FanOfTamago

For #3, it is a contradiction to say you support the rights of homosexuals and in the same breath that the States should be allowed to take away their inherent rights. Do you think that government at any level has the right to decide whether consenting adults can get married and raise children? Limited government logically leads to the conclusion that the government should have nothing to do with marriage at all...it is a private affair. I'd say we should just provide tax breaks to people raising children. No reason in my mind to give tax breaks or institute government regulations around marriage itself. Thoughts?

Are you aware of other countries in the world that have instituted single-payer health care and, if so, can you comment on the strengths and weaknesses of their systems? It seems to me we don't have to reinvent the wheel.

What is your understanding of topics such as: the profit margins that private health insurers make, the % of premium dollars that go towards health care vs corporate profits, the % of bankruptcies that result from individuals who do have private health insurance? The % of claims that are incorrectly rejected? The % of patients that are dropped by their insurance (fraudulently) when they get seriously ill?

In your analysis have you considered the savings that would result from collective bargaining, directly with healthcare providers, of the entire U.S. population, and eliminating the overheads and profits of the insurance companies? Also, what if we extended the frameworks we already have (Medicare / Medicaid) to the entire population?

Serious question...it seems like that policy provides an incentive to steal (turning in something nice but plausibly lost as "lost"). Is that a concern at all?

Do you include dividend, rent and other non-W2 income in your definition of "income"? It seems to me that the biggest problem with our current huge disparity in wealth is that our system of taxation is set up to hugely benefit sources of income leverage by the rich and similarly is stacked against the salary / hourly wage income of the vast majority of Americans.

If you disagree, please explain clearly why you think investment income should be treated any differently from earned income?

I am not a student of Marquette but I appreciate that you are doing this and making yourself accessible. I have to ask, in seriousness and with respect, why would a university only want dialogue where nobody is offended?

We're very proud in this country of our freedom of speech and the sentiment "I may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it". Surely the University can make it clear that speech from its students and student organizations isn't necessarily condoned by, or the view of, the school itself.