Why I'm a Centrist Who Is Turning Liberal

I think I have become more conservative, by my definition, as I age. I don't believe any political party accurately represents my beliefs, so I continue to remain unaffiliated.

I think his 'reasons' are valid, and I share concern about the same things. I do not think that they are conservative, liberal, or whatever, but rather are concerns shared by most thinking individuals. The analysis, or lack thereof, of those concerns and solutions to them is where I see the problem. It appears to me to be mostly political, rather than actually being based upon any knowledge of, or intelligent consideration of, the real problem at hand.

I don't agree with the 'knee jerk' reactions to most situations by any of the political parties.

I especially disagree with the creation/passage of 'feel good' legislation which is not understood adequately by anyone, but is done just to make it appear that legislators are doing their jobs and to get votes.

Left and right can be so constraining. For example, as I age, I have become more of an isolationist. I don't think we need 12 carrier groups & to meddle all over the world. Is that a leftist position? Right wing? It seems like Obama, Bush, and Clinton, all thought that American diplomats need to stick their fingers into every crisis.

I think his ideas aren't really outside the mainstream. The only one is the "income redistribution". The problem is liberal policies have made that worse over the last 6 yrs. We need the economy to grow, and need people to need and want to work. Just saying "tax the rich" won't do anything unless we grow the whole pie.

I completely understand people who have gone centrist. I also understand people who have grown conservative, but I don't understand how you can grow more liberal (at least utilizing the definition of the liberals running the show right now). What policies have liberals put in or even suggested over the last 6 yrs have made this country better? What policies does the liberal side have for the future? All I can see from the liberals (and a bunch of republicans) is more debt. More govt. More control.

I don't want what the mainstream republicans are selling, nor do I like what the liberals are selling. They are only in it for themselves. We need a new batch of politicians who actually understand they work for us...they aren't kings.

I like what Ben Carson wants to see. Remove the D & R from the ballot. Make people actually research who they are voting for, and stop just voting for a letter.

I find it interesting that he mentions the NSA and "intrusive surveillance" (AP scandal, etc) which has gotten completely out of control under a "transparent" left-wing President, yet he's leaning more to the left?

ScienceChic wrote: Renegade, maybe I'm being idealistic, but I see a huge difference between everyday people who are liberals vs liberal politicians. Most everyday liberals I know believe in a balanced budget and hate how much our government has overstepped its boundaries into our personal privacy and freedoms. We don't want more useless legislation or bigger government, we just want it to work efficiently, provide for its citizens, and create fair and equitable economic opportunity for all - not an opportunistic environment for those with money and power to tip things in their favor. As you've pointed out, both Democrats and Republicans are only in it for themselves and the policies that have been passed that hurt us have been passed by both parties. As one example of something that liberals have consistently supported that helps us is our investment in science and research. We stand the power we are today due to beating everyone else in scientific breakthroughs and economic growth based on new technology, and we're losing ground there due to budget cuts that Republicans have pushed for. I get that we need to cut spending in addition to raising taxes (because that's how I fix debt in my own household), but it needs to be done smartly. It's past time for new blood in office.

Can't disagree with you completely! My problem with liberals is they don't do anything about it. That is why I support the tea party. They are making the establishment republicans shake in their boots. They are challenging them in the primaries, and they make the lobbyists freak out. Where is the liberal version of this? This is why I support conservatives, not republicans. We need to get our fiscal house in order so we can do all the other things we want to do. I fully support R&D in science, and am more than happy to support that with my taxes. I don't support the massive waste that occurs in some of those though, just like any other govt program. Programs we want (science R&D) are being replaced by entitlements. We have to cut somewhere. Sad thing is, nobody will touch entitlements, so something the average "bachelor TV watcher" won't notice is the R&D.

You fix debt in your home by cutting spending and raising taxes, or by additional revenue. Do you demand your boss (or in your case, your advertisers) pay you more...without offering anything in additional to them? Or do you tell them you will grow the business and therefore everyone wins. Or do you go out and work your butt off to acquire more advertisers to grow your income (taxes). That is my issue with raising tax rates. That does nothing. How much of someone's income should the govt take? Do you have a percentage in your mind that is fair? Lets figure out how to grow the economy so we raise tax revenues. Lets change the tax code to make it understandable for all, and make it rewarding to companies to stay in the US. Lets not reward people just because they contribute to politicians.

As my signature says....I would give up a lot to not make the next generation bankrupt due to our unwillingness to do what needs to be done.

Yes, you're worrying too much.
If you never watch the Fox Business News, you'd probably get a lot out of it. Last week Cavuto had an interesting discussion about Wall Street money and presidential campaigns. Obama got a ton of Wall Street cash, but it seems that Hillary is having trouble tapping some of those vast resources. The reasons vary, but it was interesting to see the Wall Street/Presidential connection dabated.

ScienceChic wrote: The tax code does need to be made simpler with loopholes removed. I don't know what percentage is fair, but I do know that those who make the most are paying a lot less than they have historically and I do believe they should pay more.

I don't know where this fallacy came from, or how to get people to stop repeating it, but the reality is that those who are making the most are paying more today than they did historically in addition to earning more.

True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%—but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.

In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.

So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014241...04578151601554982808

That was the trade-off during the Reagan years. The majority of the shelters disappeared when the tax rates were dropped. The lowering of the rates was accompanied by a broadening of the base but the overall effect was essentially revenue neutral, meaning who was paying what remained essentially unchanged.

Yes, there is a larger disparity in income today than there used to be. That is what happens when technology replaces workers. All of the welds in your automobile used to be done by a team of men wielding a large and heavy spot welder. The location of the welds was inconsistent, as were the welds themselves. Today all of those welds are being done by robots. Not only are the welds of uniform strength, they are all in identical locations on the frame - something that makes your vehicle today much more durable than the one that used to be welded by workers. And given that the robots can not only do a better job but can do it in less time, the cost of your automobile is lower as a result. Those robots don't need time off for family vacations, they never call in sick or show up to work hung-over from last night. They don't have personal issues weighing on their minds, slowing them down and affecting the quality of their work. They don't go on strike for higher wages, they don't sue the company when they are injured and you don't have to pay an excise tax on their wages or pay unemployment insurance for them. If you owned a company that made cars, why in the world would you continue to hire workers instead of purchase more robots? Why wouldn't you seek to replace as many workers as you could with machines? Why invest in a skilled machinist when you can invest in a skilled machine that only needs to be programmed to do the same job?

We now have automated warehouses with programmed machines pulling items off of the shelf. Those jobs aren't coming back folks - they are gone like flatulence in the wind.

Your car, which is of much higher quality today thanks to the robots, lasts you much longer with far fewer repairs needed. All of the jobs lost as a result are the so-called "middle-class" or blue collar ones and automobiles are not the only area of the economy where this phenomena exists. This, then, is the source of the income disparity, the disappearing "middle class". Our economy is becoming more and more service and financial and ever less manufacturing. When your whole economy essentially boils down to 2 segments, is it any wonder that the income earned does too?