Tired of left vs. right? The Populist Party revival may just be for you.

reply to post by neo96


The whole point is that ending the "War on Drugs" will not create more addicts or abuse.

Because the "War on Drugs" does not prevent any addiction or abuse.

In fact it amplifies these problems intensely but also creates violence and empowers the violent.

The cost of all of this could never be equaled by legalization.

It just seems odd (with your other views) that you believe the Government should use such an incredible amount of money in a ideological attempt to physically control substances with the only measurable result being the imprisonment of large amounts of people...

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by LexiconRiot

 

Kudos for your response. It is literally the 2nd time I've ever seen anyone on these forums admit that their ideas weren't foolproof and perfect, and defensible with their very lives!

If it is indeed an open-source kind of party, then I have a few suggestions. I would recommend being somewhat less expansive in the platform...keep it simpler, based around a few common interests and principles, and avoid specific approaches (such as a national sales tax). You can have a platform with a stated goal without spelling out exactly how you get there...it is a progression after all, and democracy is involved.

Keep it focused on what the majority of us want...usually we get some sort of watered down compromise which in great measure is influenced by corporate money and lobbyists. Let's leave their ideas off the table completely in your populist movement. For example, show me how redundancy is ample reason to even discuss cutting "entitlement" programs....(how I hate the term "entitlement!") how much waste, fraud, and abuse is there REALLY? (figures and evidence is required here, but don't waste your time, it's a gov/corporate talking point)

Lastly, if you're going to pander to anyone, make it the working class poor...this is the population in your populist movement. I would slam the fact of their struggle to survive, home a bit more. And focus on how to raise their standard of living.

Good luck and Godspeed!

edit on 8-6-2011 by joechip because: spelling

Thanks for the well wishes. I would like to focus on the issues that do effect the working poor, as I fall into this category, however I do not want to pander to it per say. This movement may be starting out with myself and a few others but, I do not want to "control" it. I do want to keep it away from being co-opted by corporate and preexisting parties though.

reply to post by Jezus


my stance is acting like a liberal on gun control i am blaming drugs as opposed to guns.

and spending billions on healthcare on people who destroy their hearts,lungs and other major organs etc.

so repeat the history of tobacco and alochol yet agian.

legalization will change nothing.

and i for one do not think they should be legalized they were made illegal for a reason.

for the safety and security of this nation.

reply to post by LexiconRiot

This movement may be starting out with myself and a few others but, I do not want to "control" it. I do want to keep it away from being co-opted by corporate and preexisting parties though.

If your party gets any significant momentum, this is going to be your biggest concern, I think. Take for example the "tea party" which started with a "money bomb" for Ron Paul's 2008 campaign and now is completely co-opted. This happens really quickly. It's important to vocally, visibly distance your self from corporate money, ideas, and influence. LOUDLY.

Good luck.

(I should mention that I am still voting for Ron Paul, in the primaries, however after they have marginalized his campaign and shut him out, I'm open to a third party in the General Election...right now, this one doesn't look bad!)

reply to post by neo96

my stance is acting like a liberal on gun control i am blaming drugs as opposed to guns.

Sometimes you just make no sense.......

and spending billions on healthcare on people who destroy their hearts,lungs and other major organs etc.

What type of logic are you using here?

Originally posted by LexiconRiot

Our platform is as follows:

• The removal of the national debt. To accomplish this we need to both cut spending and increase taxes. Spending cuts should come in the form of cutting defense budgets as well as entitlement spending. Reforming programs that are ineffectual or redundant. The increase in taxes could come as either a removal of the Bush tax cuts or enacting a national sales tax.

As long as the right cuts are made, increasing taxes is never necessary. I'm behind either a flat or national sales tax, but only if they replace what we have now.

• Lower the cost of higher education. This can be accomplished by a cap on tuition for public schools as well as better funding for teachers and school programs. An education should not put you in debt for 20 years following graduation.

If you are suggesting nationalizing colleges and universities, this party gets a big zero. They can't teach our young. They sure won't be able to teach our mature. Higher learning institutions should be the purview of the states.

• Health care reform. Health care is a right not a privilege. For those who cannot afford private health insurance there should be an option provided by the government.

Health care is not a right. The equal access to healthcare could be considered a right. But not healthcare itself. If I'm happy with my health plan, can I opt out of a government plan 100%? Meaning, none of my taxes are used to fund it? If not, have a nice day.

