How do a person's political views relate to self sufficiency?

[BeccaOH]

Very interesting topic. I read the closed one entirely because I was surprised to see one on here get closed, and that topic hadn't started off this hot.

I guess I could be labeled a conservative, but I'm not happy with either of the main political parties in the US, so I just try to vote my beliefs.

I'm working toward SS a lot like Ldychef stated, but it sounds like she accomplished a lot more this year than I really did. I want to keep the government out of my business. I also want to be in a position to be able to help those in need; to also see groups like churches be of real help to pick up where governmental social programs inevitably fail. The Church got lazy when we let government (ie Social Security and Welfare) and big business (ie insurance companies) take over where we should have been helping. I see that it has only created more problems for people, trapping them in dependency.

I want to be independent and free, able to roll with the punches that weather, finances, and politics may send my way, which I think is what most all SS people on here really want however you label it.

 

[me&thegals]

Maybe that's another thing we might all agree on: Discontent with either political party. At least not completely happy with every thing they believe and do.

Here's where I wish I had paid better attention in history class. I know our "welfare" programs changed a lot after the Depression. BD has referred to huge bread and soup lines. I believe that even back in the good ol' days needs were not being completely met, and one or more presidents implemented huge social programs to prevent so many hard-working people falling through the cracks when the economy was weak.

I guess I'm wondering if "the Church" ever was able to fully meet the needs of the unfortunates, even before gov't welfare.

Can someone help me out on my American history here?

 

[patandchickens]

I think it is a giant crock of steaming future-compost-of-horse-or-cow-origin to characterize peoples' beliefs into a simple dichotomy of "D vs R" or "liberal vs conservative" or anything else like that.

I suppose there ARE people who devoutly support every item of one party's agenda and just as wholeheartedly oppose every item of the other party's... but I have not met any that I know of. And I have no idea whether I myself should count as a liberal or conservative, b/c I agree with some stuff from one side and some from the other, but frankly I don't agree with very *much* from *either*

I think it is very very incorrect (and unhelpful) to characterize one party's voters as consisting of people who want the gov't to take care of them, or to characterize the other party's voters as consisting of selfish b*stards who don't care what happens to anyone else as long as they get to grab all the marbles for themselves.

Really, at the bottom of it, both parties have fairly similar basic goals. They want a peaceful economically-secure safe America, where people are adequately fed/clothed/sheltered/etc, and where people are treated fairly and equally to the betterment of *all*.

The parties 'just' disagree about how those things should be achieved, is 'all'.

Demonizing the other side as having as many disreputable or (to you) ugly or selfish traits as you think you can make stick on 'em is not helpful.

Thus, I have a big problem whenever (and Scott, this has come up time and time again on the list, not just from your post) someone announces blithely that certain political viewpoints or ethical stands on particular issues are somehow incompatable with self-sufficiency.

It is *fun* to divide up into two sides, each the enemy of the other, and play dodgeball... but not necessarily *constructive*, especially as adults and about real issues.

Pat

 

[farmerlor]

I think it is a giant crock of steaming future-compost-of-horse-or-cow-origin to characterize peoples' beliefs into a simple dichotomy of "D vs R" or "liberal vs conservative" or anything else like that.

I suppose there ARE people who devoutly support every item of one party's agenda and just as wholeheartedly oppose every item of the other party's... but I have not met any that I know of. And I have no idea whether I myself should count as a liberal or conservative, b/c I agree with some stuff from one side and some from the other, but frankly I don't agree with very *much* from *either*

I think it is very very incorrect (and unhelpful) to characterize one party's voters as consisting of people who want the gov't to take care of them, or to characterize the other party's voters as consisting of selfish b*stards who don't care what happens to anyone else as long as they get to grab all the marbles for themselves.

Really, at the bottom of it, both parties have fairly similar basic goals. They want a peaceful economically-secure safe America, where people are adequately fed/clothed/sheltered/etc, and where people are treated fairly and equally to the betterment of *all*.

The parties 'just' disagree about how those things should be achieved, is 'all'.

Demonizing the other side as having as many disreputable or (to you) ugly or selfish traits as you think you can make stick on 'em is not helpful.

Thus, I have a big problem whenever (and Scott, this has come up time and time again on the list, not just from your post) someone announces blithely that certain political viewpoints or ethical stands on particular issues are somehow incompatable with self-sufficiency.

