PeakDash

Opinion | The questions Joe Biden and Donald Trump still have to answer

Post Opinions asked readers what they wanted to see and hear in the 2024 presidential debates. This is what they’d still like to hear President Biden and Donald Trump discuss.

Securing retirement

Many in the lower 90 percent of incomes cannot retire at age 65. Social Security is insufficient. 401(k)s are a joke. There are no pensions in the private, at-will employment world. Graduate school student loans from 30 or 40 years ago are too old for any of the limited forgiveness programs designed for the under-27 crowd in 2024. I’ll be done paying off my federal graduate student loan at age 82 or something like that. (I’m too annoyed to check.)

What has either of these candidates planned so that the 65-year-old “young people” unable to retire before they die can at least borrow millions of dollars to fund new entrepreneurial ventures or take over the existing firms of the lucky trust-fund babies who were able to build their own enterprises early in life?

Will we ever be able to get started as new business people at very affordable, non-usurious business loan interest rates, or are we just doomed to an insolvent end with creditors screaming at us daily before the inevitable, ignominious passing?

Will these old guys restore no-fault bankruptcies that were ended by George W. Bush while he wasted trillions of hard-saved federal dollars on the Iraq invasion?

Is either of these 2024 politicians willing to force banks to divest from owning ordinary homes so that prices can decline again to normal “human” levels suitable for all generations of Americans?

James Wells, Miramar, Fla.

Civic engagement

Listening to the presidential debate, I was hoping for pointed discussion of:

1. The national debt.

2. The consequences of the almost 40 percent of eligible U.S. citizens who do not vote in major elections. Far fewer vote in primaries.

Both candidates were vague about the national debt, and President Biden failed to drive the point that Donald Trump’s contribution to the debt was much greater than his. As for voting, to my great disappointment, neither candidate mentioned at all that no democracy can survive when citizens do not take their responsibilities seriously, starting as early as grammar, and high schools with active voting as soon as eligible. STEM has pushed aside civics and history. Technical skills are necessary, but good citizenship training is important, too, and neglected at our peril.

William Cline, Washington

Grapple with gun violence

It is with some degree of disappointment that I noted that The Post’s June 27 Opinion roundup, “21 questions for the next president that have no easy answers,” omitted a significant issue: the continuing threat of gun violence and the compelling need for gun safety regulations.

Gun violence is consistently rated among the top issues on the minds of voters, along with the economy, immigration, crime and the threat to democracy. The surgeon general, Vivek H. Murthy, recently promulgated an advisory highlighting the magnitude of this issue. In 2022, the most recent year for which we have data, more than 48,000 Americans died from firearms violence. Gun incidents have now become the No. 1 cause of death among children and adolescents. It is an issue that crosses over every level of our society. Parents are fearful of sending their children to schools where mass shootings remain a threat. Crime in the streets of the nation’s cities is propelled by the prevalence of guns.

The proliferation of guns manufactured in our country has a bearing on immigration and the families fleeing from Central America for fear of violence from gangs and drug lords in their native countries. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimates that between 70 percent and 80 percent of the guns used to perpetrate such violence in Mexico, and half of the guns involved in such crimes elsewhere in Central America are a result of weapons smuggled into Mexico and Central America from the United States. The American gun industry is aware of the damage its automatic weapons do. Americans overwhelmingly want sensible gun safety laws.

Perhaps that issue was not included because it is well known what the candidates’ positions on gun violence are. But then again, that is true for many of the other issues covered by the piece.

Robert Leventhal, Silver Spring

A healthy vision

I am an elder single female Democrat and a liberal. I want to know which candidate has a plan to regain abortion and conceptive freedom for women, regardless of state residency. I am extremely concerned about the lack of Medicare oversight of nursing home staffing, conditions and costs. I want to see a plan for improved national health-care standards, and with special focus on rural areas.

I don’t want increased White House control of our independent judiciary or regulatory institutions. I would like to see the Environmental Protection Agency actually take control of carbon emissions or be replaced by a Cabinet-level climate crisis department. There should not be a child going hungry in this nation. School and after-school feeding programs should be in place in every town and city.

Ellen F. Toomey, Harpswell, Maine

Share this articleShare

Safeguarding the court

I want to know where the candidates stand on the “Keep 9” amendment, and their stance on court-packing in general. Court-packing could be detrimental to the institutions we have created, as it sets a malicious precedent by Congress to overrule the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Anthony Mejia, Washington

How about the VPs?

After Thursday’s rehash of Donald Trump’s misinformation and President Biden’s performance, neither of which may move the polling needle much, I am most interested in:

1. A vice-presidential debate, considering the age of both presidential candidates and the likelihood that neither may survive four years.

2. A focus on the critical role of climate change on inflation, immigration, disaster recovery spending, energy and plans to reduce global warming.

3. A definition of the “again” in MAGA. Is it when the debate over states’ rights led to the Civil War? Is the plan to Make America Great (Britain) Again, when there was a national church that discriminated against other religions, there was a king, people were disenfranchised, the rich exploited human and natural resources in America, etc.?

Mark Rains, Vienna, Maine

The search for peace

In The Post’s June 27 Opinion roundup of questions for President Biden and Donald Trump in their upcoming debates, one columnist proposed asking, “How would you end the Gaza war?” It startles me to think that anyone, much less a Post columnist, thinks that we have the power to end this war. We can advise, cajole, use diplomacy, state our beliefs and apply any other type of political pressure, but this is not our war to end. It is a horrific war and much needs to be done for the Palestinian and Israeli people, but actually ending the conflict is not in our power. A better question would be: What more would you, or could you, do to help end the war in Gaza?

Jeanne Beare, Fairfax

Hearing from RFK Jr.

While Robert F. Kennedy Jr. didn’t make the stage on June 27, he did have an event in parallel. I don’t see any coverage of his event. Do Post editors only find coverage of President Biden (too old to be running) and Donald Trump (too angry to be running) worth coverage? There is a viable candidate who should either replace Mr. Biden on the Democratic ticket or continue to run as a third option and be taken seriously by the press.

It is time for The Post to start covering him as a serious candidate so that voters can be informed. And he should be at the next debate so Americans can hear from him.

Andrew Sloane, Nashville

What debates can’t do

I am unspeakably saddened by our current emphasis on appearances, and on what historian Daniel J. Boorstin called “pseudo-events.” Those are events planned for the sake of appearances, for the sake of presentation in the media and for the purpose of being commented upon. (About 30 percent of broadcast news over the week has been speculation of what might be said. Weeks of coverage after the event will turn on what might have been or should have been said.)

God forbid that anyone might spend a few minutes in a real debate laying out a thoughtful policy position.

Boorstin’s example of the quintessential pseudo-event was the presidential “debate” in which people pop spontaneous questions to someone who must answer within two minutes without pausing to think or having the opportunity do so. The worst thing that could happen on TV is that there should be two minutes of silent airtime while a thoughtful person thinks before articulating meaningful thoughts for a few minutes.

So, no important issue is ever served in this format. Recall that past debates have been “decided” by policy-free snappy retorts: “There you go again” or “Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy.”

To take one example, an issue of current importance is the size of the national debt. On such an issue, thoughtful legislative debate leading to serious policy statements in the body holding the power of the purse is called for. Fat chance we’ll get it, though. If we relied on debates like these to select designers for the James Webb Space Telescope or CRISPR researchers, we’d be doomed.

I fear that we are tailgating in the parking lot of history, shouting slogans and wearing team regalia, while real events play out in the arena.

Charles Hamilton, Keswick, Va.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZLyxtc2ipqerX2d9c4COaW1oa2Bkr6qwxKdkraqlor1usMSbmK2dXabCpr%2FToqanq12osrHAxKaZnqpf

Chauncey Koziol

Update: 2024-07-20