• Protect the press. Freedom of speech is vastly important. This is to include public prayer. The basis of all freedoms is free and open speech.

I can get behind this.

• Reforming the Tax Code. Debt wouldn’t be so easy for the country to incur if everyone were paying their taxes, this includes corporations.

Flat or national sales tax are the best options.

• Regulated Campaign contributions. A corporation or public group should not be able to donate to candidates. All contributions must be disclosed publically and the expenses of each candidate should be of public record.

100% behind this.

• Gay marriage or the removal of government acknowledgement of marriage. Simply put if marriage is defined by the religious standards of marriage then it should not be a governmentally recognized institution.

Marriage should be state sanctioned only.

• Repeal the Patriot Act. This is unconstitutional legislation. The violation of civil liberties cannot be allowed.

100% behind this.

• Protect the second amendment. If I wish to bear arms it is my right as an American.

Not trying to nit-pick here, but how about they expand this to "protect the Bill of Rights".

• De-criminalize drugs. The cost of jailing and prosecuting for drug related crimes causes more debt. You cannot protect people from themselves.

I'm mostly behind this. Decriminalizing the use of drugs is necessary. The manufacture and sale of drugs should be regulated. I don't want to live in the same apartment section as someone brewing meth, thank you.

This is not a definite and end all description of the ideals and goals. This is simply the starting point. It will take far more open and real conversation from within to develop a more definitive role and stance on the issues. View this as a work in progress with the interest of the american people.

While it's a pretty good start, the fact that they believe, even a little bit, in the taking of what's yours and giving to someone else, is not very "liberty-leaning". The Libertarian Party has a lot of the same ideals as this Populist Party, but without the added benefit of not wanted to take your stuff.

/TOA

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


dont blame me for your failure of reading and comprehension

issues are all the same on their most basic levels it was a comparison of the logic on gun control.

since they say its ok to ban all guns from the people since that is a popular consensus.

by that logic

if it is ok to ban one thing from the american people it is ok to ban another thing "deemed harmful to the people".

if it is ok to ban one thing from the american people it is ok to ban another thing "deemed harmful to the people".

reply to post by neo96


Neither is okay. How's that for ya.

I'll keep away from your guns, you stay away from my ( unmentionables), k?

And the government can build roads, defend borders, and leave us both the hell alone in our free country...how's that hit ya?

reply to post by joechip


it is not the governments responsibility to build roads those are state and local issues.

roads are the result of bad state government control the money goes to the "in crowd" and all the little people get ignored.

case in point 20 miles from where i live a road was in dire need of repair after years of neglect they release control of the road to the city from the state and as soon as that happend things happened all the paving and lighting and the whole ball of wax.

local interests is always going to be better than someone living 200 miles away.

borders are state issues that only require the government to get the hell of that states back

agian local interest is always going to be better than someone living 2000 miles away.


having it your way but when you want a new heart or lung or kidney pay for it yourself and then you can do whatever drug you want.

having it your way but when you want a new heart or lung or kidney pay for it yourself and then you can do whatever drug you want.

reply to post by neo96


I think you are being disingenuous in your confusing the issues of universal healthcare with decriminalization of drugs. The drug war has got nothing whatsoever to do with universal healthcare...the cost side of treating drug addiction as a health issue doesn't negate the cost of treating as a criminal issue, and that's beside the point because it really is a matter of drug preference, which the government has no business taking sides on, but if they did, they picked the wrong drug to back, in alcohol, look up the statistics yourself.

Enjoy your interstate highway system. and tell the border patrol they won't be getting anymore paychecks, ya crazy states righter!

reply to post by neo96

if it is ok to ban one thing from the american people it is ok to ban another thing "deemed harmful to the people".

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Crack & Guns. None of them should be illegal.

reply to post by joechip


they are one in the same healthcare and drugs and narcotics and big pharma they all effect the price of healthcare.

the cost to the economy of lost income to the cost of other taxpayers paying for their usage.

to say that they are not connected is disingenous.

reply to post by neo96


www.briancbennett.com...

Okay, there ya go. That should settle the matter if we're both attempting to be honest.

www.briancbennett.com...

reply to post by joechip


sorry a decade old graphic means nothing to me.

reply to post by neo96


Did you read the article?. Has that much changed in a decade? Is the drug war still on? Are you freaking serious? It is widely known that the costs of treating drugs as a criminal issue DWARF the costs of treating them as a healthcare issue.

