The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-06-2013, 12:19 PM   #1
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,756
Default I'm Not A Conservative And You Shouldn't Be One Either

http://www.businessinsider.com/conse...problem-2013-6

Quote:
Last week, I sat down to take questions from Andrew Sullivan's readers and one question was "How would you characterize your conservatism?" I responded, as I do when asked about this, that I'm not a conservative ó I was once a libertarian, but my views have changed mostly because of the recent economic crisis and now I'm a neoliberal, and I particularly favor redistributive taxes and transfers to reduce inequality.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 06-06-2013, 02:22 PM   #2
Crushaholic
Armchair Poster
 
Crushaholic's Avatar
 
Get off my lawn, you kids!

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Topeka, KS
Posts: 22,473

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Isaiah Burse
Default

He was never a true libertarian to begin with. A libertarian doesn't see government as the answer to perceived social problems...
Crushaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 02:28 PM   #3
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

But the question remains, Wagsy... what exactly were you? (before the Obama Fever hit, that is )
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 02:36 PM   #4
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crushaholic View Post
He was never a true libertarian to begin with. A libertarian doesn't see government as the answer to perceived social problems...
True Scotsman fallacy.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 02:37 PM   #5
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
But the question remains, Wagsy... what exactly were you? (before the Obama Fever hit, that is )
I was a doctrinaire libertarian - more tiresome than a doctrinaire Marxist.

I rejected libertarianism as unrealistic and unworkable, primarily because the financial crisis arose from unregulated financial game-playing. I also see the widening income and wealth inequality going on as corrosive to our political and economic system.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 02:38 PM   #6
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,508
Default

W*gs mainly just wants equality for himself and others like him.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 02:40 PM   #7
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,993

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

The top one percent control 43% of the wealth.
The next four percent control 29% of the wealth.
That means the other 95% get to split up the 28% of the wealth left over.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywis...e-one-percent/

If that doesn't turn you into a progressive, you're either an idiot, or in the top five percent.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 02:41 PM   #8
ghwk
Ring of Famer
 
ghwk's Avatar
 
Survivor survivor!

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,589

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton's C3-C5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
W*gs mainly just wants equality for himself and others like him.
Actually I think he wants to not see the system tilted towards the 1% any more. I don't know why anyone wouldn't be for this.
ghwk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 03:01 PM   #9
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghwk View Post
Actually I think he wants to not see the system tilted towards the 1% any more. I don't know why anyone wouldn't be for this.
That's the problem with all economic conservatives who do not belong to the 1%. They all believe the lie that someday they may be part of the upper crust, so how dare you ruin it for them before they get there.

Then the people in the upper middle class like some on here feel the need to flaunt their "stuff" to those who have less...not realizing that the joke is really on them. People like lonestar, Meck, Dr. Bownstain and so on are the Grima Wormtongues of the political world.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 04:14 PM   #10
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
That's the problem with all economic conservatives who do not belong to the 1%. They all believe the lie that someday they may be part of the upper crust, so how dare you ruin it for them before they get there.

Then the people in the upper middle class like some on here feel the need to flaunt their "stuff" to those who have less...not realizing that the joke is really on them. People like lonestar, Meck, Dr. Bownstain and so on are the Grima Wormtongues of the political world.
You know there used to be a word for people who defended a position, even if it did nothing to benefit them personally.

Not sure when that defense of principle started making one the class-warfare equivalent of Uncle Tom. It's still clear to me that a bunch of people voting purely in their own self-interest is exactly the mob ruled tyranny we were all warned about when this whole experiment started.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 04:24 PM   #11
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You know there used to be a word for people who defended a position, even if it did nothing to benefit them personally.

Not sure when that defense of principle started making one the class-warfare equivalent of Uncle Tom. It's still clear to me that a bunch of people voting purely in their own self-interest is exactly the mob ruled tyranny we were all warned about when this whole experiment started.
Except we know that loading all of the wealth in the upper portion of the populace doesn't work and never has. You misinterpreted my post. People like you and cut and the rest of the one-day-I'll-be-rich-ers are the ones voting against the nation's interests, all in the hopes of fulfilling your own, and then claiming you're just living the American Dream.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 04:47 PM   #12
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,508
Default

