jblueep Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I am curious how deconversion has affected your political positions. I have become far more socially liberal. I was never anti-gay, but now I am completely pro gay. I was very anti-abortion, and now I'm middle of the road on that. I was fiscally conservative, and still am. I highly value personal responsibility. I don't have any issue with taking care of those who can not physically/mentally take care of themselves, but beyond that, I have great disdain for the "welfare state" based on purely rational reasons. We have spent trillions since the 1960s and poverty rates are basically the same. This presents a dilemma for me in upcoming political elections. I can't stand the social policies of conservatives but I can't stand the fiscal policies of liberals. What about you? What has changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I was more or less a democrat when I got here. I turned to libertarian socialism mostly because I liked alot of the libertarian ideals but there randian view of the welfare state replused me. Though really that change was more or less do just this site, probably wouldn't have happened otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Positivist Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I became an official leftist, as opposed to a conflicted right-winger. I vote for the party with the best environmental and best social policies. Gawd, it's so nice to not feel so conflicted every time I have to vote! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norton65ca Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 went through a brief right wing phase as a fundagelical, but have been leftist and anti fascist for a long time, since I deconverted, it's only become more so. The right wing of N American politics disgusts me and I fear for our future if they get any more control than they already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I wish I had time for a nice big reply, but long story short I used to be both fiscally and socially conservative. I bacame fiscally liberal when I was in middle management and saw with my own eyes 'the man' holding people down. This was always a punch line I laughed at but I saw it really happening. Then I became socially liberal following deconversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted August 8, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 8, 2012 I've gone from libertarian-leaning conservative republican to the social-libertarian pipe-dream of Chomsky. Things have been getting better all over the world, but I'm having hard time awakening any hope for this country, though I have been impressed with younger generations. I hope that someone comes up with a way to make a change for the better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Droptail Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I attended junior high and high school from 2000-06, during the height of the 2nd Bush presidency. The Christian school I went to had teachers basically rooting for the Republican Party in full view of students and promoted right-wing issues like anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stances. My religious beliefs were hijacked for political purposes in this way. My deconversion was heavily influenced by my increasing disgust for the Republican party and Christian conservatives' politics while attending university. I'm quite liberal now, easily to the left of either major party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wester Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Was liberal democrat .... now full blown Emma Goldman Anarchist. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentknight Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 hmm, when I was young I didn't involve myself in politics much. I didn't feel I knew enough to make a decision. As I've gotten older I still don't think I know "enough", but I've become more "liberal" as the general philosophies of liberals tend to be more align with my own. That didn't change when I finally admitted to not believing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeCycle Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 So far, I'm still a huge Ron Paul supporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted August 8, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 8, 2012 I changed my position on a few social policies, but that's it I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 As I've gotten older I still don't think I know "enough" Good on you. Few people admit this and just bluster. I think admitting not knowing is a sign of maturity and wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 So far, I'm still a huge Ron Paul supporter. I was on the Ron Paul bandwagon several years ago. While I was deconverting I became completely liberal. but i now have a liberal viewpoint on social issues and am slowly becoming more of a fiscal conservative. I guess I just shed the stupid rules that had basis in scripture and became concerned with the long term survival/happiness of the human species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 So far, I'm still a huge Ron Paul supporter. Booooooooooooooooo, stop supporting anarcho capitalist fascists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramen666 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I voted for Ron Paul once, in the 2008 election when I was still registered a Republican in the primaries.I think some of his ideas regarding foreign policy are better than the entire GOP's view on it. HOWEVER, at the end of the day (and these past few years have proven this), Ron Paul still is a normal Republican in the end. Booooooooooooooooo, stop supporting anarcho capitalist fascists Ron Paul isn't.