• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How many times (if any) have you changed your political affiliation?

Change of political affiliation

  • Total voters
    76
I used to be a Registered Democrat...............


Now Im just Independent.
 
cpwill said:
:roll: yes. It's far better for the elderly if the system collapses and they are simply tossed off of it wholesale.
Click to expand...
That's what many politicians would have us believe. :roll:
 
MoSurveyor said:
That's what many politicians would have us believe. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah. You can't trust those radical right wingers like the Bowles-Simpson Commission, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, the IMF, and the CBO..... :roll:
 
cpwill said:
Yeah. You can't trust those radical right wingers like the Bowles-Simpson Commission, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, the IMF, and the CBO..... :roll:
Click to expand...
I trust most of them. It's too bad none of them say Social Security is dead or has to die. :roll:
 
MoSurveyor said:
I trust most of them. It's too bad none of them say Social Security is dead or has to die. :roll:
Click to expand...

No, they simply say that we have to seriously change our old-age support structure to reduce expenditures, or it will die. No one in either party is pushing that either SS or Medicare "has to die", that's just the hyperbole that Democrats use to motivate low-information idiots to vote :)
 
I have not, nor will I probably ever, change my political affiliation. Kind of hard to do so considering I don't belong to one. I am independent of all political affiliations because frankly they all have their pro's and their con's.
 
cpwill said:
No, they simply say that we have to seriously change our old-age support structure to reduce expenditures, or it will die. No one in either party is pushing that either SS or Medicare "has to die", that's just the hyperbole that Democrats use to motivate low-information idiots to vote :)
Click to expand...
Certainly no one on the Hill says that or they wouldn't survive their next election. For other conservatives not on the spot, however, it's a different ball game. They've been pushing the dissolution of SS for years just as you have on many occasions.
 
I was raised in a very conservative-republican family, but I never cared much for politics growing up. I had a LOT of problems with the GOP, their morality laws, religious control of the government, corporate welfare policy, anti-gay policies, and an insatiable lust for war. To top it off they weren't even fiscally responsible anymore.

Around 19 I started reading a lot of political books. I knew what I believed but I didn't know where I fit. Read a lot of Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano and others. Discovered libertarianism and never looked back.

I have however shifted my lean from hardline right-libertarian to just libertarian. I can meet in the middle on some fiscal issues.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Certainly no one on the Hill says that or they wouldn't survive their next election. For other conservatives not on the spot, however, it's a different ball game. They've been pushing the dissolution of SS for years just as you have on many occasions.
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's like a secret evil plan? Do they have a secret lair where they go, put on monocles, and discuss it as they laugh maniacally?


:roll:


And I have pushed saving SS by making it better which incidentally would result in INCREASING the benefit to retirees (except for the wealthy, for whom I am willing to accept a reduced return until the new system is fully self-funded), particularly for our low-income retirees, not reducing it. Your apparent failure to grasp that speaks to either a basic unwillingness to read or inability to perform basic math.
 
cpwill said:
And I have pushed saving SS by making it better which incidentally would result in INCREASING the benefit to retirees (except for the wealthy, for whom I am willing to accept a reduced return until the new system is fully self-funded), particularly for our low-income retirees, not reducing it. Your apparent failure to grasp that speaks to either a basic unwillingness to read or inability to perform basic math.
Click to expand...
Then you must have changed your tune since I last read your opinion on this.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Then you must have changed your tune since I last read your opinion on this.
Click to expand...

Nope, not really.

1. Some basic means testing which removes the wealthy from the rolls, or at least significantly reduces their benefit.
2. A partial shift of our FICA taxes into private accounts which generate higher rates of return, while the remainder stays to ensure the floor for current seniors
3. The maintenance of guaranteed floors of benefits that are in line with the current benefit, though I'm open to making them flattened so that current low-income (poor) retirees don't get screwed, but which are funded first from returns from the private account, meaning that program expenditures go down every year from now until they reach net zero and then
4. A tax on the individual accounts upon the event of their passing to a non-spouse which will replace the Estate Tax and probably eventually not a little bit of the Income tax as well.
 
cpwill said:
Nope, not really.

1. Some basic means testing which removes the wealthy from the rolls, or at least significantly reduces their benefit.
2. A partial shift of our FICA taxes into private accounts which generate higher rates of return, while the remainder stays to ensure the floor for current seniors
3. The maintenance of guaranteed floors of benefits that are in line with the current benefit, though I'm open to making them flattened so that current low-income (poor) retirees don't get screwed, but which are funded first from returns from the private account, meaning that program expenditures go down every year from now until they reach net zero and then
4. A tax on the individual accounts upon the event of their passing to a non-spouse which will replace the Estate Tax and probably eventually not a little bit of the Income tax as well.
Click to expand...
If you lift the cap you'd solve 90% of the problem right there.


I also wonder if this fix-that-isn't addresses DI and Medicare. Seems like it didn't.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
If you lift the cap you'd solve 90% of the problem right there.
Click to expand...

well, that's part of my plan as well - but I disagree as to the portion of the problem that it solves. SS as it stands is a miserable abuse of our poor.

I also wonder if this fix-that-isn't addresses DI and Medicare. Seems like it didn't.
Click to expand...

this is strictly SS. For Medicare I'd have to redirect you to another thread.

But you are right to link the two. It kind of doesn't matter what we do to SS if we don't fix Medicare.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
well, that's part of my plan as well - but I disagree as to the portion of the problem that it solves. SS as it stands is a miserable abuse of our poor.

this is strictly SS. For Medicare I'd have to redirect you to another thread.

But you are right to link the two. It kind of doesn't matter what we do to SS if we don't fix Medicare.
Click to expand...
And what about DI, disability insurance???
 
cpwill said:
well, that's part of my plan as well - but I disagree as to the portion of the problem that it solves. SS as it stands is a miserable abuse of our poor.



this is strictly SS. For Medicare I'd have to redirect you to another thread.

But you are right to link the two. It kind of doesn't matter what we do to SS if we don't fix Medicare.
Click to expand...

I don't have as much an issue with Medicare as I do with medicaid.

The solution to SS, m-care and m-aide doesn't lie with the gov't... unless you want a miserable unworkable solution that bows to profit interests.

The "fix" is on the shoulders of each individual.

Chronic diseases cause 7 in 10 deaths each year in the United States.

About 133 million Americans—nearly 1 in 2 adults—live with at least one chronic illness.

More than 75% of health care costs are due to chronic conditions.
Click to expand...

80% of chronic diseases are PREVENTABLE/CURABLE with diet and exercise.

Seriously, all you have to do is eat your peas and go for a walk.

But here is the kicker...
the industrial food industry - will tell you that taste is the most important thing, but will throw a healthy trigger word on the package.
the institutional pharmaceutical industry - makes most if not all of their profits from "treating" chronic disease. It is the cash cow. They have zero interest in CURING any chronic disease as it will destroy their market and the cure is far more organic, so they can't cash in on that either.
the health insurance industry - Has you hostage. 50% of you will develop CD... there is no earthly way any working middle class person could afford their own treatment... so you will pay through the nose to keep from losing everything.

If you are overweight or obese, have more than two drinks on a regular basis, smoke, eat primarily meat and starches... those life choices should not impact the rest of us who WILL end up paying for your fat drunk ass in your declining years. So.. basic coverage for all to start. Very basic. Coverage credits can then be given to those who make healthy choices. So the person who smoked for 40 years will not be considered for coverage for new lungs, experimental or marginal cancer treatments, etc... though pain management and end of life counseling would be covered as basic human decency.

Government cannot fix a problem if government is not the root of the problem, it can facilitate a solution, but cannot fix it.

WE are the root of the problem, therefore the RESPONSIBILITY for the fix lies SOLELY WITH EACH OF US.

So yes, as someone who is going to have to pay for your life choices in your old age, I think I do have some input on what you are allowed to eat or feed your children. Seriously. If you want the freedom to destroy your body, then don't expect me to pay for it.

Until the numbers above are cut in half any discussion of ideology, party politics, government solutions, etc, etc... is nothing but gum flapping.

Both sides have grossly missed the solution. Why? Because the discussion is framed by media and advertisers who depend on your sh*itty life choices to make more profit than they did the year before.

Want to fix this problem... make better choices for you and your family. Already do? Then what are you doing to be a good influence on your friends, neighbors, poor, etc...?

This fix is so freaking simple. It's called individual and community responsibility.

I now return you to the pointless and baseless argument already in progress...
 
I avoided politics until after grad school. Most mathematicians prefer to stick to arguments that are right or wrong and there is no debate, e.g. mathematical proofs. However, when I became more interested in philosophy, there was little question that my philosophical opinions matched Republican.
 
In high school, I was somewhat conservative, believing in small government, a strong military, and I was not a fan of taxes. After doing some reading, I changed to a Democrat, but then I became so disgusted with Obama that I hated the Dems. Seeing the financial crisis and how both parties had screwed us over, I became disenchanted with everyone. After doing some thinking (and now I am doing some reading), my views could be called libertarian socialism.
 
"How many times (if any) have you changed your political affiliation?"

I've never been affiliated with a political group so there has never been an opportunity to change the affiliation.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I was raised in a very conservative-republican family, but I never cared much for politics growing up. I had a LOT of problems with the GOP, their morality laws, religious control of the government, corporate welfare policy, anti-gay policies, and an insatiable lust for war. To top it off they weren't even fiscally responsible anymore.

Around 19 I started reading a lot of political books. I knew what I believed but I didn't know where I fit. Read a lot of Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano and others. Discovered libertarianism and never looked back.

I have however shifted my lean from hardline right-libertarian to just libertarian. I can meet in the middle on some fiscal issues.
Click to expand...
Considering myself to now be an outsider, this is the part that amazes me... that people actually still buy into the notion that the Reps are the party of fiscal conservatism.

They accuse the Dems of being "tax-and-spend", and they're right, but the Reps are "charge-and-spend" and just as bad.
 
I voted Republican for about a decade. I guess if anything I was closer to being an "establishment" Republican. I quit the Republican party before the Tea Party took over but the writing was on the walls. I was never a social conservative or listened to Rush but I grew up in a Republican household and had a subscription to the National Review. A good friend of mine bought me "The Conservative Mind" for my birthday. Pretty much all my friends around my age that were Republican or sympathetic to Republican views have been completely turned off by the politics and policies on the right for the past decade.

There was always a hint of pretty reptilian brain stuff the Republican party used to get people to the polls but now it's become the defining feature of the party.
 
Gipper said:
When I was 6, I became a hardcore Stalinist. However, around my 10th birthday I became a laissez-faire capitalist. My sophomore year of high school I embraced Maoism, but that only lasted until around 19 when I became a Republican McCarthyist. When I was working at a fast food joint early on in life, I was an anarcho-syndicalist because I thought that I was more important than the CEO.

Now I just believe what the chick I'm screwin' at the time tells me to believe. I've also become Jewish, so I feel a little guilty about it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that post. I laughed for a good while. I needed that. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom