A Different Reason for the MMM Lifestyle

[biscuitwhomper]

I may take some heat for this post, but I wanted to share another perspective on 'why' we choose to follow this path.

I had a good career, enjoyed my work, and even enjoyed some moderate anti-mustachian behavior.     I could gladly have kept this up until I am 67, and retire into a gluttonous retirement.   Something right out of a Centrum Silver commercial.

But I have chosen the low road.   Why?   Because it is the only power I have left against an out of control, corrupt, government.    I no longer want my tax money funding the infinite 'war on terror' and propping up our military industrial complex, or being used to fund a high-tech Stasi.

Instead, I have reduced my income to levels which for all intents, cannot be taxed.   All within the bounds of the law.     I am also spending more time volunteering and helping my fellow human.    I know it is a strange reason, but I have never been happier or felt more empowered.    Just a few thoughts to share with all of you.

[warfreak2]

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?

Just kidding. Welcome! I think most of your tax money goes on stuff that's mostly beneficial to society, and at worst harmless. Some of it does fund things we disagree with (UK here, but our government enthusiastically joins in any war the US invites us to!), but being politically active is likely to have a stronger effect against that. If you feel strongly on an issue, vote for someone who represents your opinions, volunteer for their campaign, or spread the word otherhow. Paying less tax might bring some comfort, but is unlikely to be effective (or even recognised) as a protest.

[biscuitwhomper]

You make good points.   I used to be very politically active, until I realized that our system in the U.S. is rigged.    Until we hold a constitutional convention and eliminate money from politics, there will be no change.     SSI is indeed a program which has helped many, and I continue to pay into that.   I can't agree with you about U.S. discretionary spending being largely good or benign, though.

[meadow lark]

I get what you are saying!  Taxes aren't my issue, but in a similar political vein, I want to decrease my support of big corporations as much as possible by not buying new things (when possible.).

I always felt like a big hypocrite complaining about the oil companies, and filling up my SUV.  Now we are on scooters and bikes, and we each are averaging 2 gallons of gas a month.

I buy almost no new clothes (with the exception of underclothing and work shoes) because slavery and exploitation are endemic in the garment industry.

I fall short constantly, but money is the driver in this world, so I try to be aware.

[Blindsquirrel]

   Biscuitwhomper, you have another fellow traveler in me. Dislike taxes in the extreme also. They make it a pain to figure out what you owe in the USA and the crap our tax dollars buys is horrendous. My  desire to not fund 3rd world regimes, international slavery, and the giant corporations that feast on tax dollars, and the lethal US police is powerful. Would also like it if the USA would quit firing missiles at brown guys around the world. However, I remain quite happy and gladly pay my taxes. (That was for the NSA guys reading this. :)  )

[arebelspy]

Not a reason often discussed (less common than, say, wanting to save the Earth through reduced consumption, and much less common than the freedom idea), but a good one nonetheless.

Thanks for sharing, and welcome to the forums biscuitwhomper!

[Poorman]

You make good points.   I used to be very politically active, until I realized that our system in the U.S. is rigged.    Until we hold a constitutional convention and eliminate money from politics, there will be no change.     SSI is indeed a program which has helped many, and I continue to pay into that.   I can't agree with you about U.S. discretionary spending being largely good or benign, though.

Thanks for starting this thread.  I agree with a lot of what you've said.  Although I continue to vote each election day, it's my belief that the only votes that matter are the $$ raised to fund political campaigns.

[Thegoblinchief]

This is something I hadn't thought of but I more or less agree with it. Interesting.

[Cassie]

Biscuit W: I think it is awesome that you are spending more time volunteering, etc. This is one of the things that I am enjoying with being semi-retired-we volunteer-help people when they need it with all sorts of things.   We have taken people to medical appts, stores, etc-helped them clean out their homes & sell stuff. All of these are things that we could only do on a limited basis when we both had f.t. jobs.  So glad that you are making a difference:))

[brewer12345]

Because it is the only power I have left against an out of control, corrupt, government.    I no longer want my tax money funding the infinite 'war on terror' and propping up our military industrial complex, or being used to fund a high-tech Stasi.

All of this will happen anyway and be done in your, my and all other Merkins' names.  Get  with your life without paying attention to stuff like this you cannot control.  But I get the need to raise a middle finger to all of this in some way.  I plan on using drones as free skeet targets.

