FarmerChick
Super Self-Sufficient
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 11,417
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 248
love the new sig line you have also!
How do a person's political views relate to self sufficiency?
- Thread starter me&thegals
- Start date
- Status
love the new sig line you have also!
FarmerChick
Super Self-Sufficient
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 11,417
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 248
I agree with BD
you don't have to live on no income to be SS or prove it to anyone either.
If you do your own things, to your level, then anything heading into SS on your own terms is more than enough.
I also want more from Obama. But knowing govt. as much as I wish for change, and hoped he could do it (the big shakeup) I am doubting the changes can happen. At least on a true real effective level. But again, time will tell.
No govt. can change overnight, but it would be nice to see some steps in cement heading in the right direction. Then again, govt. is its' own world literally.
you don't have to live on no income to be SS or prove it to anyone either.
If you do your own things, to your level, then anything heading into SS on your own terms is more than enough.
I also want more from Obama. But knowing govt. as much as I wish for change, and hoped he could do it (the big shakeup) I am doubting the changes can happen. At least on a true real effective level. But again, time will tell.
No govt. can change overnight, but it would be nice to see some steps in cement heading in the right direction. Then again, govt. is its' own world literally.
bibliophile birds
Lovin' The Homestead
wow. i don't check this forum all day and it's gone crazy! so much to discuss.
the problem came when all these things were privatized (not making judgments, but privatization is a Republican thing). after that, the options for putting hard-working people to good use were gone. enter the modern welfare system where people are made to think they can't survive on their own and some people can only support their families by not working.
a nation is nothing if not a giant community. we all should know that if you help out the needy in your community, everyone benefits. sick, unemployed, uneducated people are a drain on everyone. you can do nothing to help them and they will remain a drain. or you can help them when they are down and they will (in the correct system of course) rejoin the productive members of the community. a hand-up and not a hand-out, that is how government supports self sustaining people.
i'm far from being an expert (and there's tons of contention out there on this topic) but the WPA was an amazing project. rather than simply give a hand out, these projects allowed hard-working people to hold their heads up and still get the government assistance they needed. did you know that, on top of all the roads and dams and infrastructure they built, the WPA was responsible for preserving TONS of Anthropological data? they recorded languages and did archeological studies and much more... all in order to ensure that average Americans could have a meal and some pride. it's awe inspiring, really.me&thegals said:
the problem came when all these things were privatized (not making judgments, but privatization is a Republican thing). after that, the options for putting hard-working people to good use were gone. enter the modern welfare system where people are made to think they can't survive on their own and some people can only support their families by not working.
the real issue is exactly what the government is providing. i lived in New Zealand for a while where they basically have socialized health care. and NZ is a really self sufficient nation. almost everywhere you go, people are raising animals (sheep in LOTS of city backyards) and growing gardens and supporting their local businesses/farmers. the belief is, when a government steps up to take care of something so important/basic as health care, that frees everyone up to take up the slack. and they do. it's amazing.ScottSD said:
a nation is nothing if not a giant community. we all should know that if you help out the needy in your community, everyone benefits. sick, unemployed, uneducated people are a drain on everyone. you can do nothing to help them and they will remain a drain. or you can help them when they are down and they will (in the correct system of course) rejoin the productive members of the community. a hand-up and not a hand-out, that is how government supports self sustaining people.
bibliophile birds
Lovin' The Homestead
to touch back to the OP, for me, being SS is directly tied to politics, but mostly because my personal beliefs are tied to politics (aren't everyone's?). i believe that we need to care for our environment and our communities, so i'm socially liberal. i believe that we can't expect (or count on) our government to educate our children about what's important or actually safe-guard our rights sufficiently, so i'm idealistically libertarian. i believe that a person is entitled to reap the benefits of what they sow in life, so i'm (only slightly) fiscally conservative. i don't support the war(s), but i support soldiers. i am 100% pro-choice, but would personally choose life. politics is a big circle. everyone falls to a certain side of a line, but those lines are always coming back to one another.
check out this political map. where do you fall?
the biggest issue is when one company owns several brands. let's imagine Company A owns Brand X, Brand Y, and Brand Z, which all make jeans but at different price points. they will cleverly market each so that they benefit the other. they will come up with some flashy new style in Brand X. since most people can't afford Brand X, they wait a while until "demand" is high and then they will come out with knockoffs in Brands Y and Z. we all think we've driven the market to do our bidding, but really we've just been duped by a megacorporation... as usual.
Monsanto is a great example. are you a large grower of soy? want to buy some Round-Up to get rid of those weeds? well, Monsanto doesn't have to sell to you. you don't buy their Round-Up Ready seeds, so you're SOL. oh, they can also put you on their handy blacklist so that buyers won't work with you. guess you're going to buy those Round-Up Ready seeds next year. again, demand does not necessarily equal supply.
check out this political map. where do you fall?
except that that isn't the market model we live under. you only have to look as far as corn and soy subsidies to see that demand does not precede supply. our market model is "produce as much as you can and what ever doesn't get bought in it's original form we will make into something else (ssh, don't tell) or we will ship it overseas." that isn't real supply-and-demand. true, we have some input in the direction the market goes, but not as much as we think.inchworm said:
the biggest issue is when one company owns several brands. let's imagine Company A owns Brand X, Brand Y, and Brand Z, which all make jeans but at different price points. they will cleverly market each so that they benefit the other. they will come up with some flashy new style in Brand X. since most people can't afford Brand X, they wait a while until "demand" is high and then they will come out with knockoffs in Brands Y and Z. we all think we've driven the market to do our bidding, but really we've just been duped by a megacorporation... as usual.
Monsanto is a great example. are you a large grower of soy? want to buy some Round-Up to get rid of those weeds? well, Monsanto doesn't have to sell to you. you don't buy their Round-Up Ready seeds, so you're SOL. oh, they can also put you on their handy blacklist so that buyers won't work with you. guess you're going to buy those Round-Up Ready seeds next year. again, demand does not necessarily equal supply.
it didn't hurt that Germany suddenly had millions fewer people to be concerned with... and had confiscated all their property.QueenRed said:
no politician, or person, is perfect. i feel really bad for the guy. i mean, he's got no clean slate to start from. he walked into a **** storm. i honestly wish he had waited to run. not because i don't think he was ready, but because i think he could have been a real power for change had he not had to deal with all the crap he's had to deal with. otoh, i think it shows a lot of character that he wanted to deal with all the crap. no, he's not meeting expectations for change, but that's actually meeting my expectation of the situation. being in that position is so much harder than it seems from the outside.FarmerChick said:
- Thread starter
- #85
me&thegals
A Major Squash & Pumpkin Lover
Well, egad!! You have just described my politics nearly exactly. And, yes, you make a great point. We don't think "I'm a Democrat" and therefore I am chopping wood for my woodstove or "I'm a Republican" and therefore I garden to save money. So while I rarely *think* about politics as informing my choices, my politics are an expression of all my beliefs which, in turn, drive everything I do.bibliophile birds said:
And I completely agree with your assessment of Obama. His approval rating is dropping because people feel he should focus. To me, it seems like there are a few too many crises right now and I don't see that any of them can wait another 3 years.
ScottSD
Lovin' The Homestead
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2009
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 84
So THAT is why he is dropping in the polls.
I should have known!
I thought maybe it was because.....he hasn't accomplished anything worth while since he took office.....
I guess that is what you get when you elect someone with zero experience.
the presidency of the United States is not a job that requires on the job training.
Seriously.....you can't see that he's dropping in the polls is because people are regretting they voted for the guy because his extreme ideology has been exposed?
Well he did get that Nobel prize thing.
Hey, did you hear? they are going to give him the Heisman too......because he watches a lot of football.......
I should have known!
I thought maybe it was because.....he hasn't accomplished anything worth while since he took office.....
I guess that is what you get when you elect someone with zero experience.
the presidency of the United States is not a job that requires on the job training.
Seriously.....you can't see that he's dropping in the polls is because people are regretting they voted for the guy because his extreme ideology has been exposed?
Well he did get that Nobel prize thing.
Hey, did you hear? they are going to give him the Heisman too......because he watches a lot of football.......
dacjohns
Our Frustrated Curmudgeon
Be back later.
- Thread starter
- #88
me&thegals
A Major Squash & Pumpkin Lover
Hey Scott, I can be sarcastic, too. I'm just trying hard not to because it's not very productive and it gets threads shut down.
Since I didn't personally interview all Americans, I'm going on polls. His numbers, *they* say are down for exactly the reason I typed above.
As far as his policies and how they relate to self sufficiency, ALL the bailout (including that under Bush, which was huge) is going to infringe on my ability to do so. Unless, of course, it works. I think it's a little early days yet to decide that, although recent indications show some positive change.
Healthcare insurance premiums hugely affect my life and my ability to be self sufficient. If health insurance were not nearly as costly as my mortgage, I could make a go of my sides businesses that I love rather than working a not-so-fun job with good benefits. And I'm one of the lucky ones WITH health insurance. My conservative, Republican business-owning parents tell me how health insurance costs are eating them alive. So, glad Obama and Congress are tackling that one.
I want environmental help now. I'm finding it more and more difficult to grow things in extreme weather. My husband has 95% of his crops standing, and it looks like they will have to wait until spring. I was horrified at the lack of concern for the environment under the last administration and am glad we will start playing a bigger role in cleaning up our own huge mess.
Just a few ways I think our current administration may help my ability to be more self sufficient, and one way that may really hurt it.
Early days.
Since I didn't personally interview all Americans, I'm going on polls. His numbers, *they* say are down for exactly the reason I typed above.
As far as his policies and how they relate to self sufficiency, ALL the bailout (including that under Bush, which was huge) is going to infringe on my ability to do so. Unless, of course, it works. I think it's a little early days yet to decide that, although recent indications show some positive change.
Healthcare insurance premiums hugely affect my life and my ability to be self sufficient. If health insurance were not nearly as costly as my mortgage, I could make a go of my sides businesses that I love rather than working a not-so-fun job with good benefits. And I'm one of the lucky ones WITH health insurance. My conservative, Republican business-owning parents tell me how health insurance costs are eating them alive. So, glad Obama and Congress are tackling that one.
I want environmental help now. I'm finding it more and more difficult to grow things in extreme weather. My husband has 95% of his crops standing, and it looks like they will have to wait until spring. I was horrified at the lack of concern for the environment under the last administration and am glad we will start playing a bigger role in cleaning up our own huge mess.
Just a few ways I think our current administration may help my ability to be more self sufficient, and one way that may really hurt it.
Early days.
enjoy the ride
Sufficient Life
How can I not put my 2 cents in here?
I'm currently reading a book called (drum roll) Robespierre- Portrait of a Revoluntionary Democrat. How very appropriate to this discussion.
Robespierre was one of the leading lights (for those not up on theire 18th century French history) of the French revolution- the one that made the guillotine famous. He had an Idea.
I'm only 1/2 way through it now but the gist so far is that Mr. R was a very upright, honest lawyer type that believe that Man (with capital M) was perfectible and preferable to the corrupt king as government. He basically believed that decent, middle class people would govern well by balancing self-interest and greed. He felt the rich and the poor were not going to be able to rise above self-interest to make a government that worked for all with justice and humanity. So he wanted all men of the middle class to be the ones to elect representatives to make laws for all.
But people just kept disappointing him- raise a man to power and he darn well proved to be as corrupt as the previous one. Or as stupid. People just kept bickering about who had the right way. Violence kept popping up everytime people thought things were not going their way.
In the absense of a historically valid authority, vengence and violence just escalated from chopping heads of the old aristocracy to chopping off any who'd disagreed, got in the way or might have evil thoughts. Of course for the good of all- in theory.
At first Mr. R objected to the chopping- then he found that chopping some people's heads simplified things- by the end, he felt that his original noble theory of Man as the source of good government would work if he just chopped a few more heads off- you know, the ones who disagreed or caused problems for him.
Of course, since others thought that chopping was a good way to eliminate roadblocks too, his own head ended up coming off.
And the Revolution just kept going along in the same way until Napoleon took power that was practically shoved on him by the frazzled public who just wanted the end of failed theory government.
The truth is that power corrupts (not an original thought) and no matter which political theory gets it's turn at bat, it is more likely to strike out from self-importance than hit a home run with consensus. Communist or Monarchy.
And after that long ramble down French history, I can now come to my point. That self-sufficiency trusts no one politically.
Self- sufficiency can be a moral choice but I don't think a political one. In fact it is betting that no one else will direct you as well as you can for yourself.
Do wish someone would come up with a better government beside a two party system- the two parties being those in power and those out of power. But at least most of the time they cancel each other out to a large extent.
I'm currently reading a book called (drum roll) Robespierre- Portrait of a Revoluntionary Democrat. How very appropriate to this discussion.
Robespierre was one of the leading lights (for those not up on theire 18th century French history) of the French revolution- the one that made the guillotine famous. He had an Idea.
I'm only 1/2 way through it now but the gist so far is that Mr. R was a very upright, honest lawyer type that believe that Man (with capital M) was perfectible and preferable to the corrupt king as government. He basically believed that decent, middle class people would govern well by balancing self-interest and greed. He felt the rich and the poor were not going to be able to rise above self-interest to make a government that worked for all with justice and humanity. So he wanted all men of the middle class to be the ones to elect representatives to make laws for all.
But people just kept disappointing him- raise a man to power and he darn well proved to be as corrupt as the previous one. Or as stupid. People just kept bickering about who had the right way. Violence kept popping up everytime people thought things were not going their way.
In the absense of a historically valid authority, vengence and violence just escalated from chopping heads of the old aristocracy to chopping off any who'd disagreed, got in the way or might have evil thoughts. Of course for the good of all- in theory.
At first Mr. R objected to the chopping- then he found that chopping some people's heads simplified things- by the end, he felt that his original noble theory of Man as the source of good government would work if he just chopped a few more heads off- you know, the ones who disagreed or caused problems for him.
Of course, since others thought that chopping was a good way to eliminate roadblocks too, his own head ended up coming off.
And the Revolution just kept going along in the same way until Napoleon took power that was practically shoved on him by the frazzled public who just wanted the end of failed theory government.
The truth is that power corrupts (not an original thought) and no matter which political theory gets it's turn at bat, it is more likely to strike out from self-importance than hit a home run with consensus. Communist or Monarchy.
And after that long ramble down French history, I can now come to my point. That self-sufficiency trusts no one politically.
Self- sufficiency can be a moral choice but I don't think a political one. In fact it is betting that no one else will direct you as well as you can for yourself.
Do wish someone would come up with a better government beside a two party system- the two parties being those in power and those out of power. But at least most of the time they cancel each other out to a large extent.
FarmerChick
Super Self-Sufficient
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 11,417
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 248
I don't see it what you wrote being tied to politics at all. A Republican or Independent or ANYOne for that matter can say the exact same things as another person. People not even political have lives and choose what they want out of life.
Self sufficiency was "created" well before politics from the very first human that walked on this earth. It isn't a new concept that I can see in any way but whatever your choices in life, from your political views to your moral views to family live background and well, "everything" will shape a person.
So while SS can be affected by politics in your thinking, I don't think they are directly tied together at all as if saying, I am Democrat, I will chop wood now and be SS. I am Republican therefore I will not chop wood ever and use up the worlds supply of oil to heat my house.
It is a small part of a large puzzle. We are the sum of our parts. Therefore politics can't sway you into being SS anymore than it can sway you into changing your mind on topics like abortion and other hot topic issues.
just rambling
Self sufficiency was "created" well before politics from the very first human that walked on this earth. It isn't a new concept that I can see in any way but whatever your choices in life, from your political views to your moral views to family live background and well, "everything" will shape a person.
So while SS can be affected by politics in your thinking, I don't think they are directly tied together at all as if saying, I am Democrat, I will chop wood now and be SS. I am Republican therefore I will not chop wood ever and use up the worlds supply of oil to heat my house.
It is a small part of a large puzzle. We are the sum of our parts. Therefore politics can't sway you into being SS anymore than it can sway you into changing your mind on topics like abortion and other hot topic issues.
just rambling
- Status