Worrying about 1% is a joke. There have always been super rich people and there always will be. Go ahead take some more money from them not like you will see any of it. Besides you all argue like one party is more for the super rich then another party. Give me a break do you really think that? The super rich will always get their asses kissed unless you want to go Cuba on them. Remember though you can only sieze all their assets once. After that the govt spends it all, loses it all, can't maintain it and your country goes to ****. But hey at least everyone will be poor together right?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 04:51 PM   #13
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Worrying about 1% is a joke. There have always been super rich people and there always will be. Go ahead take some more money from them not like you will see any of it. Besides you all argue like one party is more for the super rich then another party. Give me a break do you really think that? The super rich will always get their asses kissed unless you want to go Cuba on them. Remember though you can only sieze all their assets once. After that the govt spends it all, loses it all, can't maintain it and your country goes to ****. But hey at least everyone will be poor together right?
The last time the income gap was this wide, there was a depression. Pretty big one as the history books tell it.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 05:27 PM   #14
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
People like you and cut and the rest of the one-day-I'll-be-rich-ers are the ones voting against the nation's interests, all in the hopes of fulfilling your own, and then claiming you're just living the American Dream.
Except you're missing my point. I don't ever anticipate being a 1%er. I just have no hard feelings about those who get there. Good on 'em.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 06:15 PM   #15
Obushma
Ring of Famer
 
Obushma's Avatar
 
Bring your lunch pail

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SLC Utah
Posts: 2,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
If that doesn't turn you into a progressive, you're either an idiot, or in the top five percent.
God progressives are stupid. This country has steadily gone more and more progressive over the last 60 years. More government has created more loopholes for thieves and robbers, then the opposite effect. Big Government buys its friends and pays them well through backroom deals, appointments, or through lobby...all progressive

I'd say the progressives are the real idiots.
Obushma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 06:45 PM   #16
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obushma View Post
God progressives are stupid. This country has steadily gone more and more progressive over the last 60 years. More government has created more loopholes for thieves and robbers, then the opposite effect. Big Government buys its friends and pays them well through backroom deals, appointments, or through lobby...all progressive

I'd say the progressives are the real idiots.
The people of this country have been moving progressive, not our government. The crap we got now is a result of Reaganomics/conservative/libertarian ideals. You let the banks/financial sector act without regulation and the 2008 collapse or bail out whatever you want to call it will always be repeated.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 06:55 PM   #17
Obushma
Ring of Famer
 
Obushma's Avatar
 
Bring your lunch pail

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SLC Utah
Posts: 2,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
The people of this country have been moving progressive, not our government. The crap we got now is a result of Reaganomics/conservative/libertarian ideals. You let the banks/financial sector act without regulation and the 2008 collapse or bail out whatever you want to call it will always be repeated.
You are a ****ing moron peacepipe. Show me Lassie Faire Economics at work in this country.

Oh you can't, that right dumbass, it's because central economic planning is at the opposite end of the spectrum, which is where we are now. Go to a different thread, it's obvious, you dont know **** about economics.
Obushma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:08 PM   #18
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

first it's laissez faire you idiot,second our entire banking system has been operating under that philosophy. It was the GWB approach. It of course bit him in the ass at the end.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:11 PM   #19
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,437

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

Huh... Sullivan has changed his political orientation again? No kidding. Also, the season has changed.
Taco John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:13 PM   #20
El Minion
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,748
Default

The World's Richest 8% Earn Half of All Planetary Income
The top 1 per cent has seen its real income rise by more than 60 per cent over those two decades.

The lead research economist at the World Bank, Branko Milanovic, will be reporting soon, in the journal Global Policy, the first calculation of global income-inequality, and he has found that the top 8% of global earners are drawing 50% of all of this planet's income. He notes: "Global inequality is much greater than inequality within any individual country," because the stark inequality between countries adds to the inequality within any one of them, and because most people live in extremely poor countries, largely the nations within three thousand miles of the Equator, where it's already too hot, even without the global warming that scientists say will heat the world much more from now on.

For example, the World Bank's list of "GDP per capita (current US$)" shows that in 2011 this annual-income figure ranged from $231 in Democratic Republic of Congo at the Equator, to $171,465 in Monaco within Europe. The second-poorest and second-richest countries respectively were $271 in Burundi at the Equator, and $114,232 in Luxembourg within Europe. For comparisons, the U.S. was $48,112, and China was $5,445. Those few examples indicate how widely per-capita income ranges between nations, and how more heat means more poverty.

Wealth-inequality is always far higher than income-inequality, and therefore a reasonable estimate of personal wealth throughout the world would probably be somewhere on the order of the wealthiest 1% of people owning roughly half of all personal assets. These individuals might be considered the current aristocracy, insofar as their economic clout is about equal to that of all of the remaining 99% of the world's population.

Milanovich says: "Among the global top 1 per cent, we find the richest 12 per cent of Americans, ... and between 3 and 6 per cent of the richest Britons, Japanese, Germans and French. It is a 'club' that is still overwhelmingly composed of the 'old rich'," who pass on to their children (tax-free in the many countries that have no estate-taxes) the fortunes that they have accumulated, and who help set them up in businesses of their own - often after having sent them first to the most prestigious universities (many in the United States), where those children meet and make friends of others who are similarly situated as themselves.

For example, on 22 April 2004, The New York Times headlined "As Wealthy Fill Top Colleges, Concerns Grow Over Fairness," and reported that 55% of freshman students at the nation's 250 most selective colleges and universities came from parents in the top 25% of this nation's income. Only 12% of students had parents in the bottom 25% of income. Even at an elite public, state, college, the University of Michigan, "more members of this year's freshman class ... have parents making at least $200,000 a year [then America's top 2%] than have parents making less than the national median of about $53,000 [America's bottom 50%].'"

Most of the redistribution that favors more than just the top 1% has occurred in the "developing" countries, such as China. However, a larger proportion of the world's population live in nations of Central and South America, Africa, etc., where today's leading families tend overwhelmingly to be the same as in the previous generation. They, too, near the Equator, are members of the "club," but there are fewer of them.

Milanovic finds that globally, "The top 1 per cent has seen its real income rise by more than 60 per cent over those two decades [1988-2008]," while "the poorest 5 per cent" have received incomes which "have remained the same" - the desperately poor are simply remaining desperately poor. Maybe there's too much heat where they live.

This study, in Global Policy, to be titled "Global Income Inequality in Numbers: In History and Now," reports that economic developments of the past twenty years have caused "the top 1 per cent to pull ahead of the other rich and to reaffirm in fact - and even more so in public perception - its preponderant role as a winner of globalization."

A preliminary version of Milanovic's findings, presented by him at an economic conference, can be seen here. A stunning summary video of Milanovic's research can be seen here.
El Minion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 07:16 PM   #21
Obushma
Ring of Famer
 
Obushma's Avatar
 
Bring your lunch pail

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SLC Utah
Posts: 2,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
first it's laissez faire you idiot,second our entire banking system has been operating under that philosophy. It was the GWB approach. It of course bit him in the ass at the end.
I'm a ****ty speller, what can I say? I dont google search my words.

Now tell me jack ass, how did Bush run Laissez Faire economics with the Federal Reserve. Show me, moron. You can't, because it was never Laissez Faire.
Obushma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 10:38 PM   #22
Vegas_Bronco
Ring of Famer
 
Vegas_Bronco's Avatar
 
Fear is a lack of preparation.

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Now 64 Yards Out
Posts: 5,030

Adopt-a-Bronco:
1 Elam 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
The people of this country have been moving progressive, not our government. The crap we got now is a result of Reaganomics/conservative/libertarian ideals. You let the banks/financial sector act without regulation and the 2008 collapse or bail out whatever you want to call it will always be repeated.
Vegas_Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 06:36 AM   #23
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
Huh... Sullivan has changed his political orientation again? No kidding. Also, the season has changed.
Did you read the article? Or even click the link? That's not Sullivan. It's Josh Barro. It's actually a very good read, you should check it out.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 07:37 AM   #24
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,993

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

The top 1 per cent has seen its real income rise by more than 60 per cent over those two decades [1988-2008]

I've got no axe to grind one way or the other, either philosophically or ideologically. History says that these kinds of numbers lead to societal collapse. Take it however you want. As a progressive, ideologically speaking, I'm for gradually changing this number to something more equitable in order to create a more sustainable, and stable society for the future. These kinds of numbers lead to the collapse of societies. What will replace them? Who knows? Whatever the people who bring this one down decide. This kind of income disparity has a limited shelf life.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 07:50 AM   #25
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
That's the problem with all economic conservatives who do not belong to the 1%. They all believe the lie that someday they may be part of the upper crust, so how dare you ruin it for them before they get there.

Then the people in the upper middle class like some on here feel the need to flaunt their "stuff" to those who have less...not realizing that the joke is really on them. People like lonestar, Meck, Dr. Bownstain and so on are the Grima Wormtongues of the political world.
isnt that what America is all about, though? Hard work, taking a risk, starting a business will land you into a nice life, and the freedom to puruse that endeavor? Don't we want people to aspire to being successful?

I am not saying some **** isn't unfair, it is, but as I have posted before, is it worth worrying about the people who have always been and always will be super rich; or go for the ride and try to pop into that 5% if not better for yourself and your family?

In my opinion, alot of people end up down and out because they make bad decisions financially... maybe some have bad luck.... but overall it is not that hard to have a good life in America without being super wealthy... it just takes some gumption, hard work and a little financial common sense..
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:18 AM.


Denver Broncos