[arebelspy]

Get  with your life without paying attention to stuff like this you cannot control.

100% agree.

(Free PDF copy here.)

[MKinVA]

I absolutely get where you are coming from. What are you doing to reduce your tax footprint, so to speak? Just taking the minimum from retirement accounts? Or other things those of us still working might take advantage of?

[Bookworm]

You'll certainly not get any heat from this direction! I agree with letting go of what you can't control, but your own spending - your own contribution - you can definitely control.

[arebelspy]

ERE, which cycles old posts up to the top fairly regularly, had an old guest post on this topic come up today: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/guest-post-war-resitance-and-frugality.html

[CarDude]

I'm a pacifist from way back when, so the idea of reducing the amount of taxes you pay to feed the war beast is not one I disagree with.

[Blindsquirrel]

the idea of reducing the amount of taxes you pay to feed the war beast is not one I disagree with.

.  +10 on that. Am working on ignoring that which is beyond my control.

[Nancy]

If Thoreau was a member of the forum, he'd give you a +1.

[Nords]

But I have chosen the low road.   Why?   Because it is the only power I have left against an out of control, corrupt, government.    I no longer want my tax money funding the infinite 'war on terror' and propping up our military industrial complex, or being used to fund a high-tech Stasi.

Speaking as a military retiree:  the military should become small enough that Congress might actually have to expect the State Department to solve the world's problems through diplomacy-- and save the military for the real emergencies.

I just finished reading Robert Gates' book "Duty".  Here's a guy who served over 40 years of administrations in the CIA and NSC during the Cold War, so by the time he became SECDEF his conscience should have been whittled down to a mere stub of its original size.  However just before SECDEF he had been at Texas A&M, one of the nation's largest ROTC schools.  He said that he got to know "his" young adults as college students, and then he commissioned them, and then he sent them to war, and then he visited them in the burn ward-- or the cemetery.  He said the responsibility of that job just tore him apart, and he did not appreciate the "helpful" suggestions of the rest of the administration on military tactics (let alone strategy) when they didn't have to write the letters to the families.

In Hawaii we used to be able to invest in startup companies and receive a 100% tax credit for that investment (to be taken in tranches over the next five years, and then rolled forward indefinitely until used).  In other words instead of giving money to the state govt in the hope that they'd use it to create jobs, we could give it directly to the entrepreneur of our choice and know that they'd create jobs. 

That tax credit went away in 2010, but I won't have to pay state taxes for many more years.  Seems like a good ROI.

[Thegoblinchief]

In Hawaii we used to be able to invest in startup companies and receive a 100% tax credit for that investment (to be taken in tranches over the next five years, and then rolled forward indefinitely until used).  In other words instead of giving money to the state govt in the hope that they'd use it to create jobs, we could give it directly to the entrepreneur of our choice and know that they'd create jobs. 

That tax credit went away in 2010, but I won't have to pay state taxes for many more years.  Seems like a good ROI.

That is a ridiculously good idea. Shame they did away with it.

[aj_yooper]

Speaking as a military retiree:  the military should become small enough that Congress might actually have to expect the State Department to solve the world's problems through diplomacy-- and save the military for the real emergencies.
 

Sounds like a plan!

[biscuitwhomper]

Because it is the only power I have left against an out of control, corrupt, government.    I no longer want my tax money funding the infinite 'war on terror' and propping up our military industrial complex, or being used to fund a high-tech Stasi.

All of this will happen anyway and be done in your, my and all other Merkins' names.  Get  with your life without paying attention to stuff like this you cannot control.  But I get the need to raise a middle finger to all of this in some way.  I plan on using drones as free skeet targets.

I treasure the Bill of Rights too much to accept this line of reasoning.   This is why I really did not agree with the MMM "Low Information Diet" post.   I was certainly in the minority on this opinion, and my comments were moderated into oblivion.    I agree that most people waste time and energy on useless information, but I feel we have a duty to stay informed, in the goal of preserving our democracy.   We owe it to those who fought to create it, as well as those who will inherit it.

[brewer12345]

Because it is the only power I have left against an out of control, corrupt, government.    I no longer want my tax money funding the infinite 'war on terror' and propping up our military industrial complex, or being used to fund a high-tech Stasi.

