care about how much you go in the hole? 

[LumRaiderFan]

Bottom line is with the shape the Fed gov is in right now, it needs to be run like a business that is in bad shape.

Headhunters need to come in and cut unnecessary employees and a game plan needs to be developed to trim and eventually eliminate most programs.

So yes, I agree with stevenash...the Fed gov needs to be run like a business, not to make a profit, but to simply try to avoid a disaster.

Wishful thinking, I know.

[Hagar]

Ok bear with this old man.  Business/Household = fiscal responsible, ie. Don't spend more than you have coming in.  I think most of us agree on that. 

I just want to make sure we understand "social issues".  To me, gay marriage is a SI, as is welfare, etc.  Gun Control is an infringement of our rights as set forth by the founding fathers.  To me, not a SI.  Now abortion is where it gets fuzzy.  To me it's a moral issue (sin), but to liberals, its a "right", or SI.  So I cud vote for a candidate who is for gay M. (Yep, sin but adult choice), but not one who is pro abortion.  Can't imagine voting for a pro gun control.  

Is "social issues" as we use it, a blanket term, or does it change from one person to another?   I'm asking y'all's opinion, because before this thread/comments, it never occurred to me how different we may look at "social issues". 

[LumRaiderFan]

Ok bear with this old man.  Business/Household = fiscal responsible, ie. Don't spend more than you have coming in.  I think most of us agree on that. 

I just want to make sure we understand "social issues".  To me, gay marriage is a SI, as is welfare, etc.  Gun Control is an infringement of our rights as set forth by the founding fathers.  To me, not a SI.  Now abortion is where it gets fuzzy.  To me it's a moral issue (sin), but to liberals, its a "right", or SI.  So I cud vote for a candidate who is for gay M. (Yep, sin but adult choice), but not one who is pro abortion.  Can't imagine voting for a pro gun control.  

Is "social issues" as we use it, a blanket term, or does it change from one person to another?   I'm asking y'all's opinion, because before this thread/comments, it never occurred to me how different we may look at "social issues". 

Good post, and I agree with each point.

I also believe what would take care of so many of these problems is to simply take all these decisions away from the Fed gov and give it back to the states.

I also agree on abortion...it's not a SI or a choice.

[bullets13]

My original point was that I feel that we elect people based soley on social issues.  I am contending that if we dont pay more attention to the fiscal side of the operation, we will not be able to deal with social issues.  Greece is my evidence.   Sound business principles, which include proper debt management, deserve more attention from my perspective, regardless of how you label. it.  I think those who live in Detroit would also concur.

I agree.  Seeing as that's not going to change, it's time for conservatives to bite the bullet and take more moderate stances on social issues if they want a chance to implement their fiscal policies.  

[stevenash]

And if those fiscal policies arent implemented via an election, the markets will impose them aka Greece, which just had its third bailout in five years.  That suggests adequate steps were not taken to deal with the problem.  I am more concerned with the debt issue than I am with the semantical aspect of my post.  When you teach your child to save money, you may not be running a business but you are teaching the child to conduct their lives in a financially responsible manner ( oft called business like).  Hence my reference to business.

Edited August 14, 2015 by stevenash

[Hagar]

And if those fiscal policies arent implemented via an election, the markets will impose them aka Greece, which just had its third bailout in five years.  That suggests adequate steps were not taken to deal with the problem.  I am more concerned with the debt issue than I am with the semantical aspect of my post.  When you teach your child to save money, you may not be running a business but you are teaching the child to conduct their lives in a financially responsible manner ( oft called business like).  Hence my reference to business.

And I agree 110%.  Though many may disregard the political ads that warn how we're leaving our grandchildren a monstrous  debt to pay, it's the sad truth.  The old saying about, "time to pay the fiddler", is real, and it's coming.  As SN has pointed out, it came for Greece, and they couldn't pay   And speaking of Greece, 1:  I haven't heard of any changes that will keep it from happening again, have any of you?  And 2:  How many times will they get bailed out?   What's up with that ?  Why bail them out 3 times, without a definitive plan to fix the problem?   Conspiracy theorist have been the butt of many jokes, but I'm all in on this one.  Something's up on this deal.  Add to that the Middle East.  Just a few short years ago, if any hi ranking official got diarrhea, oil prices jumped.  Now they have idiots taking over countries full of oil, and they're giving it away.  Call me crazy, but I think all this is tied together.  I could elaborate more, but I'd lose credibility with most of you.  Fact is, I don't know for sure what's up, but I'm convinced something is.

 

[BLUEDOVE3]

I would vote on the one that I agree with. 

I think the fiscal managing is a foolish issue. I believe that the sometimes mantra of "running the government like a business" is bogus. 

"Ouch."