It is *fun* to divide up into two sides, each the enemy of the other, and play dodgeball... but not necessarily *constructive*, especially as adults and about real issues.

Pat

Excellent post!

 

[me&thegals]

Demonizing the other side as having as many disreputable or (to you) ugly or selfish traits as you think you can make stick on 'em is not helpful.

What terrifies me is that if politics proceeds as usual, some really huge, really urgent, life-threatening issues will not be resolved and it will be too late.

I don't know if it is just one of the negatives of democracy, or if these attacks are carefully constructed and timed in politics. It's probably both. But, how will any work get done if people don't even TRY to see the other side at all?

Edited for spehling and grammer

 

[noobiechickenlady]

In short, M&TG? It won't.

 

[ScottSD]

Maybe that's another thing we might all agree on: Discontent with either political party. At least not completely happy with every thing they believe and do.

Here's where I wish I had paid better attention in history class. I know our "welfare" programs changed a lot after the Depression. BD has referred to huge bread and soup lines. I believe that even back in the good ol' days needs were not being completely met, and one or more presidents implemented huge social programs to prevent so many hard-working people falling through the cracks when the economy was weak.

I guess I'm wondering if "the Church" ever was able to fully meet the needs of the unfortunates, even before gov't welfare.

Can someone help me out on my American history here?

I found out something interesting about the depression and FDR.

A study was done recently that FDR actually prolonged the depression by 7 years with his policies.

Here's a link:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

 

[QueenRed]

Demonizing the other side as having as many disreputable or (to you) ugly or selfish traits as you think you can make stick on 'em is not helpful.

What terrifies me is that if politics proceeds as usual, some really huge, really urgent, life-threatening issues will not be resolved and it will be too late.

I don't if it is just one of the negatives of democracy, or if these attacks are carefully constructed and timed in politics. It's probably both. Both, how will any work get done if people don't even TRY to see the other side at all?

We're supposed to have food riots soon. Like not, within the week or anything, but within the next few years. It was predicted by George Celente.

http://www.infowars.com/celente-predicts-revolution-food-riots-tax-rebellions-by-2012/

This man hasn't been wrong in like 20 years.

The thing we all have to realize is that one, they won't listen to us and we are on our own to make changes or at least live the way we want to. Secondly, republicans and democrats are just the same person in a different suit. Yeah they have different stances, but they all do the same things. Morality in the government is virtually non-existent.

Use to, leaders were groomed for years to be what they later became, now it's just a popularity contest with the popular kids stuffing the ballets where they can.

If you want to see a country, look to Russia. Putin to be exact. Along with his hand picked successor, they will do great things that neither party would ever hope to accomplish.

Both parties do not represent the interests of the people anymore. It only creates division so that nothing can be accomplished.

Every president makes mistakes and so do his congress, thus is the human condition. However, at the rate this and other ones have gone, and i'm not just talking about bush, we aren't going to have a country left.

If you want to look somewhere, look back to the progressives.

What I would suggest, in the coming years, stock up on supplies and guns. This isn't a Y2K or year 2012 thing, it will happen. Unfortunately that is the only future I see. Best be prepared in my opinion. If you would look for monetary holds, go for golds or silvers or anything worth anything. Don't stock up on paper money.

Anyway, I hope this interests someone. It doesn't mean the end of the world, just the beginning of a new one. If nothing else, just do what most of you normally do. Most of you would be prepared in the event something did happen, so it won't be as bad I suppose.

 

[me&thegals]

I found out something interesting about the depression and FDR.

A study was done recently that FDR actually prolonged the depression by 7 years with his policies.

Here's a link:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Two comments:

1. I never believe something just cuz 2 people says it's so. I would need to know a lot more about the whole issue to decide if it made sense or not.

2. Assuming a person believes the sources, they are talking about 2 things that purportedly extended the Depression: Falsely raised wages and collusion among industry to raise prices. I guess I'm not seeing how that relates to the other things happening under FDR (isn't that where unemployment benefits started?) and the length of the Depression. And I'm not seeing either of those 2 factors happening today.

Nice new tag line, BTW.

 

[Wifezilla]

I haven't read too much about it, but my understanding is that the Communists were tremendously efficient.

Uhhhh...no.

http://www.historyexplained.com/page09.php