Anyone here so disillusioned with politics that they identify as Independent lately?

[gimmethesimplelife]

Just curious.....Is anyone here so disillusioned with politics that they identify as Independent these days? I'm curious if anyone from either side of the aisle is now considering themselves Independent? I feel I may be moving that way. There have been issues in the Obama administration that I'm not too pleased about and I have seen what I consider compassion from a few Republicans - such as Jan Brewer of Arizona and John Kasich of Ohio opting to expand Medicaid.

I'm becoming of the mind that politics is nowhere as simple as I once believed. In other words, for me personally, Democrat no longer automatically equals good and Republican no longer automatically equals bad. It seems to me that a middle ground, if such a thing is possible, is identifying as Independent. Anyone else feeling the same way? Rob

[bae]

http://agilitrix.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/redblue_pill.jpg

[iris lilies]

Just curious.....Is anyone here so disillusioned with politics that they identify as Independent these days? I'm curious if anyone from either side of the aisle is now considering themselves Independent? I feel I may be moving that way. There have been issues in the Obama administration that I'm not too pleased about and I have seen what I consider compassion from a few Republicans - such as Jan Brewer of Arizona and John Kasich of Ohio opting to expand Medicaid.

I'm becoming of the mind that politics is nowhere as simple as I once believed. In other words, for me personally, Democrat no longer automatically equals good and Republican no longer automatically equals bad. It seems to me that a middle ground, if such a thing is possible, is identifying as Independent. Anyone else feeling the same way? Rob

Libertarian. The correct side of both parties. You won't like it, though.

[Miss Cellane]

Just curious.....Is anyone here so disillusioned with politics that they identify as Independent these days?


These days? Try the last 30 years.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Libertarian. The correct side of both parties. You won't like it, though.Actually you are not 100% on this one IL. There are some aspects of the Libertarian Party I do like - they are against the Asinine war on drugs and are against the government prying into who's sleeping with who. I think (?) feel free to correct me if I am wrong - they would be against the NSA too.....where they lose me is their stance on social welfare spending and if this is what you meant, you are right, I don't like that stance so much. But like I said, I am also not 100% against, just like I am also not 100% against Republicans. When I say that I agree with the Republicans that this kind of government spending is unsustainable, I mean it, I do agree with them on this. Rob

[try2bfrugal]

Just curious.....Is anyone here so disillusioned with politics that they identify as Independent these days? I'm curious if anyone from either side of the aisle is now considering themselves Independent? I feel I may be moving that way. There have been issues in the Obama administration that I'm not too pleased about and I have seen what I consider compassion from a few Republicans - such as Jan Brewer of Arizona and John Kasich of Ohio opting to expand Medicaid.

I'm becoming of the mind that politics is nowhere as simple as I once believed. In other words, for me personally, Democrat no longer automatically equals good and Republican no longer automatically equals bad. It seems to me that a middle ground, if such a thing is possible, is identifying as Independent. Anyone else feeling the same way? Rob

I'd like to see a wider variety of parties with electable candidates in the U.S.

You may have seen this video already, but it was new to me and it is by some Libertarian judge complaining pretty accurately about what is wrong with the current two party system. I am not a Libertarian, but on critiquing our two party system this guy pretty much nails it.

It is going around the Internet as how to get fired (from Fox News) in five minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIX5_mFVXZ
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIX5_mFVXZM)

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well I'm not registered with a party fwiw, I think I was for a few years decades ago? Though it makes sense strategically to be registered with a party, if your strategy is try to fix things by primarying (though with open primaries even that doesn't apply). But it's not free, you'll psychologically identify with what are ultimately power blocks with increasingly few principles.

Disillusioned? Understanding current U.S. politics is a sucessive process of literal disillusionment, letting go of more and more illusions, for anyone that can identify with that :).

[try2bfrugal]

Actually you are not 100% on this one IL. There are some aspects of the Libertarian Party I do like - they are against the Asinine war on drugs and are against the government prying into who's sleeping with who. I think (?) feel free to correct me if I am wrong - they would be against the NSA too.....where they lose me is their stance on social welfare spending and if this is what you meant, you are right, I don't like that stance so much.

+1. It is time to declare war on the war on drugs. The U.S. has 5% of the world population but 25% of the world's prison population. It is ironic when the U.S. politicians talk about human rights abuses in China. Just look at the prison populations to see which country is guilty of mass incarceration of the population and which country is not.

[reader99]

Just curious.....Is anyone here so disillusioned with politics that they identify as Independent these days? I'm curious if anyone from either side of the aisle is now considering themselves Independent? I feel I may be moving that way. There have been issues in the Obama administration that I'm not too pleased about and I have seen what I consider compassion from a few Republicans - such as Jan Brewer of Arizona and John Kasich of Ohio opting to expand Medicaid.

I'm becoming of the mind that politics is nowhere as simple as I once believed. In other words, for me personally, Democrat no longer automatically equals good and Republican no longer automatically equals bad. It seems to me that a middle ground, if such a thing is possible, is identifying as Independent. Anyone else feeling the same way? Rob

No longer finding politics simple is a sign of having become mentally adult. It never was simple, we just have to reach a certain level of maturity to realize it.

