Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I apologize, i lost track of what you meant when you asked if i thought it did or didn't matter to the average american. i am shuffling multiple threads right now and I lost my thought trainWayne La Pierre is a complete loon. I know that there isn't a single peice of legislation that has been proposed that would strip all citizens of guns. Thats a right wing scre tactic. Just like the left wing nuts claiming that republicans would abolish the safety net. Actually Maine did something pretty interesting last year and its had a huge impact. maine requires able bodied food stamps applicants to work at least 25 hours a week or volunteer 20 hours a week to draw benefits. In 1 year the number of able bodied people on food stamps went from 12000 to 2500.
You don't think Republicans would like to abolish social safety nets?
Oh yes, there are many republicans who would love to privatize social security. The Koch brother who ran for office in the 80's specifically said he would like to abolish medicare/medicaid.
I was using food stamps and gun laws as specific examples. I don't have the energy to list every single federal program and what each member of each party wants to do with that program.
My point was that both sides have legitimate policy positions on some things and bogus ideas on others.
So, you think it doesn't matter either way for the average person?
Tell you what, pick an issue where you think there is a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals and we can give that a go
I'm talking about fairness and honestly regarding any issue that affects average Americans.
Oh yes, there are many republicans who would love to privatize social security. The Koch brother who ran for office in the 80's specifically said he would like to abolish medicare/medicaid.
I was using food stamps and gun laws as specific examples. I don't have the energy to list every single federal program and what each member of each party wants to do with that program.
My point was that both sides have legitimate policy positions on some things and bogus ideas on others.
So, you think it doesn't matter either way for the average person?
Unfortunately I have yet to find a candidate for office I 100% agree with. So I have to weigh each issue thats important to me and find which 1 I most align myself. Which is why I have voted for both parties.
I say this with a light heart, I know you are trying to hit me with a gotcha question but I am not going to take the baitjust like I didn't take the other guys bait
Nope, I'm not trying to bait you. You can analyze the candidates to the hilt - but you have no way of knowing if they'll even honor their pledges/promises. I vote according to their historical records. I used to vote more Republican than Democrat until Reagan. He ended that. The new Republican party is evil.
Well, if you are going purely by consistent record then Kasick from the GoP and Sanders from the dems are the only 2 clear choices
That makes sense. Aside from his voter suppression tactics in Ohio - I have nothing against Kasich. Bernie is Bernie.
So, you think it doesn't matter either way for the average person?
Unfortunately I have yet to find a candidate for office I 100% agree with. So I have to weigh each issue thats important to me and find which 1 I most align myself. Which is why I have voted for both parties.
I say this with a light heart, I know you are trying to hit me with a gotcha question but I am not going to take the bait
Nope, I'm not trying to bait you. You can analyze the candidates to the hilt - but you have no way of knowing if they'll even honor their pledges/promises. I vote according to their historical records. I used to vote more Republican than Democrat until Reagan. He ended that. The new Republican party is evil.
Well, if you are going purely by consistent record then Kasick from the GoP and Sanders from the dems are the only 2 clear choices
That makes sense. Aside from his voter suppression tactics in Ohio - I have nothing against Kasich. Bernie is Bernie.
Ok so I will tell. In 2004 I voted for George Bush, in 2008 I voted for Barack Obama, in 2012 I was initially backing Ron Paul but ended up voting for Romney. Now at the moment I am donating to and volunteering for Bernie Sanders
I apologize, i lost track of what you meant when you asked if i thought it did or didn't matter to the average american. i am shuffling multiple threads right now and I lost my thought trainYou don't think Republicans would like to abolish social safety nets?
Oh yes, there are many republicans who would love to privatize social security. The Koch brother who ran for office in the 80's specifically said he would like to abolish medicare/medicaid.
I was using food stamps and gun laws as specific examples. I don't have the energy to list every single federal program and what each member of each party wants to do with that program.
My point was that both sides have legitimate policy positions on some things and bogus ideas on others.
So, you think it doesn't matter either way for the average person?
Tell you what, pick an issue where you think there is a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals and we can give that a go
I'm talking about fairness and honestly regarding any issue that affects average Americans.
Unfortunately I have yet to find a candidate for office I 100% agree with. So I have to weigh each issue thats important to me and find which 1 I most align myself. Which is why I have voted for both parties.
I say this with a light heart, I know you are trying to hit me with a gotcha question but I am not going to take the bait
Nope, I'm not trying to bait you. You can analyze the candidates to the hilt - but you have no way of knowing if they'll even honor their pledges/promises. I vote according to their historical records. I used to vote more Republican than Democrat until Reagan. He ended that. The new Republican party is evil.
Well, if you are going purely by consistent record then Kasick from the GoP and Sanders from the dems are the only 2 clear choices
That makes sense. Aside from his voter suppression tactics in Ohio - I have nothing against Kasich. Bernie is Bernie.
Ok so I will tell. In 2004 I voted for George Bush, in 2008 I voted for Barack Obama, in 2012 I was initially backing Ron Paul but ended up voting for Romney. Now at the moment I am donating to and volunteering for Bernie Sanders
I appreciate your honesty. Bernie is a good man. In fact, I think he's clearly the most honorable out of the entire bunch on both sides. However, I worry about his age and I think he's too far left to win the General Election. That's why I support Hillary.
here is something that confounds me. Why does the left demonize Charles and David Koch while the right demonizes George Soros. Don't both sides realize that there are sketchy players back both parties.
here is something funny,The head of NBC has been fundraising for Hilary, and each add on NBC costs Hilary money, so WTF
I am in no way a supporter of David or Charles Koch. Honestly I don't even care what the agenda is, the simple fact that a super pac can pour unlimited money into a campaign regardless of their agenda is reason enough for me to want publicly funded electionshere is something that confounds me. Why does the left demonize Charles and David Koch while the right demonizes George Soros. Don't both sides realize that there are sketchy players back both parties.
here is something funny,The head of NBC has been fundraising for Hilary, and each add on NBC costs Hilary money, so WTF
Soros and the Kochs have very different agendas. I think one is good and one is evil. Are you a Kochsucker?
One question Nicholas_1982, who do you trust more to safely hold your money - you or the government?
Roughly $290,000 has been paid into Social Security directly by me and by my employers on my behalf. I'd feel more comfortable if that money was directly in my control. Now if the left wants the government to hold their money and decide for them the terms of returning it as an allowance, well that's fine. We on the right just believe that an option to decline the government serving as the intermediary should be provided to us.
Social Security is a safety net/insurance - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. Wall Street would love to get their greedy little hands on it.
Social Security is a safety net/insurance - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. Wall Street would love to get their greedy little hands on it.
yes but it's not that simple. the problem is that the government mandates that they borrow against the yearly surplus. Which is the complete lie as to how clinton balanced the budget in the late 1990's. His budget was only balanced once we consumed the SS surplus.
The reason its a problem is because the trust fund is only worth something if the government remains solvent. Now i am aware that current figures have the fund solvent for at least another decade, some economists put it closer to 2 decades. So we have at max 20 years to wipe out the national debt? Ok then lets do that, lets start cutting spending with small increases in revenue to pay down the debt. if we can get that deficit knocked out and we can get some of the mandatory spending laws reworked instead of trying to ONLY cut discretionary spending every year.
The republican problem is they want a simple solution to a complex problem. We need to cut spending while looking at our revenue stream and cuts to not only discretionary spending
I came to this board recently because the last board I was on consisted of 95% partisan flaming. I am getting the same feeling this board is very much the same. Everyone is committed to a team and refuses to side with the people. I get that Fox and NBC and CBS and ABC have convinced most of you that the fight in this country is republican vs democrat but thats just not true. The red blue divide only exists to drive conflict and sensationalism, thereby distracting us from real issues. Sure there are some differences between the 2 parties but not substantial differences.
Let's look at the main policy areas and how the 2 parties differ.