All of this will happen anyway and be done in your, my and all other Merkins' names.  Get  with your life without paying attention to stuff like this you cannot control.  But I get the need to raise a middle finger to all of this in some way.  I plan on using drones as free skeet targets.

I treasure the Bill of Rights too much to accept this line of reasoning.   This is why I really did not agree with the MMM "Low Information Diet" post.   I was certainly in the minority on this opinion, and my comments were moderated into oblivion.    I agree that most people waste time and energy on useless information, but I feel we have a duty to stay informed, in the goal of preserving our democracy.   We owe it to those who fought to create it, as well as those who will inherit it.

+1 

I like that mustachians are not all cut from the same cloth.  It's interesting to hear the "why" behind frugal choices.  For example, if we have to drive, we drive a Prius.  My co-workers think I'm a dippy hippy tree hugger, but the real reason is it's cheaper and I can't stand buying gas (i.e.funding another palace for a Saudi prince).  I appreciate that it's not always an echo chamber in here.

Rather fund a coal mine, eh?  Interesting choice.

[Jamesqf]

Speaking as a military retiree:  the military should become small enough that Congress might actually have to expect the State Department to solve the world's problems through diplomacy-- and save the military for the real emergencies.

A lovely idea, if only everyone else in the world were halfway rational.  And indeed, I think I could argue that the State Department (and their counterparts in other countries) does generally do a pretty good job in such cases.  But how do you use diplomacy to deal with cases where one side sees genocide, religious conversion, or whatever the North Koreans want as the only acceptable outcome?

[kite]

But I have chosen the low road.   Why?   Because it is the only power I have left against an out of control, corrupt, government.    I no longer want my tax money funding the infinite 'war on terror' and propping up our military industrial complex, or being used to fund a high-tech Stasi.

Speaking as a military retiree:  the military should become small enough that Congress might actually have to expect the State Department to solve the world's problems through diplomacy-- and save the military for the real emergencies.

I just finished reading Robert Gates' book "Duty".  Here's a guy who served over 40 years of administrations in the CIA and NSC during the Cold War, so by the time he became SECDEF his conscience should have been whittled down to a mere stub of its original size.  However just before SECDEF he had been at Texas A&M, one of the nation's largest ROTC schools.  He said that he got to know "his" young adults as college students, and then he commissioned them, and then he sent them to war, and then he visited them in the burn ward-- or the cemetery.  He said the responsibility of that job just tore him apart, and he did not appreciate the "helpful" suggestions of the rest of the administration on military tactics (let alone strategy) when they didn't have to write the letters to the families.

In Hawaii we used to be able to invest in startup companies and receive a 100% tax credit for that investment (to be taken in tranches over the next five years, and then rolled forward indefinitely until used).  In other words instead of giving money to the state govt in the hope that they'd use it to create jobs, we could give it directly to the entrepreneur of our choice and know that they'd create jobs. 

That tax credit went away in 2010, but I won't have to pay state taxes for many more years.  Seems like a good ROI.

+1 on Duty.  Should be required reading for every voter.

[Nords]

In Hawaii we used to be able to invest in startup companies and receive a 100% tax credit for that investment (to be taken in tranches over the next five years, and then rolled forward indefinitely until used).  In other words instead of giving money to the state govt in the hope that they'd use it to create jobs, we could give it directly to the entrepreneur of our choice and know that they'd create jobs. 

That tax credit went away in 2010, but I won't have to pay state taxes for many more years.  Seems like a good ROI.

That is a ridiculously good idea. Shame they did away with it.

There were two unintended consequences:
1.  Dumb money.  One new angel told me "I don't know what this tax-credit angel investing is all about, but my accountant told me that I should get some of it."  A lot of dumb money was flung at dumb startup ideas, and when the 2008 recession hit the result was horrifically bloody.
2.  The state legislature portrayed angel investors as "fat cats preying on the poor overburdened taxpayers who can't possibly qualify as accredited investors, and leeches who are sucking all the tax revenue out of our state coffers"... or words to that effect.  Don't get me started on Hawaii's regressive excise tax system, but as a retiree I'm taxed much more lightly than workers.  It's why my daughter (born & raised in Hawaii) is now a Texas resident.  The tax credits weren't hurting the labor force anywhere near as much as the legislature's free-spending policies, but the tax credits were a much more visible target.

As the tax credits wound down, by 2010 we found out who the serious angel investors and hardcore entrepreneurs really were.  Our angel group is smaller today but more money is going into much better startups.  I'm a much better investor for the experience, although it's been a much more painful experience than sitting through the MBA curriculum...

[paddedhat]

A lovely idea, if only everyone else in the world were halfway rational.  And indeed, I think I could argue that the State Department (and their counterparts in other countries) does generally do a pretty good job in such cases.  But how do you use diplomacy to deal with cases where one side sees genocide, religious conversion, or whatever the North Koreans want as the only acceptable outcome?


This big stick thinking is what has shaped or society today, and cost us a much brighter future for all of our citizens, and countless trillions of dollars that we borrowed to engage in such foolishness.We do not need to be the world's moral authority and police force, yet it's a role that most conservatives and pro-military folks in this country relish as if it's some sort of divine responsibility.

The Ukraine is a great example. Every foreign policy expert  is happy to share the fact that Putin started a series of irrecoverable blunders about six months ago, and will gain virtually nothing by continuing in this direction. In response to this, we have conservative fools undermining our status in the situation by calling our president clueless and unable to lead, with the underlying context being that any "real American" president shoots first, engages in a ten year long unwinnable war, then admits victory, while ignoring reality.
      Remember the goal of Bin Laden and crew was to create another failed state, like he did with Russia. He wanted to drag the US into a protracted engagement and slowly bleed it to death. He did it to one great super power and had no problem believing that it could be done again. Predictably, we took the bait, and did a whole lot of needless damage to ourselves because of the need to rule the would, and stand up and declare, "mission accomplished" once we tired of engaging in an unwinnable conflict.
      As to your specific question, North Korea is not a problem that the USA is responsible for, nor needs to address with any tool other than diplomacy. If, and when, their leader is delusional enough to make a serious attempt at launching anything truly dangerous in our direction, and does something more than an impotent splash a rocket in sight of their beach (again) it's time to address things, and time to level Pyongyang with a few nukes.  Until then, diplomacy is something that all leading nations need to do together, to keep reminding the little psycho dough boy that it all fun and games until he gets stupid, then it's over.

[Jamesqf]

This big stick thinking is what has shaped or society today, and cost us a much brighter future for all of our citizens...

Wrong on a lot of counts.  Not to turn this into more of a political discussion than it is, but at some point you need to take into account the difference between deciding on a policy, whether it's the big stick or "peace for our time", and being able to pursue that policy with anything approaching competence.

The Ukraine is a great example.

Munich, 1938.

Remember the goal of Bin Laden and crew was to create another failed state...

Wrong, but we do have close on 1400 years of historical precedent to learn from here.

[paddedhat]

This big stick thinking is what has shaped or society today, and cost us a much brighter future for all of our citizens...

Wrong on a lot of counts.  Not to turn this into more of a political discussion than it is, but at some point you need to take into account the difference between deciding on a policy, whether it's the big stick or "peace for our time", and being able to pursue that policy with anything approaching competence.

You're right, a military budget that nearly tripled in size, post 911,  started a war with a country that absolutely fucking nothing to do with anything (based on fabricated evidence), and pissed away three trillion doing so, CLEARLY has not squandered any on their treasure that could of been used for the betterment of our citizens.

The Ukraine is a great example.

 
Munich, 1938.

Georgia 2008.  Germany, of a century ago has little to do with the current affairs of an oligarchy that is failing, and a leader who dreams of an empire that has no hope of ever materializing. Once the free world is fully divorced from the need for Russian energy, Russia will more rapidly descend from the second world status of today, into a third world hell hole. Germany was expanding in the late 30s, Russia is broke and grasping at countries that clearly are heading west, fast. Putin is just digging a deeper hole, Hitler was another matter.

Remember the goal of Bin Laden and crew was to create another failed state...

Wrong, but we do have close on 1400 years of historical precedent to learn from here.

“For example, in October 2004 bin Laden said that just as the Arab fighters and Afghan mujaheddin had destroyed Russia economically, al Qaeda was now doing the same to the United States, ‘continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.’ ”
 How odd?  I state a well documented fact, from a guy who wasn't shy about stating his desire to do so, yet you are in a position to correct history? So, just for entertainment, what exactly is "wrong" here. Bin Laden made the statement repeatedly, and gave many interviews detailing his success as a AMERICAN BACKED Mujaheddin, slowly grinding Russia to economic and military defeat, and how he was sure that such techniques would be quite successful while defeating the USA and the vaulted "coalition of the willing"

[phred]

Hey Biscuit:
  I understand and agree with your reasoning.  However, supposedly if you get involved with rental real estate, you can live materially well while having a tax free income (tax free at the Federal level -- which is your goal).

[Jamesqf]

You're right, a military budget that nearly tripled in size, post 911,  started a war with a country that absolutely fucking nothing to do with anything (based on fabricated evidence), and pissed away three trillion doing so, CLEARLY has not squandered any on their treasure that could of been used for the betterment of our citizens.

Again, you're wrong - which is not to say that I think the Bush administration was right.  Problem, at its most basic, is that you both have your minds locked into the "countries" meme, as though those are the only possible actors.  Add to that Western society's lack of any real appreciation of history, or willingness to accept that events of more than a few years ago are in any way relevant to the present.

If you bother to look at facts & history, you might appreciate that we are at war with a religion, and have been since long before there even was a United States.  You might even see that the people running those countries, or creating power bases in them, had quite a lot to do with prosecuting the current phase of their war on the Dar al'Harb.

“For example, in October 2004 bin Laden said that just as the Arab fighters and Afghan mujaheddin had destroyed Russia economically, al Qaeda was now doing the same to the United States, ‘continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.’ ”

 How odd?  I state a well documented fact, from a guy who wasn't shy about stating his desire to do so, yet you are in a position to correct history? So, just for entertainment, what exactly is "wrong" here. Bin Laden made the statement repeatedly, and gave many interviews detailing his success as a AMERICAN BACKED Mujaheddin, slowly grinding Russia to economic and military defeat, and how he was sure that such techniques would be quite successful while defeating the USA and the vaulted "coalition of the willing"

What is wrong is the idea that a rational person could actually believe bin Laden on this.  Was bin Laden responsible for establishing the Soviet economic system?  No.  Did the US have a similar economic system? No.  Now bin Laden himself may have believed this, but that only demonstrates that he was an egomaniac as well as a religious fanatic.

[ChrisLansing]

I admire your reason for the MMM lifestyle.    If you are happy living on what you have, great.   

I'd like to respectfully disagree with a couple things you say. 

1. The system isn't rigged.   It's actually pretty straightforward; the candidate with the plurality of the vote wins the office.   If this were not true the politicians would not try so hard to get us to vote (or keep us from voting as the case may be).    Yes there are always some vote counting shenanigans which, imo, just goes to prove that the system works and votes count.     

"It's all rigged" is the complainypants approach to politics.       

2.  Money in politics doesn't really matter.   Thinking matters.   

Consider money vs thinking in a non-political context.   Coke spends lots of money trying to get me to drink their product.   I think I'm better off w/o a sugar delivery system that will result in my getting diabetes.    W/o thinking on my part, the Coke ads are very effective.    (In fact I greatly preferred Coke's sugar delivery system to Pepsi's sugar delivery system back when I was in the market for a sugar delivery system and racing towards diabetes)   My current thinking about drinking pop renders Cokes ads useless against me, no matter the amount of money they throw at it.   

Politics is a bit more complicated because while one can opt to drink soda or not drink soda, one can't opt to live w/o politics, even if one opts not to be "involved".    We are going to decide policy at the ballot box, through our elected representatives whether you are there or not.    My intuition tells me we'd have a better country with your involvement.   

3. While I admire denying the Military Industrial Complex the money it runs on, I don't admire denying SS/Medicade local road improvement (including bike lanes) etc. etc.   There are many good things govt. spends money on, and you are denying society those benefits at the same time you deny the MIC the money it wastes.   

[arebelspy]

1. The system isn't rigged.   It's actually pretty straightforward; the candidate with the plurality of the vote wins the office.   If this were not true the politicians would not try so hard to get us to vote (or keep us from voting as the case may be).    Yes there are always some vote counting shenanigans which, imo, just goes to prove that the system works and votes count.     

"It's all rigged" is the complainypants approach to politics.       

While the candidate with the plurality wins, the system is "rigged" in that only certain candidates have a chance at that.  Our two-party system is the rigged bullshit part.  Some of us consider the two parties essentially the same thing.  And yes, I do vote third party.

2.  Money in politics doesn't really matter.

This is just flat out false.  In a theoretical world, "thinking matters" and money would be irrelevant.  Since most people won't think, your thinking is irrelevant.  Thus money plays the dominant role in our politics.

You use coke as an example, but clearly money in advertising like that matters - billions are spent on it because it works.  Ditto in politics.  Clearly money in politics matters.

Read this article from earlier this week:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/14/04/16/0221210/study-finds-us-is-an-oligarchy-not-a-democracy

Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

"Researchers from Princeton University and Northwestern University have concluded, after extensive analysis of 1,779 policy issues, that the U.S. is in fact an oligarchy and not a democracy. What this means is that, although 'Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance,' 'majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.' Their study (PDF), to be published in Perspectives on Politics, found that 'When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.'"

(Emphasis added.)

(Links to the actual research is included.)

[Blindsquirrel]

   Thank Rebel Spy, with respect to the laws  and the giant chunk of the economy that the state controls, legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa’s apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?  Biscuit whomper is  admirable in my view for actively working to deprive the government of money. (Though they will just print more, it is free to do!) I consider reducing what you pay to governments about the same as trying to take the car keys from a drunk driver. Governments as a whole around the world are deadly dangerous as they will gladly kill, maim, and incarcerate innocent people to preserve their power.

[ChrisLansing]

While the candidate with the plurality wins, the system is "rigged" in that only certain candidates have a chance at that.  Our two-party system is the rigged bullshit part.  Some of us consider the two parties essentially the same thing.  And yes, I do vote third party.

If you consider the two major parties the same thing, then you simply are not paying attention.   

That the two parties are not polar opposites is not surprising, they have to occupy the middle ground to appeal to the greatest number of voters.   That doesn't in any way shape or form mean they are the same thing.     I trust that most readers can offer multiple examples of real differences between the Democrats and Republicans (and other parties)   I'll offer just three, to make the point. 

One party is in favor of health care for all Americans.    One is not.      One party is in favor of women receiving equal pay for equal work.   One is not.   One is against  gay marriage, the other favors recognizing it.     These strike me as real differences.    I don't see how the major parties are "the same".        (Which is not to say they have nothing in common and that they aren't close to each other on some issues)

This is just flat out false.  In a theoretical world, "thinking matters" and money would be irrelevant.  Since most people won't think, your thinking is irrelevant.  Thus money plays the dominant role in our politics.

Most people do think.   People are incredibly smart animals.   As a species we do a lot of thinking.   What you mean is most people don't think the same as you, which means you have to persuade them.    Damn.    It's easier just to throw up your hands and say it's all rigged.    (Might as well use that excuse  not to invest in stocks too)   

You use coke as an example, but clearly money in advertising like that matters - billions are spent on it because it works.  Ditto in politics.  Clearly money in politics matters.

Clearly it only works for people who are willing to buy a Coke.   I've reached a place where I'm unwilling to put the stuff in my body.   It doesn't work on me, nor do Pepsi's ads.    I simply will not drink soda anymore. 

In politics I'm not going to be persuaded  by an add.   I'm not going to vote for one party because most (though not necessarily all) of it's ideas are repugnant to me.    No amount of spending is going to change that.   

Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

We already knew from 12th grade govt. class that the US is not a Democracy.   It's a representative republic.    I'll agree it has Oligarchic elements to it but the question is what are you (and the rest of us) going to do about it?     The answer is to vote for a candidate closer (but not exactly on the mark) to your ideals.   You can quickly google the main candidates and get their "views" and this costs very little, almost nothing.     After that ads only work on those who won't inform themselves.     

I can't  choose between current Pentagon spending and slashing the Pentagon budget by 95%.    Rather, I can (pretend to) choose that by voting for a third party candidate that has no chance of winning, but realistically, I can choose between current spending and a reduction of 3-5%.   The new "lower" spending becomes the new normal, (if my party wins) and I continue to optimize by continuing to vote for slight reductions, even though I'll never see a sensible defense budget in my lifetime.   