[Spartana]

Libertarian. The correct side of both parties. You won't like it, though. "Get your hands off of me you damn dirty apes" :-)!

http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1358&d=1389754231


I am an Independent who voted democrat in the last 2 elections. Was a McCain girl though until he got Sarah Palin (shutter....). Never been happy with either side's party issues and would rather be able to vote "the issues" rather than for the party. Have both strong "conservative" leanings and strong "liberal" leanings. Although I don't call either by that name - just plain old leanings.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Guess who is disillusioned:
http://rt.com/usa/carter-comment-nsa-snowden-261/

(yea an old quote but)

[Alan]

Just curious.....Is anyone here so disillusioned with politics that they identify as Independent these days?
That is the current trend. I recently saw a Gallup poll (can't remember where) which indicated that 41% of Americans identify as Independent, leading Republicans and Democrats by 8 to 10%.

I personally identify as a libertarian (small l) who aligns with the Republican party, which seems to me to be closer to a classic liberal than the "progressive" variety who've usurped the name. I couldn't in good faith declare as an independent as, to me, that would indicate a lack of conviction other than a rejection of prevailing political philosophies.

[gimmethesimplelife]

"Keep your hands off of me you damn dirty apes" :-)!

http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1358&d=1389754231


I am an Independent who voted democrat in the last 2 elections. Was a McCain girl though until he got Sarah Palin (shutter....). Never been happy with either side's party issues and would rather be able to vote "the issues" rather than for the party. Have booth strong conservative leanings and strong democrat leanings.I always believed that McCain chose Sarah Palin as his VP as she is very attractive on the surface - very photogenic - this is coming from a gay man, too, I can see her attractiveness - until she opens her mouth and then the problem is that some of what tumbles out is not especially wise for whatever situation she finds herself in. I still remember the SNL version of her embarrassing interview with Katie Couric - part of it was taken verbatim from her real interview with Katie Couric. And I'm sure Tina Fey enjoyed the career boost from imitating her. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Guess who is disillusioned:
http://rt.com/usa/carter-comment-nsa-snowden-261/

(yea an old quote but)Gotta say I didn't like Carter as a President BUT since he and has wife has left office, they have done good works and I so respect Carter for speaking out against the Obama Administration even though they are both Democrats. I truly take my hat off for Jimmy Carter. Rob

[RosieTR]

I've been independent for quite some time, and yes frustrated with the 2-party system. I don't think the extremes of either party work, nor the straight libertarian thought other than seriously changing the drug war. Some libertarians are still against abortion which I find mystifying, since to me that's almost the ultimate in a person's freedom from government intervention. Anyway, there are plusses and minuses about other systems such as parliament, so if anyone outside the US cares to comment that might be helpful to the discussion!

[Spartana]

This is a side bar but... Some of you mentioned the war on drugs - exactly what do you mean? Changing prohibition against certain drugs (or all drugs) and making them legal (or at least not felonies)? Changing laws and reducing incarceration for various drug-related crimes? Allowing legal drug trafficking, and/or manufacturing and distribution into the US and controlling it like any other product (and taxing it of course)? Reducing enforcement activities that are Drug related? All of the above? I am never sure about what people mean when they talk about ending "The War On Drugs".

[iris lilies]

... Some libertarians are still against abortion which I find mystifying, since to me that's almost the ultimate in a person's freedom from government intervention. !

Those libertarians obviously view the "person's freedom" as important to be protected from death by abortion. I am not one of those libertarians but I don't find that position mystifying. One of the few legitimate roles of government is to administer a legal system that protects persons from physical harm.

[iris lilies]

This is a side bar but... Some of you mentioned the war on drugs - exactly what do you mean? Changing prohibition against certain drugs (or all drugs) and making them legal (or at least not felonies)? Changing laws and reducing incarceration for various drug-related crimes? Allowing legal drug trafficking, and/or manufacturing and distribution into the US and controlling it like any other product (and taxing it of course)? Reducing enforcement activities that are Drug related? All of the above? I am never sure about what people mean when they talk about ending "The War On Drugs".
Certainly legalizing the production, distribution, and possession of marijiuana. The rest of it is up for debate. Personally I wouldn't care if it all becomes legal, but conversely, there would be no tax dollars going for durg rehab and etc.

[gimmethesimplelife]

This is a side bar but... Some of you mentioned the war on drugs - exactly what do you mean? Changing prohibition against certain drugs (or all drugs) and making then legal (or at least not felonies)? Changing laws and reducing incarceration for various drug-related crimes? Allowing legal drug trafficking, and/or manufacturing and distribution into the US (and taxing it of course)? All of the above? I am never sure about what people mean when they talk about ending "The War On Drugs".Good question, Spartana!

For me the war on drugs is the unreality of refusing to admit this problem is going to go away. In a society that values money and success so much but yet offshores many opportunities to achieve such, there are going to be winners and losers. Because of this there will always be drugs. In my mind we need to accept this and make penalties less life ruining, i.e., get caught with marijuana and be unemployable for life due to background checks. I don't even like marijuana but to me this is insane. It gives me hope to see Colorado taking what I consider a much saner stance on this issue and I will be interested to see how this works for Colorado.

We need to reduce penalties for drug related crimes in which there is no victim - if there is a victim, someone hurt due to crimes committed while the perp was under the influence of drugs, well that to me is different. But getting a felony conviction because you are caught with a Xanax in Little Rock outside of it's prescription bottle? Seriously, that is police state to me right there. Anyone in that situation, provided the Xanax originated from their prescription bottle and was therefore legit - should be offered the right to leave the US with the US paying for such an individual to start over elsewhere. And I'd imagine such a person would be open to such a move after this experience......But I digress. Lower penalties for being caught with lesser drugs on the chain. This would be a good start, anyway. And all states doing what Colorado is trying depending on the results Colorado achieves - with all states taxing recreational marijuana pretty high - no pun intended there. That's a start but by no means all inclusive answer. Rob

PS I should make it clear there that the laws in Arkansas are that extreme and insane.....not a state I'll be heading a moving van to anytime that I can see.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Certainly legalizing the production, distribution, and possession of marijiuana. The rest of it is up for debate. Personally I wouldn't care if it all becomes legal, but conversely, there would be no tax dollars going for durg rehab and etc.See, sometimes we do agree! I could not agree with your first sentence more, IL.....Rob

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well the problem with the war on drugs is:

1) it locks up way too many people and ruins way too many lives
2) plus it's racist (look at who is disproportionately locked up) Also classists but especially racist.
3) And it destroys other countries like Mexico and provides a pretext and cover for U.S. intervention such as in Columbia (which is really a pretext for empire)
4) and it's a pretext for a police state and police militarization (somewhat now usurped by the "war on terror")

Plus of course the big criminals are never prosecuted, HSBC laundering Mexican and Columbia drug cartel money - slap on the wrist. So it's all rather dishonest.

So that's what I'd look at, looking at the war on drugs in that context of the overall harm done by it, to the people in this country, to the rest of the world. But minor drugs, yes well I've seen violence on Xanax that I've never seen on Oxys or even heroine. Women getting beat up, bruises, I feared for myself too. People who would never become "violent drunks" on alcohol, but some of those downers are incredibly ugly at least on certain brain chemistries it seems. Sure they probably took a lot (and not prescribed bought from a drug dealer for whom they did happen to be prescribed :\). As for drug treatment well the government does now pay, if it pays for health insurance, which now seems to pay for drug treatment. It's not my cause, but I wonder if people are actually aware of what drug treatment costs. Over 10k minimum - often like 15k-20k, sure the fancy luxury places will run a lot more, but I'm talking what more ordinary places cost.

[try2bfrugal]

This is a side bar but... Some of you mentioned the war on drugs - exactly what do you mean? Changing prohibition against certain drugs (or all drugs) and making them legal (or at least not felonies)? Changing laws and reducing incarceration for various drug-related crimes? Allowing legal drug trafficking, and/or manufacturing and distribution into the US and controlling it like any other product (and taxing it of course)? Reducing enforcement activities that are Drug related? All of the above? I am never sure about what people mean when they talk about ending "The War On Drugs".

I would say pretty much all of the above.

I would agree with those who feel the war on drugs is a revised form of Jim Crow laws, from the book The New Jim Crow -

"In the book Alexander deals primarily with the issue of the current mass levels of incarceration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States) in the United States (with 5% of the world's population, the U.S. incarcerates 25% of the world's prisoners)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow#cite_note-8) and what she perceives as societal repression of African-American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American) men and, to a lesser degree, Latino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans) men.....Alexander claims the U.S. criminal justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice) system uses the “War on Drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs)” as a primary tool for enforcing traditional, as well as new, modes of discrimination and repression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow

Think about it - 5% of the world's population, yet 25% of the prison population, and that includes third world countries. We have close to 7 times the number of people in prison per capita as Canada. That is $60 billion dollars a year not being spent on more future oriented investments like health insurance for all, rehab programs, schools and job training.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I would say pretty much all of the above.

The war on drugs is a revised form of Jim Crow laws, from The New Jim Crow -

"In the book Alexander deals primarily with the issue of the current mass levels of incarceration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States) in the United States (with 5% of the world's population, the U.S. incarcerates 25% of the world's prisoners)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow#cite_note-8) and what she perceives as societal repression of African-American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American) men and, to a lesser degree, Latino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans) men.....Alexander claims the U.S. criminal justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice) system uses the “War on Drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs)” as a primary tool for enforcing traditional, as well as new, modes of discrimination and repression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow

Think about it - 5% of the world's population, yet 25% of the prison population, and that includes third world countries. We have close to 7 times the number of people in prison per capita as Canada. That is $60 billion dollars a year not being spent on more future oriented investments like health insurance for all, rehab programs, schools and job training.And yet we tout ourselves as a model for the rest of the world to follow.....Rob

[try2bfrugal]

And yet we tout ourselves as a model for the rest of the world to follow.....Rob

We have been brainwashed to believe that. But I am waking up to the basic facts - 5% of the population, 25% of the prison population. No universal care like almost all other developed countries, and medical costs that aren't just double but many times over what other countries pay.

So who is profiting from extreme inequities that exist in the U.S. compared to other countries? Why are we spending $60 billion dollars on prisons to lock people up for years and ruin their lives over minor drug possession charges? Why does Lipitor cost $6 in New Zealand and $145 in the U.S.? No wonder we are losing the middle class and the wealth gap is growing.

It is actually harder to move up economically in the U.S. days than most other advanced countries, yet most people believe that we have a high degree of social mobility. The reality is that research shows we have the close to the least degree of social mobility of advanced countries. (http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/news/economy/america-economic-mobility/)

[ApatheticNoMore]

That is $60 billion dollars a year not being spent on more future oriented investments like health insurance for all, rehab programs, schools and job training.

of course if all those people were released there wouldn't be jobs for them (it masks the real unemployment rate to some degree probably - other than the few prisoners who are involved in prison labor), but that's no reason to lock people up.

[gimmethesimplelife]

We have been brainwashed to believe that. But I am waking up to the basic facts - 5% of the population, 25% of the prison population. No universal care like almost all other developed countries, and medical costs that aren't just double but many times over what other countries pay.

So who is profiting from extreme inequities that exist in the U.S. compared to other countries? Why are we spending $60 billion dollars on prisons to lock people up for years and ruin their lives over minor drug possession charges? Why does Lipitor cost $6 in New Zealand and $145 in the U.S.? No wonder we are losing the middle class and the wealth gap is growing.

It is actually harder to move up economically in the U.S. days than most other advanced countries, yet most people believe that we have a high degree of social mobility. The reality is that research shows we have the close to the least degree of social mobility of advanced countries. (http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/news/economy/america-economic-mobility/)Everything you say is true....and more Americans, ones waking up to the facts, are leaving if they can before things get worse. Bravo to you for waking up! Rob

[try2bfrugal]

it masks the real unemployment rate to some degree probably

That is a good point. You are right. With normal incarceration rates our true unemployment rates would be much higher.

[try2bfrugal]

Everything you say is true....and more Americans, ones waking up to the facts, are leaving if they can before things get worse. Bravo to you for waking up! Rob

After our $50K medical expense year I do not think we can afford to retire in the U.S. Why stay here and risk going bankrupt over medical bills like so many other people do. Fidelity says even with Medicare retirees will need $240K for medical costs (http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-12-2012/health-care-costs.html) and that doesn't include long term care. I would rather spend that money on a condo and live some place with either relatively cheap medical care like Mexico or some country with universal care.

[gimmethesimplelife]

After our $50K medical expense year I do not think we can afford to retire in the U.S. Why stay here and risk going bankrupt over medical bills like so many other people do. Fidelity says even with Medicare retirees will need $240K for medical costs (http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-12-2012/health-care-costs.html) and that doesn't include long term care. I would rather spend that money on a condo and live some place with either relatively cheap medical care like Mexico or some country with universal care.My sentiments exactly. As I've often posted, I believe that remaining in America is not the most economically viable option over the long term. And I couldn't agree with you more about living somewhere with much lower medical costs. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one here who feels this way. Rob

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well I doubt I'm special enough to get into rich countries with universal care anyway. But a cheap country sure it's doable, but I actually LIVE here. I think retirement is an incredibly iffy prospect in general, sure in the U.S. and not just due to medical care. What happens if say the stock market crashes? Bye, bye, most people's 401ks. But then again I've no particular conviction that the the stock market should be propped up. And the world may not last that long anyway. With climate change and so on is my retirement in 20 or 30 or whatever years really the most pressing political issue for me? I'll breath a sigh of relief if reasonable human life is still doable then.

And much of the whole world is on the same path anyway (just the U.S. is further along). Sometimes I listen to what they say on the web, Australia is basically having campaigns run much like the U.S. now by marketing companies. A whole campaign season went by there where the word "climate change" was the ultimate taboo (sound familiar?). Jobs are becoming more scarce where once there was a culture that celebrated walkabouts, scarcity of job scares them into compliance. Things like the TPP intend to impose more intellectual property enforcements on things like pharma and medical procedures themselves (this won't do anything good for medical costs anywhere - in fact it might be a threat to most countries socialized medicine).

[Spartana]

I would say pretty much all of the above.

I would agree with those who feel the war on drugs is a revised form of Jim Crow laws, from the book The New Jim Crow -

"In the book Alexander deals primarily with the issue of the current mass levels of incarceration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States) in the United States (with 5% of the world's population, the U.S. incarcerates 25% of the world's prisoners)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow#cite_note-8) and what she perceives as societal repression of African-American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American) men and, to a lesser degree, Latino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans) men.....Alexander claims the U.S. criminal justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice) system uses the “War on Drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs)” as a primary tool for enforcing traditional, as well as new, modes of discrimination and repression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow

Think about it - 5% of the world's population, yet 25% of the prison population, and that includes third world countries. We have close to 7 times the number of people in prison per capita as Canada. That is $60 billion dollars a year not being spent on more future oriented investments like health insurance for all, rehab programs, schools and job training.

While she deals with the inequities of the criminal justice and penal systems (as well as the social and economic discriminations that lead to more drug use/ drug crime in some African American and Latino males) how does she deal with the other issues such as international drug trafficking (and related crimes - often violent), substance abuse and addiction, illegal buying/distribution of legally manufactured and distributed drugs (think about all the Oxycontin, Vicadin, etc... being sold illegally out there), and of course which drugs could be legally manufactured and sold here (and the potential ramifications and health issues of drug use) - like LSD, Meth, etc.. And which drugs can be bought internationally- say heroin from Afghanistan or cocaine from Columbia - that may not only be highly addictive and harmful to the user, but may be financially supporting terror groups, cartels, and even violent political coups (and civil war and genocides) in some countries.

While I agree that we do incarcerate many for drug crimes that shouldn't be incarcerated, I think there is a much larger picture that needs to be looked at than just that one aspect of the "War on Drugs" and the overall drug trade.

[goldensmom]

To answer the OP's question, I grew up in a staunchly Republican family but was taught to be an independent thinker so have always considered myself to be an independent regarding political issues. I do not vote in primaries that require a declaration of Republican or Democrat because I am not either. I probably could declare a party and vote but I don't think that is right. Independent not because of being disillusioned but because I always have been.

[Gregg]

At age 18 I registered as an independent, in 1979, and have never changed it to (officially) affiliate with any political party. Probably never will. In fact there is less chance of that happening now than there was in 1979. The Libertarian party would probably have the best shot at me if I changed my mind. Close. So very close. But not quite.

[try2bfrugal]

Well I doubt I'm special enough to get into rich countries with universal care anyway. But a cheap country sure it's doable, but I actually LIVE here. I think retirement is an incredibly iffy prospect in general, sure in the U.S. and not just due to medical care. What happens if say the stock market crashes? Bye, bye, most people's 401ks. But then again I've no particular conviction that the the stock market should be propped up. And the world may not last that long anyway. With climate change and so on is my retirement in 20 or 30 or whatever years really the most pressing political issue for me? I'll breath a sigh of relief if reasonable human life is still doable then.

And much of the whole world is on the same path anyway (just the U.S. is further along). Sometimes I listen to what they say on the web, Australia is basically having campaigns run much like the U.S. now by marketing companies. A whole campaign season went by there where the word "climate change" was the ultimate taboo (sound familiar?). Jobs are becoming more scarce where once there was a culture that celebrated walkabouts, scarcity of job scares them into compliance. Things like the TPP intend to impose more intellectual property enforcements on things like pharma and medical procedures themselves (this won't do anything good for medical costs anywhere - in fact it might be a threat to most countries socialized medicine).

I do not invest very much in the stock market. The investments companies skimming money silently off 401Ks is just one other scam of our current corporate ruled life and another reason the middle class is disappearing. I am not sure when mutual fund companies started, but I do not think most people had mutual funds 40 years ago yet still owned stocks and bonds. Now the mutual find companies are worth billions of dollars and those annual fees they silently and stealthily collect come right off the top of everyone's 401Ks, up years and down years in the stock market, the mutual fund companies still make their money. Before people would buy a stock or bond once, and then there was no more money to be paid to the investment companies until it was time to sell. That has all changed now.

If you pay 1% in all their assorted fees to a mutual fund company on an average life time balance in your 401K of $200K, over 50 years the mutual fund companies will collect $100K or half of what you saved (200K X 1% a year X 50 years).

Other than that I don't disagree with you about corporate takeover moving to other countries, but I still don't see universal care being dropped, medical prices going up 3 - 6 fold, or other countries having mass incarceration of the population to the extreme degree it happens here.

[try2bfrugal]

While she deals with the inequities of the criminal justice and penal systems (as well as the social and economic discriminations that lead to more drug use/ drug crime in some African American and Latino males) how does she deal with the other issues such as international drug trafficking (and related crimes - often violent), substance abuse and addiction, illegal buying/distribution of legally manufactured and distributed drugs (think about all the Oxycontin, Vicadin, etc... being sold illegally out there), and of course which drugs could be legally manufactured and sold here (and the potential ramifications and health issues of drug use) - like LSD, Meth, etc.. And which drugs can be bought internationally- say heroin from Afghanistan or cocaine from Columbia - that may not only be highly addictive and harmful to the user, but may be financially supporting terror groups, cartels, and even violent political coups (and civil war and genocides) in some countries.

While I agree that we do incarcerate many for drug crimes that shouldn't be incarcerated, I think there is a much larger picture that needs to be looked at than just that one aspect of the "War on Drugs" and the overall drug trade.

I don't have an answer to solve the entire drug issue, but other countries seem to deal with drugs without mass incarceration of the population. Maybe we could just start by lowering mandatory minimum sentences and not having 25% of the world's prison population or 7 times as many people locked up as Canada on a per capita basis.

You sure wouldn't know if from the news, but the U.S. has 4 times as many people locked up per capita as China and almost 3 times as many per capita as Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). Talk about human rights abuses, we're number one.

[Gregg]

Colorado may be a litmus test regarding how to handle pot, and by extension some other (what should be) lower level drugs. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well I invest in 401ks mostly to lower my taxes enough to qualify for anything else (like lifelong learning and IRAs and so on). So I save more than just the 35% of taxes I save off the top. The rest that I save after the 401k (easily as much as I put in it) I'd think I'd happily put in CASH or cash equivalents, since even though cash stinks and pays nothing, nothing else has ever seemed any good either.


While she deals with the inequities of the criminal justice and penal systems (as well as the social and economic discriminations that lead to more drug use/ drug crime in some African American and Latino males) how does she deal with the other issues such as international drug trafficking (and related crimes - often violent), substance abuse and addiction, illegal buying/distribution of legally manufactured and distributed drugs (think about all the Oxycontin, Vicadin, etc... being sold illegally out there), and of course which drugs could be legally manufactured and sold here (and the potential ramifications and health issues of drug use) - like LSD, Meth, etc.. And which drugs can be bought internationally- say heroin from Afghanistan or cocaine from Columbia - that may not only be highly addictive and harmful to the user, but may be financially supporting terror groups, cartels, and even violent political coups (and civil war and genocides) in some countries.

Some warlord somewhere in the world is not worth tearing the very fabric of one's own society apart for with racist laws. Many of those problems stem from drugs being illegal anyway. And yes repeating racism (the original sin of this country afterall right), repeating it, does destroy the fabric of one's society far more than even having more druggies would. So of course sentencing and injustice should be looked at. Drug addiction is an individual tragedy for the individuals and those who care about them (I'm none so benign on most addictive prescription meds as they are incredibly ugly (thanks pharma) but even I can't get upset about mary jane). But racist laws are more than just an individual tragedy.

[Lainey]

Am registered Independent, but mostly vote Dem. It sure does seem like the whole thing is a charade now.

I know author Chris Hedges is one who has basically said it's time to focus on individuals/families/neighborhoods/communities and get as self-sufficient as possible.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Colorado may be a litmus test regarding how to handle pot, and by extension some other (what should be) lower level drugs. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I agree. If what Colorado is doing works, there will be traction for legal recreational marijuana to spread to other states as well. Rob

[try2bfrugal]

Am registered Independent, but mostly vote Dem. It sure does seem like the whole thing is a charade now.

I know author Chris Hedges is one who has basically said it's time to focus on individuals/families/neighborhoods/communities and get as self-sufficient as possible.

I think self sufficiency as well as just not buying a lot of of stuff is general good for one's personal economy.

This has probably been posted here before, but for those who missed it, here is an interesting graph that shows how just ten companies control many of the things we buy -

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-24/10-corporations-control-almost-everything-you-buy

We realized we don't really need most of the processed foods and commercial cleaning products and toiletries in the graph. I can't say we are down to zero, but eating whole foods, using cloth napkins and towels instead of paper, and making our own cleaning products with natural ingredients like vinegar and baking soda has helped us save money and buy more local products.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Am registered Independent, but mostly vote Dem. It sure does seem like the whole thing is a charade now.

I know author Chris Hedges is one who has basically said it's time to focus on individuals/families/neighborhoods/communities and get as self-sufficient as possible.

Hedges also says take to the streets :), although he's not radical enough for some, it's not purely an advocacy of local focus, because we're dependent on global systems (chief of which is the environment of course). So the question beyond one's own conscience is always: is it achieving anything? It's a question to be raised not only about getting passionate over the charade (is spending massive amounts of passion on a milimeter less evil at some unaccountable level really achieving anything?) but over local action. Is local action actually achieving anything, or is it just engaging in symbolic action that changes nothing (I might accuse some local action of this) or is a step in the right direction? Is it the best path forward? Is it withdrawal or engagement?

Would taking to the streets achieve anything? Uh, on that one I don't think that's a question that can be answered without being tried (I could answer the others better as I've seen them).


think self sufficiency as well as just not buying a lot of of stuff is general good for one's personal economy.

I see it as a way to bring down the corporations :) Well I see boycott as a strategy anyway. If it's the deeply interlocking corporate state (and the state is sold to the corporations), then if the corporations actually need us to buy stuff to exist (as corporate persons :~)), that's the weakest link?

[Lainey]

I know Chris Hedges has been arrested a few times, but I thought he'd abandoned that path. Not sure about that, but he must have concluded that the police would be happy to arrest him as many times as he trespassed or did whatever other law-breaking activity they would haul him away for.
That's why I was thinking now that, barring a reversal of the Citizens United decision, or a reform of campaign financing, or some other cutting of the Gordian knot that has become our entangled corporation and governing groups, it's best to hunker down, so to speak.

[Simply Divine]

Just curious.....Is anyone here so disillusioned with politics that they identify as Independent these days? I'm curious if anyone from either side of the aisle is now considering themselves Independent? I feel I may be moving that way. There have been issues in the Obama administration that I'm not too pleased about and I have seen what I consider compassion from a few Republicans - such as Jan Brewer of Arizona and John Kasich of Ohio opting to expand Medicaid.

I'm becoming of the mind that politics is nowhere as simple as I once believed. In other words, for me personally, Democrat no longer automatically equals good and Republican no longer automatically equals bad. It seems to me that a middle ground, if such a thing is possible, is identifying as Independent. Anyone else feeling the same way? Rob
I've never been "illusioned" about politics; this is probably because my political education started while I was still in diapers and Dad was watching C-SPAN while spoon-feeding me. Dad is a conservative Democrat. I used to be a card-carrying Libertarian, but I let that expire when I found out they supported the government shutdown in order to defund Obamacare. I voted in the Republican primary in 2012; I might vote in the Democrat primary this year instead, even though in Texas everyone knows the real party is in Republicanville. I self-identify as Independent and don't intend to change in the foreseeable future.

[Spartana]

Some warlord somewhere in the world is not worth tearing the very fabric of one's own society apart for with racist laws. Many of those problems stem from drugs being illegal anyway. And yes repeating racism (the original sin of this country afterall right), repeating it, does destroy the fabric of one's society far more than even having more druggies would. So of course sentencing and injustice should be looked at. Drug addiction is an individual tragedy for the individuals and those who care about them (I'm none so benign on most addictive prescription meds as they are incredibly ugly (thanks pharma) but even I can't get upset about mary jane). But racist laws are more than just an individual tragedy.Hmmm... I always think it's drug addiction, and all the other crimes and social and economic issues it may lead to, that is more likely to destroy the fabric of society then some far away warlords drug money. I just figured that if the Coast Guard nabs a ship with 40,000 lbs of cocaine or Customs nabs a plane with a few thousand lbs of heroin, then it helps not only to keep more highly addictive drugs off the street, and all the other criminal activity associated with the drug trade of those kinds of drugs, but reduces that warlords cash funds to buy arms for his genocidal coup by a few billion bucks. Just a small side effect of drug interdiction and The War on Drugs :-)!

However, while the War on Drugs encompasses a much larger area than just current drug laws and their effects on people, both you and Try2bFrugal have valid points about unjust laws for some drug types of criminal offenses that would be deemed victimless. Like a person getting 2 years in prison for a couple of ounces of pot. As well as the racist nature of the criminal justice system at each step - from police profiling to sentencing. But that is the case with ALL types of crimes, not just drug related ones. More black males get arrested and incarcerated for every crime (robbery, rape, vandalism, assault, etc...) than a white male who may just get probation or be diverted out of the criminal justice system. So to me that's more about dealing with overall racism rather than drug offenses.

So besides the legalization of pot, and reducing or eliminating the criminality of those kinds of drugs, I personally feel that allowing large quantities of highly addictive and harmful drugs to be manufactured in this country (meth, crack, whatever...) or allowing them to be shipped in from an international supplier (one who may use that money for evil) to be sold legally to adults would be a very harmful thing overall.

[iris lilies]

Hmmm... I always think it's drug addiction, and all the other crimes and social and economic issues it may lead to, that is more likely to destroy the fabric of society then some far away warlords drug money. ...
So besides the legalization of pot, and reducing or eliminating the criminality of those kinds of drugs, I personally feel that allowing large quantities of highly addictive and harmful drugs to be manufactured in this country (meth, crack, whatever...) or allowing them to be shipped in from an international supplier (one who may use that money for evil) to be sold legally to adults would be a very harmful thing overall.

That's the problem, we don't know. These heavy drugs are pretty serious stuff healthwise. And now imagine the Corporate Machine so berated by those on this website getting involved in it. Those evil Corps already try to get us addicted to Cocacola and Twinkies, what are they going to do with the REAL stuff?

So I agree, I can't see that the legalization of it all leads to an overall good thing. But let our brethern in the Scandinavian countries try that out first, especially with the influx of European Union citizens changing their mono-culture. Let them move forward in that social experiment and we'll see how that goes.

[Spartana]

I've never been "illusioned" about politics; .Ha Ha! I guess I've never been too "illusioned" either :-)! It seems that whenever it's time to vote, I have to write a list of each issues and mark them off with either an "R" or a "D" to see which Party I should vote for (I'm an Independent). Neither fits the bill - ever - and I am so far from each Party's standard party-line that it makes it almost impossible to make a choice. However I often find it interesting to see that so many people really adhere to all of one or the other Party's line issues and beliefs completely even if those issues have nothing to do with one another. Guns and abortion and gay marriage and immigration and taxes and healthcare and equality and ...well, so many more issues. It's funny that so many people in either party hold the same beliefs on all the same issues. You'd think there would be more diversity within each party - i.e. pro-abortion AND pro-gun right? Pro universal healthcare AND anti-immigration rights? Pro gay marriage AND low taxes? Seems that hardly ever happens. Probably why there is an Independent , and other, Parties. Something for the rest of us indecisive ones :-)!

