Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Poll: If the election were held today

2020 Election  

45 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you vote for right now?

    • Democratic Nominee
      16
    • Trump
      16
    • 3rd Party
      11
    • Not going to vote
      2


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

You are so transparent. Your outrage and constant whining over anything Trump colors everything you post on this board. 

You can’t even make a factual statement in the context of this thread.  I specifically said Trump has done things I like economically.   But his and your complete lack of morals is a bigger problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Orange said:

Ironically, Obama actually cut the deficit by 2/3rds during his presidency.

Yeah he cut it the debt from 9 trillion to 20 trillion!   HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Not sure how you cut the deficit yet add more to the debt than every other president combined.  That must be a law education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Do we disagree?   I said entitlements were the biggest issue and defense which consumes half of all discretionary spending.  

Just putting things into perspective.  Too many lefties I encounter don’t understand that while cuts are needed to defense it’s not the end all be all solution and that the bigger opportunity and impact lies with entitlements.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

Just putting things into perspective.  Too many lefties I encounter don’t understand that while cuts are needed to defense it’s not the end all be all solution and that the bigger opportunity and impact lies with entitlements.

Absolutely and too many righties think we can balance the budget by cutting non defense discretionary funding and that belief isn’t possible.   BTW a big chunk of non defense discretionary dollars sits in veteran benefits which if correctly categorized as defense which push defense 694.5B and all other non defense discretionary 529.6.  Making defense almost 57% of all discretionary spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

Absolutely and too many righties think we can balance the budget by cutting non defense discretionary funding and that belief isn’t possible.   BTW a big chunk of non defense discretionary dollars sits in veteran benefits which if correctly categorized as defense which push defense 694.5B and all other non defense discretionary 529.6.  Making defense almost 57% of all discretionary spending.

Still way more deficit reducing opportunity with mandatory spending.  You can’t address the elephant in the room without touching the sacred cows of the left - which we both know is what you’re really trying make a case for.  Spending on entitlements is still >3x’s that of defense spending even accounting for what you’re saying here.  You’re splitting hairs for no reason.  The biggest spending issue facing this country is entitlements by a large margin.  I wish more lefties could admit that.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

Still way more deficit reducing opportunity with mandatory spending.  You can’t address the elephant in the room without touching the sacred cows of the left - which we both know is what you’re really trying make a case for.  Spending on entitlements is still >3x’s that of defense spending even accounting for what you’re saying here.  You’re splitting hairs for no reason.  The biggest spending issue facing this country is entitlements by a large margin.  I wish more lefties could admit that.

Just out of curiosity, if you were the guy with the red marker, how would you go about cutting entitlement spending without hurting too many people/hurting people too much? Bonus question: How would you explain the changes you'd make to your voters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, I am Ram said:

Just out of curiosity, if you were the guy with the red marker, how would you go about cutting entitlement spending without hurting too many people/hurting people too much? Bonus question: How would you explain the changes you'd make to your voters?

Adopt the one of the previous plans ( or some combination).  I thought the GW Bush plan was good.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_in_the_United_States#Chronology_of_prior_reform_attempts_and_proposals

Scale back COLA increases, maybe only median or lower get a COLA increase.

Phased cuts for above median recipients over 5 years until solvency is reached starting immediately (don't wait until insolvency).

There is a mountain of abuse on the Disability side.  I have known some people collecting lifetime SSA disability benefits that could work. Granted, $1,500 per month is not an attractive prospect for most, but in one individuals life, it was an absolute abomination how active he was while drawing benefits.

Bonus: Tell the truth, neglect will cause greater pain down the road for all.  Also, failure to act is age discrimination against the young.  Expect to be voted out of office, be a statesman, not a politician.

As for me, I am about 10 months from retirement.  I am not crazy about the above proposals.  Thankfully, my wife and I have well funded retirement accounts.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, sactowndog said:

No the issue is having ethics and morality.  Something sadly lacking from too many on this board.  

And get the F out of here with the spurious and insulting argument regarding prison.  As if removing a child from parents making meth in their home is in anyway analogous to removing a child from parents seeking asylum.   I expect such arguments from you but I didn’t expect them Poke.   I only wish his wife and kids could see them.   I’m sure they would be real proud of him. 

Ethics and morality my ass. Have you fostered kids?

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SS fixes are well known - some combination of lift/remove income caps, reduce/delay benefits, etc.  Healthcare is much more difficult so I won’t pretend to be an expert in that area.  Reducing fraud and waste is a piece of it but not a stand alone solution.

Options are to be honest and explain that longer term pain of NOT addressing the issue will be vastly worse than the shorter term pain of addressing it...  Or just wait to tell us all while we’re standing in line for bread.  :P

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NorCalCoug said:

Still way more deficit reducing opportunity with mandatory spending.  You can’t address the elephant in the room without touching the sacred cows of the left - which we both know is what you’re really trying make a case for.  Spending on entitlements is still >3x’s that of defense spending even accounting for what you’re saying here.  You’re splitting hairs for no reason.  The biggest spending issue facing this country is entitlements by a large margin.  I wish more lefties could admit that.

What are the "sacred cows of the left"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I think it’s evident if you follow the discussion.  

If your talking SS and Medicare, I think you should just say sacred cows.

No politician, left or right, is getting elected on a platform that wants to significantly change these programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, renoskier said:

If your talking SS and Medicare, I think you should just say sacred cows.

No politician, left or right, is getting elected on a platform that wants to significantly change these programs.

The GOO (typo, but fitting so leaving it) has put forth several options to address both through the years.  The Dems just want to expand.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, renoskier said:

If your talking SS and Medicare, I think you should just say sacred cows.

No politician, left or right, is getting elected on a platform that wants to significantly change these programs.

I don't know? Privatizing Social Security was tried by some on the right. The left turned it into a dagger into their heart. It didn't turn out too well for them. It was an opportunity for the left to compromise. No tamale.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, pokebball said:

I don't know? Privatizing Social Security was tried by some on the right. The left turned it into a dagger into their heart. It didn't turn out too well for them. It was an opportunity for the left to compromise. No tamale.

Current benefit levels aren’t sustainable with $22T of debt and almost $1T annual deficits.  Cuts are coming no matter what.    They can happen sooner and be painful or happen later and be devastating.  Either way, they’re coming.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

Current benefit levels aren’t sustainable with $22T of debt and almost $1T annual deficits.  Cuts are coming no matter what.    They can happen sooner and be painful or happen later and be devastating.  Either way, it’s coming.

They have to raise the retirement age to 70 (at least, maybe 75...people are living longer after all). Probably raise the maximum cap on SS tax somewhat too. 

They've got to do something though. it's a time bomb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

They have to raise the retirement age to 70 (at least, maybe 75...people are living longer after all). Probably raise the maximum cap on SS tax somewhat too. 

They've got to do something though. it's a time bomb. 

Recipient age should be tied to life expectancy. There weren't many people drawing Social Security, for as long as they are drawing it, when the program was first implemented.

With Medicare, the government should also take a larger role in investigating the causes of exploding health care costs, and look for ways to mitigate those costs, and stop just handing the pharmaceutical sector a blank check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For social security they need to remove the wage caps.  They also need to phase in higher retirement ages. Make 67 the early retirement age, 72 the age for full benefits.  They may also want to consider making all income subject to the social security tax, including passive and investment income.  Also, social security benefits should be 100% taxable for those with incomes greater than say 75k. Those with retirement incomes greater than 200k and/or assets greater than $10 million should not receive any social security benefits. 

 

As for Medicare I don’t have a solution.  I suspect we will eventually all be put under a Medicare for all plan and Medicare taxes will be at least 5x what they are currently.  In that situation they also need to expand the tax to include all types of income. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pokebball said:

Ethics and morality my ass. Have you fostered kids?

No not because I don’t want to but due to my wife’s health.  But again that’s pointless when you support separating kids at the border and make inane comparisons about separating kids from at risk parents.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...