FAIL!

reply to post by LexiconRiot

I'm on board...Watching the pettiness of it all makes me sick. The news media has spent the last two weeks talking about Wiener's wiener and I know there are very important issues that need addressing. So sign me up, let's take our country back. We are the United States of America for goodness sakes!

Originally posted by The Old American

As long as the right cuts are made, increasing taxes is never necessary. I'm behind either a flat or national sales tax, but only if they replace what we have now.

This is an oft used argument, that I would refute with tax rates on the top 1% are low and we are in a recession. Not saying that the tax cuts caused the economic collapse but they obviously didn't help. A flat tax seems nice, I wonder what that percent would be though? The proposed 15% seems a bit low when at 34-35% we already have a national debt.

If you are suggesting nationalizing colleges and universities, this party gets a big zero. They can't teach our young. They sure won't be able to teach our mature. Higher learning institutions should be the purview of the states.

What I am suggesting is that the Government (weather that be State or Federal) give more grant money to schools as well as ensure public schools can compete with private while keeping tuition costs low. This is not the same as nationalizing.

Health care is not a right. The equal access to healthcare could be considered a right. But not healthcare itself. If I'm happy with my health plan, can I opt out of a government plan 100%? Meaning, none of my taxes are used to fund it? If not, have a nice day.

In what realm are you able to control what you tax dollars are used for? No one is forced to use Government Healthcare however the option should be available. Taxes are allocated with the budget and not predetermined when they are collected.

Flat or national sales tax are the best options.

Whatever the solution may be it is important that there is no loopholes and no evasion techniques. Everyone needs to pay their share.

Marriage should be state sanctioned only.

I would say my point still stands either way.

Not trying to nit-pick here, but how about they expand this to "protect the Bill of Rights".

/agree

I'm mostly behind this. Decriminalizing the use of drugs is necessary. The manufacture and sale of drugs should be regulated. I don't want to live in the same apartment section as someone brewing meth, thank you.

This is a valid point and one that warrants discussion.

This is not a definite and end all description of the ideals and goals. This is simply the starting point. It will take far more open and real conversation from within to develop a more definitive role and stance on the issues. View this as a work in progress with the interest of the american people.

While it's a pretty good start, the fact that they believe, even a little bit, in the taking of what's yours and giving to someone else, is not very "liberty-leaning". The Libertarian Party has a lot of the same ideals as this Populist Party, but without the added benefit of not wanted to take your stuff.

/TOA

Well I can live with this. Thanks for the good analysis.

reply to post by joechip


blah blah heres a few links

www.drugabuse.gov...

Drug abuse and addiction have negative consequences for individuals and for society. Estimates of the total overall costs of substance abuse in the United States, including productivity and health- and crime-related costs, exceed $600 billion annually. This includes approximately $181 billion for illicit drugs,1 $193 billion for tobacco,2 and $235 billion for alcohol.3 As staggering as these numbers are, they do not fully describe the breadth of destructive public health and safety implications of drug abuse and addiction, such as family disintegration, loss of employment, failure in school, domestic violence, and child abuse.

see thats just tobacco and alcohol doesn take in to consideration of cociane or heroin and anything else.

and that is the legal drugs.

www.drugscience.org...

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) periodically updates and publishes a comprehensive report on "The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse." The most recent version is based on the period of 1992 to 2002(4). Few of the costs detailed in this report concern marijuana use. The total annual cost of drug abuse presented in the report is an impressive $180.8 billion. These costs are divided into three categories - productivity, health, and other costs.

180 billion just on coc aine.

3 drugs and you people want to legalize more.

anyone has links

While I think this argument is very interesting and all. I am partial to the topic at hand.

reply to post by neo96


Yes, but my statistics compared the two approaches...yours did not.

And unless you're calling for prohibition of alcohol (how'd that work out for us before?) you still don't address the hypocrisy of government choosing one drug (very dangerous and expensive, healthcare wise--alcohol) over others (far less widely used for the dangerous ones, and essentially harmless for the more prevalent one) as though that were any business of theirs to do.

excuse the lack of specific names of drugs, don't want to overtax the moderators.

(and I think this is better left to another thread at this point, let's leave the man to build his political party!)