Iraq War - bipartisan congressional approval to invade the middle east and afghanistan
Gun Control - republicans hate regulations and democrafts have not attempted any new gun legislation in years
Patriot Act - Bipartisan support
Drone Warfare - Barack Obama loves it, republicans love it
War on drugs - both sides agree its a failure and want to reform prisons
campaign finance - (except for bernie sanders) all the frontrunners love super pacs
government spending - repubs and dems love more spending (they just disagree on what to spend it on) just look at the budgets
the real fight should be corruption versus truth. thats the real problem for government in this country
Social Security is a safety net/insurance - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. Wall Street would love to get their greedy little hands on it.
yes but it's not that simple. the problem is that the government mandates that they borrow against the yearly surplus. Which is the complete lie as to how clinton balanced the budget in the late 1990's. His budget was only balanced once we consumed the SS surplus.
The reason its a problem is because the trust fund is only worth something if the government remains solvent. Now i am aware that current figures have the fund solvent for at least another decade, some economists put it closer to 2 decades. So we have at max 20 years to wipe out the national debt? Ok then lets do that, lets start cutting spending with small increases in revenue to pay down the debt. if we can get that deficit knocked out and we can get some of the mandatory spending laws reworked instead of trying to ONLY cut discretionary spending every year.
The republican problem is they want a simple solution to a complex problem. We need to cut spending while looking at our revenue stream and cuts to not only discretionary spending
The Social Security Trust Funds are invested in U.S. government securities that pay interest to the funds - just like with China and Japan who like the investment safety of U.S. government securities. Social Security is by far the largest holder of U.S. debt.
BTW, if the U.S. became "insolvent" - what would be worth anything? Dollars? Gold? Guns? Food? Survival?
Social Security is a safety net/insurance - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. Wall Street would love to get their greedy little hands on it.
yes but it's not that simple. the problem is that the government mandates that they borrow against the yearly surplus. Which is the complete lie as to how clinton balanced the budget in the late 1990's. His budget was only balanced once we consumed the SS surplus.
The reason its a problem is because the trust fund is only worth something if the government remains solvent. Now i am aware that current figures have the fund solvent for at least another decade, some economists put it closer to 2 decades. So we have at max 20 years to wipe out the national debt? Ok then lets do that, lets start cutting spending with small increases in revenue to pay down the debt. if we can get that deficit knocked out and we can get some of the mandatory spending laws reworked instead of trying to ONLY cut discretionary spending every year.
The republican problem is they want a simple solution to a complex problem. We need to cut spending while looking at our revenue stream and cuts to not only discretionary spending
The Social Security Trust Funds are invested in U.S. government securities that pay interest to the funds - just like with China and Japan who like the investment safety of U.S. government securities. Social Security is by far the largest holder of U.S. debt.
BTW, if the U.S. became "insolvent" - what would be worth anything? Dollars? Gold? Guns? Food? Survival?
right the US government borrowed the surplus in the form of treasuries. but you are 68, you know that when SS began the ratio of people paying in to the program versus people drawing benefits was much much higher than now. Now, betting that the government stays solvent and doesnt default on debt is a safe call. That doesnt mean the system is exempt from reform. ultimately the trust fund will be depleted.
I have heard numerous options so I am not going to propose a new idea because frankly I am not qualified to do that. so lets just talk about current options.
1. raise the cap on income from $117k
2. means test benefits
3. raise retirement age
4. cut benefits
5. changes to COLA
6. legalize all immigrants and tax their income
7. abolish SS and stop paying benefits
8. full or partial privatization with a grandfather period
now, none of these alone will get us where we need to be so we would need a combination and any combination will invariably piss off quite a few people. SS really is the 3rd rail of american politics. the minute you mess with it you can kiss your political career goodbye
Social Security is a safety net/insurance - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. Wall Street would love to get their greedy little hands on it.
yes but it's not that simple. the problem is that the government mandates that they borrow against the yearly surplus. Which is the complete lie as to how clinton balanced the budget in the late 1990's. His budget was only balanced once we consumed the SS surplus.