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted August 8, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 8, 2012 So far, I'm still a huge Ron Paul supporter. Booooooooooooooooo, stop supporting anarcho capitalist fascists What does Ron Paul and Anarchy have to do with fascism (could make a joke from this one)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelHappy Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I'm all for a welfare state, higher taxes for the rich, lower to none for the poor. If god won't help out the needy then we should, I'm also for taking measures to lower the birth rates (even go negative), more focus on global warming and more spending on the space program. I find it pretty pathetic that the US is behind most Europe, Canada and Japan with things like health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblueep Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 I'm all for a welfare state, higher taxes for the rich, lower to none for the poor. If god won't help out the needy then we should, I'm also for taking measures to lower the birth rates (even go negative), more focus on global warming and more spending on the space program. I find it pretty pathetic that the US is behind most Europe, Canada and Japan with things like health care. This is where I get lost the in tax debate: The top ~10% of earners pay ~70% of the taxes, and the bottom ~50% paying nothing. How much more do the rich need to pay? What would that accomplish? And wouldn't this continue create an entitlement society where the poor people have no incentive to climb the ladder and the rich people have less incentive to start businesses to employ the poor people? Perhaps I'm missing something here. Educate me...I'm asking seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 So far, I'm still a huge Ron Paul supporter. Booooooooooooooooo, stop supporting anarcho capitalist fascists What does Ron Paul and Anarchy have to do with fascism (could make a joke from this one)? I think you get where I was going with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 The top ~10% of earners pay ~70% of the taxes, and the bottom ~50% paying nothing. I'm not one to apologize for taxes, but I'm thinking you're getting a few facts mixed up here. The stats I've seen are almost in reverse. I suspect this is a tax table vs. reality issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I'm all for a welfare state, higher taxes for the rich, lower to none for the poor. If god won't help out the needy then we should, I'm also for taking measures to lower the birth rates (even go negative), more focus on global warming and more spending on the space program. I find it pretty pathetic that the US is behind most Europe, Canada and Japan with things like health care. This is where I get lost the in tax debate: The top ~10% of earners pay ~70% of the taxes, and the bottom ~50% paying nothing. How much more do the rich need to pay? What would that accomplish? And wouldn't this continue create an entitlement society where the poor people have no incentive to climb the ladder and the rich people have less incentive to start businesses to employ the poor people? Perhaps I'm missing something here. Educate me...I'm asking seriously. That's only half the story. They pay 70% of the taxes sure, but they make like 95% of the money. Now do you start to see the discrepancy? What are the two basic principles of the game of Monopoly? Everybody starts on a level playing field, and in the end one person owns everything. This will be some good reading for you: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountainman Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 The only reason deconversion (by itself) should effect anybody's political leanings is that his/her former church was one of those right wing evangelical or fundy churches that preaches more politics than religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelHappy Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 This is where I get lost the in tax debate: The top ~10% of earners pay ~70% of the taxes, and the bottom ~50% paying nothing. How much more do the rich need to pay? What would that accomplish? And wouldn't this continue create an entitlement society where the poor people have no incentive to climb the ladder and the rich people have less incentive to start businesses to employ the poor people? Perhaps I'm missing something here. Educate me...I'm asking seriously. The top 10% of the population controls about 75% of the total wealth, the other 90% controls the remaining 25%. Over the last 30 years we've seen wealth inequality spiral out of control and its only continuing. Furthermore the rich have lots more money in reserves and savings while the other 90% spends the majority of their paychecks every month. If the middle class is larger then you have more products bought rather than when money is horded (less face it when your that rich there's only so much you can buy which leads to recessions because more products aren't being sold). Trickle down economics just doesn't work IMO. By god the people who are that prosperous can afford to help some of the lower classes out, also very very few people move out of their social standings, its not like everyone who is poor is lazy or doesn't want to earn more. People on unemployment also had to work at one point and a single mom raising multiple kids might seriously have trouble raising several kids and working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblueep Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 I'm all for a welfare state, higher taxes for the rich, lower to none for the poor. If god won't help out the needy then we should, I'm also for taking measures to lower the birth rates (even go negative), more focus on global warming and more spending on the space program. I find it pretty pathetic that the US is behind most Europe, Canada and Japan with things like health care. This is where I get lost the in tax debate: The top ~10% of earners pay ~70% of the taxes, and the bottom ~50% paying nothing. How much more do the rich need to pay? What would that accomplish? And wouldn't this continue create an entitlement society where the poor people have no incentive to climb the ladder and the rich people have less incentive to start businesses to employ the poor people? Perhaps I'm missing something here. Educate me...I'm asking seriously. That's only half the story. They pay 70% of the taxes sure, but they make like 95% of the money. Now do you start to see the discrepancy? What are the two basic principles of the game of Monopoly? Everybody starts on a level playing field, and in the end one person owns everything. This will be some good reading for you: http://www2.ucsc.edu...wer/wealth.html The top ~70% make about ~40% of the money. I will read the link. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelHappy Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Where are you getting those statics? The top 10% makes about 75% of the money which is highly unequal and the other 90% makes the small quarter or third part of the pie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Distribution_of_Wealth,_2007.jpg http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts