What political party do you prefer?

Some sad stories for sure, but that's life. The V.A., Medicare and Medicaid works, but that does not prove that it is in any efficient or cost effective. In fact the opposite is more true. My Grandfather was hospitalized under Medicare and found that his bill, paid by Medicare was grossly inflated with services he never received. He called to speak with someone in the government Medicare office to complain, and was told by them "Don't worry about it, the government will pay the bill."

You left out one thing when claiming the U.S. under Democrat control became the most powerful and richest nation in the world, we also become the most indebted nation in the world, bankrupt in fact, and continue to go deeper in debt. You should investigate the cause of the economic collapse a little deeper if you really wish to determine its cause. You might find the Democrats quite deeply involved.

You obviously weren't around during WWII, so I'll assume you got your facts from school. As things are going now, it might not be long before the phone recording might say press 1 for English, and "watch what you say as all conversations are recorded and big brother is listening, comrade."

Just curious, but as you claimed military service, which side did you fight on?

 

I'm going to be proud to deny the voting system. but if i were to vote, it'd be libertarian. When it comes to economic crap, the only thing that matters is like getting rid of unnecessary gov agencies. Victimless laws need more attention too

 

Sounds like an interesting start, but which agencies might we deem unnecessary, and which victimless laws might we be talking about?

 

When Bill Clinton left office we had no debt. He paid the debt left by Bush I. The debt we have now is from Bush II.

You can't blame the government for people who steal from it. Medicare is pretty cost effective from what I've seen, except the stealing. The VA medical center is probably the most efficient around. They are health care, not sick care. A little prevention saves big bucks.

Clinton relaxed banking rules somewhat, but it was the Republican Congress and Baby Bush who gave them the keys to cash register.

The "spying on citizens" was Bush again, the "Patriot Act."

And, as for big government, You might want to look again. The Republicans grow government faster than the Democrats, but they don't want to pay for their growth, and their growth only benefits the wealthy.

My father drove some sort of troop transport vehicle in Germany in WWII, his older brother was a B.A.R. Man and several of my uncles also fought in that war. I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in the late 60s at 17 years of age. All of this despite the fact that our Cherokee ancestors were put into praying camps and forced to convert to Christianity, tortured and slaughtered like animals.

Liberals are proud citizens like conservatives and we are damn tired of having our patriotism questioned by these Neo-Cons in the Republican Party. The Republican Party has become the Fascist arm of the wealthy business community.

.

 

Does everyone who claims to be a Liberal agree on its definition? And to be fair I would ask the same question of Conservatives. When questioning parties, I see little difference between them.
I guess in the end, it has been, and will continue to be the same throughout human history, past, present, and future, that greed and envy will remain the separating factor proving that man is little more than any other animal species.

 

<
Man is the only animal that blushes...or needs to. Mark Twain

 

I'm talkin about things that Ron Paul are saying like how we don't even need an IRS, or just how our government is organized. well how it's...unorganized. There's just a lot of crap we can pull slack on even on a small level cuz the government and the concept of politics in general is too inflated. The change I hope for isn't about instituting legislation, it's more about changing what people think of sensible. When it comes to economic things, debates are stupid because any monetary-based economic system is gonna be complete crap.

One aspect of what needs to change is what is going on in people's heads when they're looking at the Stock Market trying to be hopeful. Or when people accept things like inflation, accept that they're going to get paid less for their work, accept tax, accept the existence of banks, accept the things in life that are just going to be easy but are actually destructive.

Victimless laws meaning prostitution, drug use, driving without a helmet, stuff like that, euthanasia, loitering laws, curfews, etc. There are multiple lists online, and they are plural for a reason. Yes it's a matter of debate and opinion on safety and all but overall I think freedom needs to be executed more properly through government (being more of an invisible force) to create solutions and not laws.

 

I put other because there was no Socialist Party or Anarchist Party listed in the poll...FWIW

I'm embarrassed by this 2 party no popular vote government. But I do what I can, if it amounts to anything, I don't know.:svengo:

 

If not monetary what kind of economic system and means of trade would you prefer? Straight up bartering?

 

Certainly not. While I consider myself to be very liberal, there are a few things on the conservative menu that I like. I carry a .38 and will be among the last to give it up. Also, my personal habits tend to be more conservative as I age. (this might just be because I'm slower than her husband now :hide: )

.

 

I prefer Christmas.

 

Technology working independently to supply resources locally instead of nations and people fending one another off.

For example, Wal-mart has automated distribution warehouses where all the orders of products are calculated, changed, and organized all by machines. The computers know in the winter, they're more likely to sell umbrellas so more supply of umbrellas are shipped to stores. They know when supplies are low too. Take that idea, minus the laborers (with some technologic touch-up), minus profit, and make it work locally. That's what I very firmly believe in.
For any readers that are highly skeptic of these ideas, please bear with me because these ideas take a lot of explanation. I've gotten plenty of people that completely refuse any of my politics talk.
This is not communism. It is the opposite. It is anarchy without money and with technology and logic.

 

But we can't produce what we want locally. Notice Wal-mart has distribution centers because of the fact it needs enough space to at first import all this said junk then export it to various parts of the country when in demand. Outside a giant, organize warehouse this isn't practical. I mean who's going to build these things? Wal-mart automated specifically because it's vast enough to afford the initial investment and saves them money in the long run. Those machines are made by a company and people that are making machines for wal-mart to make a profit. The resources for these machines were mined by people who want to make a profit. Everything comes down to profits.

Also people don't like automation since it generally means one thing - job loss.

 

Hmmm. I love fresh tomato's. They won't grow here in the winter and neither will all of the fruit I like. We don't have computer factories here either, and we only have a transmission factory, hard to drive it without the rest of the car. As I look around my house, most of this stuff cannot be obtained locally and some that can, is only seasonal.. I can't even get seeds to grow my favorite tomato's and peppers.

.

 

"What we want" is another thing that needs to be redefined. society is making a bunch of wasteful crap and that's due mainly to peoples' ignorance, along with what I said about people just taking the easy way out of things. All this waste (not trash necessarily) is collecting and it's going to collapse the market anyway.
Yeah locally everything that we already have and like to have, can't be made locally, but with a resource-based economy traveling is different because profit isn't weighing the capabilities down. Many different aspects on trucks, boats, planes, trains, and cars are really inefficient because profit feeds off of inefficiency. Those vehicles are going to keep those inefficiencies as long as profit is running things. So transporting and travelling would be more efficient and non-wasteful.

It's big because it operates nationally. That all comes down to inefficiency again. Having distribution centers owned by companies makes unnecessary transportation (because of who owns land and such and property is only necessary with the monetary system) all for the reason of profit.
Who's going to build these things? Mainly machines but humans play the role of bettering the machines.

Only IN the monetary system it comes down to profits. People shouldn't have to do anything for the sake of profit (profit being the action of climbing the ladder ontop of other people) when the standard of living increases from innovation. And innovation is not directly correlated to profits and business, it happens regardless. Isaac Newton and other intellects don't make discoveries BECAUSE of money. But the people that do invent things because of money, it's to basically deceive, for money gain. Some people say Albert Einstein invented the formula for an atomic bomb for war. That is destructive and for the purpose of war which fundamentally is business. Business is poison when it is becoming obselete.

In a resource-based economy, there'd wouldn't need to be jobs. But speaking of which, job-loss is a perpetual thing with the way we deal with the market and government. Automation happens regardless of job-loss, and when robots replace humans(because it's better for the company for getting the job done ironically) of course it's going to make job-loss. With population growing and growing each year, and politics continually trying to "solve job-loss", things'll only go in a backwards direction. What needs to be happening with the monetary system now involving job-loss, is people need to be paid more for less hours. But of course that is weighed down by profit.

 

I have been reading what you've written here. You might want to read Karl Marx and a book or 2 on the rise and fall of the Soviet Union.

What you're describing would be just great for a commune in Wyoming or a small African village, for a while. But, for a nation of 300 million, it's not an option. You might also want to find a book on why the communes of the 60s and 70s fell apart.

The problems that we have as a nation are quite complex and simplistic solutions just won't work.


.

 

I have read about Karl Marx. I'm not advocating marxism or socialism.
Those communes are significantly different than what I'm talking about.
You may have read my post but i don't think you're understanding what i'm saying.

There isn't an ism for this idea yet, but the closest is the technocratic way which had its uptime in the 30's but is still isn't what I'm getting at. Those ideas lead astray with some authority issues. I believe in basically what the Zeitgeist Movement is doing. But even at that, I've talked to those people and have some disagreements.

 

You're facing 250 years of entrenched institutions and social traditions, and utopia simply doesn't exist for more than a few people in a remote place.

I refreshed my memory on the Zeitgeist Movement and the Technocrats and still don't see much difference in either of them and a strict Socialist agenda. What you are proposing is still a collectivist ideology.

.

 

what?

You are generalizing a bit much then.
Technocratic views are big on government implication which is different than the resource based economy. plus some technocratic beliefs have a monetary system based on energy units. When someone buys something in that system, they are paying how much energy the factory uses to make the product. The energy currency is distributed equally. This once again is NOT the resource-based economy as there isn't currency nor government implication.

Socialism:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
(keywords: governmental ownership and administration. governments are basically the same as businesses because they use budget. They are just allowed complete dominance by the people. Government in any monetary system is a collective concept anyways so idk why you generalize that so pessimistically)
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
(A is true, but not B. the concept of ownership is only a factor in non-socialistic monetary systems for the sake of trade, cash and debt. Government shouldn't own everything let alone anything)
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
(tons of governmental implication once again. work being done should have it's reward through reputation. I don't agree with marxism)

The top authority in a resource-based economy is the implication of innovation through science, facts and technology.
I posted in another thread before an example to explain the fundamentals:
If you go into a butcher shop and order 2 pounds of beef and the butcher gives you a slab that doesn't look like the right weight, are you just going to argue back and forth with the butcher until someone wins? No, you'll both agree to use a scale for the sake of having a common middle ground that is fair and benefits both parties.
The same thing has been happening with politics for centuries. It's all about which people is gonna tell you what to do based on opinions, most of the time exclusive in certain benefits. It's about opinions in politics being obsolete, and that doesn't mean freedom and happiness is sacrificed at all. Quite the opposite actually.
It definitely won't all happen over night or over years and isn't something you can vote on. The whole revolution starts from the grass root people making self-sustainability away from all government and all business to the best of their ability.

 

Is it not obvious that there is no universally acceptable form of government? There are scores of different forms of government, and likely each form would find some American citizens who would be proponents.
I think a better question than asking "What political party do you prefer?" would be to ask "What form of government do you prefer?" and to put it in perspective, ask that question in relation to local government, state government, and federal government. Which of those should have the most direct impact on individuals? And how should they relate to each other?