The reason its a problem is because the trust fund is only worth something if the government remains solvent. Now i am aware that current figures have the fund solvent for at least another decade, some economists put it closer to 2 decades. So we have at max 20 years to wipe out the national debt? Ok then lets do that, lets start cutting spending with small increases in revenue to pay down the debt. if we can get that deficit knocked out and we can get some of the mandatory spending laws reworked instead of trying to ONLY cut discretionary spending every year.
The republican problem is they want a simple solution to a complex problem. We need to cut spending while looking at our revenue stream and cuts to not only discretionary spending
The Social Security Trust Funds are invested in U.S. government securities that pay interest to the funds - just like with China and Japan who like the investment safety of U.S. government securities. Social Security is by far the largest holder of U.S. debt.
BTW, if the U.S. became "insolvent" - what would be worth anything? Dollars? Gold? Guns? Food? Survival?
right the US government borrowed the surplus in the form of treasuries. but you are 68, you know that when SS began the ratio of people paying in to the program versus people drawing benefits was much much higher than now. Now, betting that the government stays solvent and doesnt default on debt is a safe call. That doesnt mean the system is exempt from reform. ultimately the trust fund will be depleted.
I have heard numerous options so I am not going to propose a new idea because frankly I am not qualified to do that. so lets just talk about current options.
1. raise the cap on income from $117k
2. means test benefits
3. raise retirement age
4. cut benefits
5. changes to COLA
6. legalize all immigrants and tax their income
7. abolish SS and stop paying benefits
8. full or partial privatization with a grandfather period
now, none of these alone will get us where we need to be so we would need a combination and any combination will invariably piss off quite a few people. SS really is the 3rd rail of american politics. the minute you mess with it you can kiss your political career goodbye
Don't fuck with Granny.
Social Security is a safety net/insurance - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. Wall Street would love to get their greedy little hands on it.
yes but it's not that simple. the problem is that the government mandates that they borrow against the yearly surplus. Which is the complete lie as to how clinton balanced the budget in the late 1990's. His budget was only balanced once we consumed the SS surplus.
The reason its a problem is because the trust fund is only worth something if the government remains solvent. Now i am aware that current figures have the fund solvent for at least another decade, some economists put it closer to 2 decades. So we have at max 20 years to wipe out the national debt? Ok then lets do that, lets start cutting spending with small increases in revenue to pay down the debt. if we can get that deficit knocked out and we can get some of the mandatory spending laws reworked instead of trying to ONLY cut discretionary spending every year.
The republican problem is they want a simple solution to a complex problem. We need to cut spending while looking at our revenue stream and cuts to not only discretionary spending
The Social Security Trust Funds are invested in U.S. government securities that pay interest to the funds - just like with China and Japan who like the investment safety of U.S. government securities. Social Security is by far the largest holder of U.S. debt.
BTW, if the U.S. became "insolvent" - what would be worth anything? Dollars? Gold? Guns? Food? Survival?
right the US government borrowed the surplus in the form of treasuries. but you are 68, you know that when SS began the ratio of people paying in to the program versus people drawing benefits was much much higher than now. Now, betting that the government stays solvent and doesnt default on debt is a safe call. That doesnt mean the system is exempt from reform. ultimately the trust fund will be depleted.
I have heard numerous options so I am not going to propose a new idea because frankly I am not qualified to do that. so lets just talk about current options.
1. raise the cap on income from $117k
2. means test benefits
3. raise retirement age
4. cut benefits
5. changes to COLA
6. legalize all immigrants and tax their income
7. abolish SS and stop paying benefits
8. full or partial privatization with a grandfather period
now, none of these alone will get us where we need to be so we would need a combination and any combination will invariably piss off quite a few people. SS really is the 3rd rail of american politics. the minute you mess with it you can kiss your political career goodbye
Don't fuck with Granny.
I agree, we can't abolish the social safety net but if we are serious about the debt and deficits I am willing to put all options on the table. Cuts and revenue increases.
Would you be on board with that