This representative republic thing is a real bitch; others get to voice their opinions too, and vote for candidates that you (and I) don't necessarily agree with completely, or even to a very great extent.     It's much easier to say it's all rigged, or to vote 3rd party and pretend you're principled.    Politics comes down to making unhappy imperfect choices.   Focus on what's (in your opinion) the best (least objectionable) party, with an actual chance of winning,  and vote that way. 

We live in an age of social media.   Ideas spread like wildfire.   Traditional ways of persuading voters are not as effective.   Traditional campaign methods are not as effective.   Thinking is what matters.     

[arebelspy]

I'm not going to debate this, but yes, I do believe that beyond superficial matters, the two parties are the same.  On every matter that is important to me (read: civil rights), the outcome would be the same regardless of who is in power.

You're free to disagree.

And yes, I believe the money in politics has mostly ruined it for the regular person having a say.  Politicians will flat out ignore their constituents for those that paid them (lobbyists).

You're free to disagree.

That doesn't mean I don't vote - I clearly said above who I vote for.  That doesn't mean I don't try and change the system.  I never said throw up your hands and give up, and don't appreciate the words put in my mouth.  However just because I want to fight for change doesn't mean those things aren't true; the fact that they are is the reason why I want to.

[ChrisLansing]

I don't think I put any words in your mouth.   You said the system was rigged, and I'm saying that's just throwing up your hands and refusing to look at the system in more depth. 

I didn't say you don't vote, or try to change the system.    You made it very clear you vote third party.   I used to do that as well.   

Your notion that "... I do believe that beyond superficial matters, the two parties are the same."   doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.   Even casual observation reveals profound differences.   

[arebelspy]

I'm saying that's just throwing up your hands and refusing to look at the system in more depth. 

Again, that's just a cop out you - apparently - like to accuse people of.  No one is throwing up hands or refusing to look at things in depth.

You say there are profound differences.  To you, perhaps.  Superficial differences to me.  I think most of the things you mentioned would have been the same regardless of who was voted in, as well as the issues that matter to me.

Do you understand that you and I may have different opinions of what constitutes a profound difference, and what issues matter to us individually?

[biscuitwhomper]

I don't think I put any words in your mouth.   You said the system was rigged, and I'm saying that's just throwing up your hands and refusing to look at the system in more depth. 

What?   It is exactly the opposite of that.    It is admitting that the current implementation of our government has completely strayed from the core principles in which it was founded.   

Sure, there are differences between the two parties, but not on the issues that will decide if our country sinks or swims.    Allow me to point out a few.

1. Respect of the Bill of Rights, most notably the first and fourth amendments.
2. Reigning in the rampant borrowing needed to support our expenditures.
3. Funding and expanding domestic agency that spies on its own citizens.
4. Spending half a trillion a year on a defense budget, because that is what we do.   (See Rick Larsen D-Washington if you don't think democrats are part of this problem).   
5. Resisting term limits which lead to career politicians, corruption, and stagnation.
6. Allowing wholesale purchasing of legislation via lobbyists.

The list goes on.    There is very little difference between the parties when it comes to these core issues.

I guess you would probably call Larry Lessig a "complainypants" tool.    If so, I'll consider it a badge of honor.   Thank goodness our founding fathers were complainypants.

FFI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig

[arebelspy]

I don't think I put any words in your mouth.   You said the system was rigged, and I'm saying that's just throwing up your hands and refusing to look at the system in more depth. 

What?   It is exactly the opposite of that.    It is admitting that the current implementation of our government has completely strayed from the core principles in which it was founded.   

Sure, there are differences between the two parties, but not on the issues that will decide if our country sinks or swims.    Allow me to point out a few.

1. Respect of the Bill of Rights, most notably the first and fourth amendments.
2. Reigning in the rampant borrowing needed to support our expenditures.
3. Funding and expanding domestic agency that spies on its own citizens.
4. Spending half a trillion a year on a defense budget, because that is what we do.   (See Rick Larsen D-Washington if you don't think democrats are part of this problem).   
5. Resisting term limits which lead to career politicians, corruption, and stagnation.
6. Allowing wholesale purchasing of legislation via lobbyists.

The list goes on.    There is very little difference between the parties when it comes to these core issues.

I guess you would probably call Larry Lessig a "complainypants" tool.    If so, I'll consider it a badge of honor.   Thank goodness our founding fathers were complainypants.

FFI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig