It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Political Ideology is dead to me!

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Both ideas of socialism and conservatism get mixed in with communism and capitalism. All of these ideas really do not serve us well.

Our founding fathers formed this nation with a check on the federal government to not take part in central planning of the states, unless the general welfare was at stake. Unfortunately, the line of what is considered "general welfare" has been blurred by interests of greed and corruption. Basically, a bunch of free and independent states agreed collectively that they share the same basic values of freedom and agreed they should have a federal government to assist in preserving that way of life. So the states paid into this federal government to keep a balance amongst the states and preserve their collective good.

The basic premises of capitalism or conservatism is that an individual should benefit from their innovations, but that innovation should not be kept from the people simply because of the ownership over that item or information. Patents were designed to protect an individuals innovation temporarily, and later unprotected so as to allow others to expand or improve the product or use the same product and add it to another product. Unfortunately, this is way of improving already developed products is gone. Our country no longer believes in the general good of all the people benefiting from innovations after a fair amount of time for the innovator to make a profit from their innovation.

Additionally, socialism or communism is taking from the rich and giving to the poor. But, we are all missing the point of what is really going on. If we just followed the constitution we would know that "general welfare" means those things that effect everyone, not just a few or a minority. Constitutionally, it is very clear that "general welfare" meant those issues that potentially impacted everyone. Things like food, housing, clothing, basic medical care, equal treatment, equal access to obtain justice, and security seem to be things all of citizens of our great country need. Yet, we spend billions on office personnel to shuffle paperwork around write report, impact studies and investigate superficial issues that most or none of us have even heard about. The states are broke yet this is where the citizens live. How is it that we do not have one shred of a general welfare item available to us without going through some complicated process of evaluating income to determine eligibility?

In the constitutional republic I envision, the only role of the federal government is to protect the issues that potentially affect all of us on a basic human level. The federal government collecting taxes from the states, so that the general welfare of the citizens are provided for.

Why must you qualify for Food Stamps?
Everyone should get basic staples of food. No qualifying, no paperwork needed. If you want your share of monthly food you go down and pick it up. I recently had to get on food stamps, and I eat better than I have in years working for a living. People that are just above the income level get no benefit and still have to skimp by and make cuts to their food budgets in order to survive. This is truly stealing from the rich to give to the poor. But hold that thought…guess who those food stamps go to? The corporations get all the money spent by food stamp recipients at retail price levels. In the constitutional republic I envision if you want food you go pick it up. That simple and everyone is eligible rich and poor to pick up basic food staples to supplement themselves or feed their families based on an acceptable formula of how much food is necessary to live on. How many rich people do you think would be in line to pick up their government food? The idea is that the money or benefit should always go toward the people not the corporation, although they may be a tool for the government to use for distribution or production in obtaining the goods.

General welfare could also be providing basic housing to all citizens. We’ve spent billions of dollars, trillions in fact on worthless things. We should have basic housing for anyone in need of them. When I say basic I mean basic nothing fancy, basic necessities and basic amount of rooms for the family size. No qualifying, nothing. How many rich people do you think would want to live in one?

Education monies should be a state matter, however, all monies should be attached to the student to chose which school to attend. All college level education should receive a base amount of non repayable monies to use for college attached to them. How many rich people will go to the colleges that don’t charge more than the allotted amount?

Medical Care basic care should be given freely. Checkups, health exams, minor procedures, etc. Rich people get them free too. It’s funded by…taxes on commerce.

Everything else that is not outlined by the constitution as a truly general welfare item that has the potential to affect everyone should be immediately defunded. That includes countless millions of employed paper pushing government secretaries that are currently in charge of administrating most of these general welfare programs to make sure you “qualify.”




posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
One thing I thought of after writing this...could this be the formula that brings agreement between both left and right political ideologies?

I might have to use this platform for my personal political campaign. Feedback appreciated if you have an opinion.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


I think "conservatives" would rather do what your avatar illustrates -
Giving people free food, in exchange for nothing? What are we dogs?
Once we start feeding people like dogs they will start walking on all fours soon enough.
I think the truth is this nation has gotten to a point where the only true freedom is the freedom to crash and burn.
We are not free, we cannot make camp and settle, work the land like we could in the founding years. I think we all forget the very big differences we face now, which is this monster machine that WE have to PAY into. There is no getting around monthly bills that also provide the basic necessity of food, water, shelter and medical care. Those four things, mankind's basic life lines have also become our chains. Now add electricity, gas, phone - ALL bills are mandates and qualifications to be met of which we are only free to neglect at our own demise.

To do what you want, to be truly FREE means you will likely starve, freeze or die of disease.

I say you, are you free to not show up at work starting Monday til whenever you chose?

We all know why-

Not very free are you - but you are free to play the game how ever you want.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
What the op wrote is an ideology. The only true way is that we are all left and right. I never understand why these people pick sides like its sports, in sports you stay with a team. But in politics, you should vote for the person you think speaks the most sense and will do what you think is right. Who cares if they are left or right.

William cooper said the same in his cnn interview tape. Shame the common folk will not listen to people like that.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Janky, I agree that ideologically letting giving people food and water, housing and medical treatment free of cost so that they may have extra time to pursue their ambitions doesn't fit into the left/right philosophies. However, I would ask why do we have a collective government if it were not to help secure our own welfare of the people that live within? You are also right that the current system traps us into a continual cycle of struggling to survive, at the benefit of people that have the wealth. We find ourselves at many times doing quite well financially, and we go into a slumber.

My point of this thread was to say wait a minute, who is benefiting from all these social welfare programs? It is the rich that structure these programs so that the money filters to them, at the expense of everyone else in the middle. The only way to stop that is provide basic welfare to all people irregardless of income. And if you are rich and want those services free you can have them too. I think though there won't be one rich person living in a government condo though and many middle class that won't either. Once people obtain self sufficency they will buy a home, and move out. They will buy higher quality food and not milk the system. Yes there would be some that choose to live their life in government housing, government food, and government medicine, but really like that isn't already happening...let's cut off the greed associated with welfare programs and make it available to all.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


It's time to get of the political ideology horse we have been riding and think with our heart for a change. How would we design our society? Who would benefit? How much are we willing to invest? What do we want it to look like? Time to think more independently and less ideologically.

Also, while my OP was in fact an ideology it really isn't set in stone as I can see at least three different ways to create a fair system for each item I listed. I think this is where it differs for our current political ideologies. My focus is on when we decide to spend money, that the benefit must be given directly to all people and must be an issue that affects everyone potentially. No corporation should profit significantly from a general welfare item and there should be no approval process.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


The problem is if you get rid of the false two party system, you just have an open dictator. Well you have that now, but the people like to be conned.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


I think you are right in a way...that without an ideology that everyone is saying is the correct way of thinking, how would you know what to believe in. If the two party system was removed, nobody would have control, and there would be many ideas floated that cross the traditional party lines. How would we know what to believe, it's so much easier to have a template. If the two party system was removed would their be instant searching within a person trying to figure out what they actually believed? It's an interesting prospect. I certainly hope that happens, because I'm sick of the two sided politics that always never benefits the actual citizen.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
To me there is quite a bit of difference between promoting general welfare,and controlling the general welfare. I agree that the term promote the general welfare refers to the populace as a whole.Not just this minority or that minority. It has been a time honored tradition that you gain your work ethic from your parents.

When someone is raised in a situation where support is provided and not earned,what lesson do the children learn? Give up? They learn that staying in the system is the easiest way to get by. In a system that retards the ability for people to gain self respect,and self worth through accomplishment.

Alcholism,drug abuse,and low self esteem are the product. Giving able bodied people everything they need kills the independent spirit,and creates entitlement slaves.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by daddyroo45
 


I see you agree in part with the concept.

I would like to touch on those concepts that you mention alcoholism, drug abuse, and low self esteem. In our current state of society these are not limited to just people dependent on the welfare system. It is just that those in poverty, afflicted by these conditions can not readily afford them, they result to crime in order to get their fix. The well off people afflicted by these can afford to purchase their drugs of choice through means that shield them from being seen. Additionally, people with money can provide for their own defense and therefore may appear to be less of a burden on society.

Need vs. Wants I think are different. If everyone has everything they want this stifles the independent spirit. Needs are essentials though. In our current system providing for the Needs of each other frees us all up from our own enslavement to have time to create, invent, and live. I think that the only part of welfare, in our current system, that stops people is that once you go up a notch their is no more help and you end up realizing you had a better financial situation in poverty living off the system.

My realization of these issues has only come to me, as now I am totally dependent on the system thanks to the economy and lay offs. I now live a much better life than I did while being middle class. I have no where near the overhead and all my basic needs are taken care of. Plus I have so much time, I am able to actually think rather than get up and go to work and go home to repeat the cycle again.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
To me there is quite a bit of difference between promoting general welfare,and controlling the general welfare. I agree that the term promote the general welfare refers to the populace as a whole.Not just this minority or that minority. It has been a time honored tradition that you gain your work ethic from your parents.

When someone is raised in a situation where support is provided and not earned,what lesson do the children learn? Give up? They learn that staying in the system is the easiest way to get by. In a system that retards the ability for people to gain self respect,and self worth through accomplishment.

Alcholism,drug abuse,and low self esteem are the product. Giving able bodied people everything they need kills the independent spirit,and creates entitlement slaves.


IMO you have put motive and consequence in your terms exclusively...
I think assuming that every single person on the take enjoys being in such a position is a stubborn and unrealistic way to look at government programs. There is a genuine function of such things and there is genuine abuse.

But I ask you at 10% unemployment are those collecting guilty of poor work ethics or "easiest way to get by...."? You have one out of ten people broke, jobless, hungry and you will have an equal amount of crime to offset a good portion of those people. BTW I think the "Independent Spirit" has much more to do with the IN-dividual than it does external forces.

The last line reads like a very familiar pre packaged spin that we all know very well.
You ignored a million and one things that go horribly wrong in life, catastrophic illness,
car accidents, falling off of ladders, hit in the head with a baseball, shot in the spine...
Many who are on the take because of these types of things.


How about you yourself? What if you and your partner get run off the road by an uninsured motorist god forbid?

Does your theory mean that you and yours are entitlement slaves lacking work ethic if you cannot work because of blinding headaches, severed spine or traumatic brain injury? Are your offspring going to enjoy being piss poor and decide to do the same because it looks fantastic?

This is not a far stretch based upon your theory-

You assume the worst so you see the worst + you ignore each case, in favor of a blanket statement.


[edit on 31-10-2009 by Janky Red]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Hush!! The Government will hear you. Having time to actually think might be detrimental to their plans. LOL. I hate to hear of your plight. Being able to use your time in a constructive manner is great. Most people in your situation woefully would not.
Alcoholism and drug abuse is not limited to the "under privledged" as you said. Low self esteem is a leading indicator towards those pitfalls. Self esteem is directly linked to your enviorment. You are a product of your enviorment.

Giving someone something to sustain them is noble no doubt. Promoting independence,teaching the skills,and building self esteem,for a brighter future. Is a far more noble gesture.

I have had experience training people in a skill or trade. You can see the self esteem rise within them,as they become profecient in their field. This is where our country is failing miserably. There is no real push to teach or train people,to help raise them up.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by daddyroo45
 


Very true. Education is lacking. Why is it lacking, my opinion, is because they are focused on money. I say let the education system function just like a free market. Collectively we all pay taxes, shouldn't we have that money attached to us to chose a school that serves us to give it too? Let the crap schools fail, or change when they can't get anyone into their classrooms.

I am glad you expanded your opinion on welfare. It makes more sense now. There are a lot of issues, but the basis is the people should have the money, and it should only be spent evenly if we collectively agree that we want to fund something. Everyone should get it without qualifying.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Dumb people seem to be working in "hard" labor. Fast food, etc...about as hard as it gets these days.

Average people work in certain trades. Plumbing, etc.

Smart people end up working in an office. These people basically move the resources around that the dumb and average people produce, until they "fit" society...of course while taking a fair share themselves.

Exceptions to the rule as always. The dumb person works with their muscles, the average person works with their heart, and the smart person works with their brain.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by FritosBBQTwist]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I don't know why you're going on and acting like this isn't an ideology. I don't mean to be rude but I have to interject. This is an ideology. In fact, what you're proposing is a welfare state.


The welfare state provides education, housing, sustenance, healthcare, pensions, unemployment insurance, sick leave or time off due to injury, supplemental income in some cases, and equal wages through price and wage controls. It also provides for public transportation, childcare, social amenities such as public parks and libraries, as well as many other goods and services. Some of these items are paid for via government insurance programs while others are paid for by taxes.

Most advanced nations are not true welfare states, although many provide at least some social services or entitlement programs. These goods and services are generally available only to certain people who meet eligibility requirements. However, those that meet the prerequisites are guaranteed -or entitled to- benefits as a right. This type of system is frequently referred to as a “safety net,” which is designed to help the most vulnerable.

The welfare state is socialist in nature. It redistributes wealth by heavily taxing the middle and upper classes in order to provide goods and services for those seen as underprivileged. However, even countries that don’t typically subscribe to socialism offer at least some form of safety net, most of which continue to expand.

One example is the United States, which according to many European countries, is found lacking when it comes to altruism in government. The truth is that the welfare state on a federal level is the antithesis of personal liberty, at least according to the U.S. Constitution, which enumerates specific powers granted to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment grants all other powers to the states, “or to the people.” This means that individual states should be in charge of their own welfare programs, rather than the central government.

While some nations believe that creating a welfare state is the proper role of any central government, few have managed to create efficient systems. They are unable to provide equitably for all their citizens, often leaving those most in need with the least. Rationing of goods and services also becomes a major problem when too many people depend on the welfare state.

All advanced societies view helping people who literally cannot help themselves as decent, humane, and necessary. Yet, another serious issue with the welfare state philosophy is that many people who are capable of caring for themselves have no motivation to improve their lives when they can depend on the government to provide for them. This often breeds resentment amongst those who do work when they are forced to pay for people who do not, via ever-increasing taxes.

www.wisegeek.com...

I used to hold that philosophy. I figured that we could siphon away military funding for social funding. Now I see we can't sustain that either. So... but anyhow that's your ideology and that's what you're advocating. I don't mean to be pigeon holing you... I just thought I'd share my comment in this thread since I felt it was relevant.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I didn't mean to sound like I was just making a political attack on you. I was just wondering why you were saying that political ideology is dead to you... and that's the ideology that you seemed to be supporting. Maybe to get the right to agree with you and the left to agree with you- you should try to support something that doesn't have the government doing everything for the people? Conservatives tend to see governments that give everything for the people- and perhaps they're correct as a negation of liberty since people would be dependent on the government for everything in such a society. So. Good luck with your campaign though. I didn't mean to come off the wrong way.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


I agree we cannot do either. And yes my ideology is an ideology but is not tied in with the current political ideologies. Thus political ideology is dead to me. I realized like so many neither party addresses the needs of America. Both seem to miss the point that they work for us. I see monies funneled to corporations. I see jobs created simply to keep people employed and they do not serve an actual purpose that benefits anyone. I say instead of having masses amounts of people determining if you are eligible for a benefit put all them jobs to good use producing the benefit they are regulating so hard. Can you imagine the kind of food we could produce if all the office jobs were turned into indoor farming jobs that produced crops year round?

I'm just saying neither party seems interested in thinking outside the box of controlling and enslaving the population to a system that mandates you struggle to support your very existence. If I had to say my ideology was political at all, I would say I was a social libertarian. But even that would be stretching the term. So until someone makes a label for my ideology, then it isn't political at all.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join