[Spartana]

That's the problem, we don't know. These heavy drugs are pretty serious stuff healthwise. And now imagine the Corporate Machine so berated by those on this website getting involved in it. Those evil Corps already try to get us addicted to Cocacola and Twinkies, what are they going to do with the REAL stuff?

So I agree, I can't see that the legalization of it all leads to an overall good thing. But let our brethern in the Scandinavian countries try that out first, especially with the influx of European Union citizens changing their mono-culture. Let them move forward in that social experiment and we'll see how that goes.Back in my CG days we use to run drug interdictions in the Caribbean and south and central America with many of the other European Nation ships. So they are out there trying to stem the influx of drug trafficking as well. Although maybe just so they can tax them properly before selling the drugs to their citizens - and then taxing them :-)! I know that many European nations have legalized marijuana and hash ( I did spend a lot of time in Copenhagen and Amsterdam :-)!), and maybe some have even legalize cocaine and opiate based drugs as well as other types of drugs, but will have to look up exactly how they do it and what, if any, problems they have experienced. Maybe very few.

[Spartana]

OK just took a quick look-see at some European drug laws and basically it looks like many countries have legalized "soft" drugs like marijuana but not "hard" drugs like opiates and cocaine. Also in some countries, it is still illegal to have even soft drugs for personal use but it is a misdemeanor or an administrative issue rather than a criminal one. Also it is illegal to traffic and sell hard drugs and prison sentences can be stiff. I looked mostly at the Netherlands and Denmark since I think they might be the countries with the most liberal drug policies. Most European countries will allow a person caught with illegal drugs (say heroin) in small quantities for personal use to be diverted out of the criminal justice system and into a rehab in many cases if that person is a first time offender or doesn't have a long record of a lot of drug related or other criminal activities . We also do that here in the USA.

ETA: Although the drug trade may nbot be all bad according to this bit from a larger article about illegal overland drug trafficking into Europe:
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/3869.cfm

On a wider level, it should be noted that narcotics contraband has international implications. For instance, in December 2009 the U.N. drugs and crime tsar Antonio Maria Costa claimed that illegal drug money saved the banking industry from collapse. He claimed he had seen evidence that the proceeds of organized crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse. Thus, the Balkan heroin route, apart from a multi-billion-dollar illicit trade path, is also one generating profits indirectly to corporations thriving in the legal market, such as banks, making the whole issue of combating drug trade an extremely complicated problem that cannot be addressed by conventional measures

Maybe Obama should have used drug money to bail out the banks instead of taxpayer dollars :-)!

In addition the Europeans seem to deal with the international drug trade differently than americans:

The Europeans have in general resisted supporting what they view as (the US)
military-style strategy that they say could intensify Colombia's 37-
year-long conflict with leftist rebels, who are active in coca-growing areas
and profit from the drug trade. The European Union instead recently pledged
$293 million for social development programs in Colombia's impoverished
countryside.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well I never thought politicians didn't tell lies for campaign promises and stuff like that because come on, was one born lacking a cynical bone in their body or something? :) How many of these mutants without cynical bones are there? :) Are used car salesmen also to be trusted?

But a deep and complete disgust and rejection is more like it now, almost paranoid, systemic.


However I often find it interesting to see that so many people really adhere to all of one or the other Party's line issues and beliefs completely even if those issues have nothing to do with one another. Guns and abortion and gay marriage and immigration and taxes and healthcare and equality and ...well, so many more issues. It's funny that so many people in either party hold the same beliefs on all the same issues.

yea I really don't, I see connections in issues *some* of the time (environment and economy say), but don't buy a party line without understanding the integration

[Spartana]

Are used car salesmen also to be trusted?

Well I always thought that being a used car salesman was training to become a politician. Or maybe it's the other way around :-)!

[JaneV2.0]

I'm waiting until we legalize psilocybin, ayahuasca, and LSD. I think we could use more mind expansion around here. (But I expect my mind will have been permanently expanded long before then...)

[Spartana]

I'm waiting until we legalize psilocybin, ayahuasca, and LSD. I think we could use more mind expansion around here. (But I expect my mind will have been permanently expanded long before then...)Woooo....the colors....:-)!

[Gregg]

All I know for sure is that I wanna go to Jane's for pizza!

[JaneV2.0]

http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/icq/cool.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_boogie.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_cheers.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_cheers.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/connie/connie_34.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/viannen/viannen_01.gif

[Spartana]

http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/icq/cool.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_boogie.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_cheers.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_cheers.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/connie/connie_34.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/viannen/viannen_01.gifNow that's a "Party" that aligns with my political beliefs :devil: