2020 Presidential Election - Trump versus Biden

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,464
Reaction score
3,634
Points
113
The short version of this, that you don't seem to get through your idiotic skull, is that you basically know better than all those people and it's okay for YOU to tell THEM how to vote. Voting is about more than that you numbskull. You're just plain too f'ng stupid to really see very many things from more than your tiny little perspective. You just don't get it.

Some people just don't feel that they can, in good conscious, do what you want them to do, to get to the end result that YOU want. Who the f'k are you to tell people how they should vote?

Voting is more than that, and you'll never figure it out.
You're being ridiculous. I'm not TELLING anyone how to vote. The Bernie Bros can do what they want. If they choose to stay home or vote Green, I'm free to think they're idiots. They'll "vote their conscience" and then blame everyone else when Trump damages the things they claim to care about.

Let some anger out. Go kick the dog or visit Jamele.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,464
Reaction score
3,634
Points
113
I’m with you on the media, but this country is pretty evenly divided between Righties and Lefties with a large group of apoliticals in the middle. If CV19 hadn’t happened, it would’ve been a slam dunk election.
Can you point out when on the timeline of polls it was a "slam dunk" for Trump? Thanks!

 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,464
Reaction score
3,634
Points
113
Even with a pandemic and economic turmoil it’s going to be a close election.
And before COVID, the lowest Biden's lead was over Trump was 4.5% in December. Trump was never ahead. When was it that a Trump "slam dunk" was going to happen?
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,630
Reaction score
2,087
Points
113
The general fund! Paid for with these magic beans. What I love most about Trump (after his strong Christian morals) is his fiscal conservatism!
You are such a sucker. I can't believe that you still instantly spout off after reading something on Twitter that you like. How could you not have learned by now? Honestly.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,459
Reaction score
2,739
Points
113
No it shouldn’t. It’s very easy to fix and the least of our fiscal problems.
Yes it is easy to fix. You do something that is a stronger version of what Paul Ryan was going to do. You increase the retirement age and then add to the FICA payment until you get to an actuarial sound plan. I disagree with Trump if he is talking about reducing or eliminating the payroll tax long term. I don't see where he has proposed that. The biggest opponents to reform (remember the pictures of Ryan pushing granny off the cliff) have been Democrats. But they don't like to fix problems. They like problems.

Therefore, if our congress cannot fix the programs that they vote into law, the programs should be eliminated. One or the other needs to happen.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,102
Reaction score
621
Points
113
Yes it is easy to fix. You do something that is a stronger version of what Paul Ryan was going to do. You increase the retirement age and then add to the FICA payment until you get to an actuarial sound plan. I disagree with Trump if he is talking about reducing or eliminating the payroll tax long term. The biggest opponents to reform (remember the pictures of Ryan pushing granny off the cliff) have been Democrats. But they don't like to fix problems. They like problems.

Therefore, if our congress cannot fix the programs that they vote into law, the programs should be eliminated. One or the other needs to happen.
Great. Could you kindly point me to the Republican plan that does what you suggest? No privatization. Same program with better funding. Thanks.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,459
Reaction score
2,739
Points
113
Great. Could you kindly point me to the Republican plan that does what you suggest? No privatization. Same program with better funding. Thanks.
Again, I remind you of what happened to Ryan with his tepid program. He got slaughtered for it and there was never a chance of passing it. You don't make proposals that are big political losers unless you think you have a chance to pass it. Currently the Dems control the House so the chance of anything sane happening are nil.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
6,482
Reaction score
1,110
Points
113
Can you point out when on the timeline of polls it was a "slam dunk" for Trump? Thanks!

Good question! I can't think of another president in my lifetime who had underwater approval ratings (on average, not just on Rasmussen) for all but the first few weeks of his presidency. A president who loses the popular vote by almost 3 million and about 2.2% has to show more, not less, than expected to move into comfortable approval territory.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,102
Reaction score
621
Points
113
It has been failing for a long time, why didn't Obama fix it?
It's not failing. It just doesn't have enough funds. I don't know why Barry didn't address it, but that's completely irrelevant. The boat is closer to the dam now, than it was then. It's how a lot of things go. The same fixes have been applied before, it's not rocket science. People live longer now. Start there.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
6,482
Reaction score
1,110
Points
113
Again, I remind you of what happened to Ryan with his tepid program. He got slaughtered for it and there was never a chance of passing it. You don't make proposals that are big political losers unless you think you have a chance to pass it. Currently the Dems control the House so the chance of anything sane happening are nil.
My guess is that House Democrats would be more than willing to pass a plan that 1) raised the cap (the solution used before to increase solvency) and 2) either a short-term earmarked tax on investment income (at low rates) or a short-term low rate increase on FICA income.

Raising the full retirement age to 70 is a non-starter. Tell someone working in construction, roofing, or carpentry that he has to work until he's 70. Hell, I don't have a physically demanding job and I won't work full-time until I'm 70.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,102
Reaction score
621
Points
113
Again, I remind you of what happened to Ryan with his tepid program. He got slaughtered for it and there was never a chance of passing it. You don't make proposals that are big political losers unless you think you have a chance to pass it. Currently the Dems control the House so the chance of anything sane happening are nil.
Ryan's program included privatization. That's a 100% non-starter with Ds, so it was a big political loser before it got started, but that didn't stop him. Lots of things get pushed that aren't popular immediately or maybe even for the foreseeable future. Sometimes an investment in a plan needs to be made. Stop making excuses that make it ok to kill something you actually support. You are shilling instead of pointing at BOTH parties.

Also, to add to the light shined on your shilling, the repeal of ACA was a complete no-go, but that didn't stop your boys (any girls? probably not) from spending lots and lots of time on that. Not a word from you stating they were wasting the country's resources then.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
7,705
Reaction score
1,050
Points
113
It's not failing. It just doesn't have enough funds. I don't know why Barry didn't address it, but that's completely irrelevant. The boat is closer to the dam now, than it was then. It's how a lot of things go. The same fixes have been applied before, it's not rocket science. People live longer now. Start there.
The fact that it doesn't have enough funds is exactly why it's failing. But we've known this was coming for decades.

That money is better off in the peoples hands, not the governments.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,102
Reaction score
621
Points
113
The fact that it doesn't have enough funds is exactly why it's failing. But we've known this was coming for decades.

That money is better off in the peoples hands, not the governments.
Disagree. The system ebbs and flows. I agree with your last statement - for guys like you and me. But for probably half the population, this just won't work. Guess who pays then? You and me. Both in propping up people that didn't save a dime and also in problems caused because people don't have money. It's very cheap insurance.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,464
Reaction score
3,634
Points
113
You are such a sucker. I can't believe that you still instantly spout off after reading something on Twitter that you like. How could you not have learned by now? Honestly.
Trump himself tweeted it, moron.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,459
Reaction score
2,739
Points
113
If they had, Trump would likely have lost. He was never "on track for a slam dunk" win and only a fool or a boot licking cultist (or both) would say otherwise.
Good morning Ducklo!
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,630
Reaction score
2,087
Points
113
It's not failing. It just doesn't have enough funds. I don't know why Barry didn't address it, but that's completely irrelevant. The boat is closer to the dam now, than it was then. It's how a lot of things go. The same fixes have been applied before, it's not rocket science. People live longer now. Start there.
Here is how you fix it. Get rid of it. Stop taking my money to help others who didn't plan properly for their older age and I won't ask for anyone else's money when I get there.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,102
Reaction score
621
Points
113
Here is how you fix it. Get rid of it. Stop taking my money to help others who didn't plan properly for their older age and I won't ask for anyone else's money when I get there.
I addressed this above. You will pay one way or another. Either you pay for yourself and get the money back later and others do the same. Or you invest your money and the others don't save anything and then you pay for them too. And deal with all the other problems they bring.

Which deal sounds better?
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,102
Reaction score
621
Points
113
Raising the full retirement age to 70 is a non-starter. Tell someone working in construction, roofing, or carpentry that he has to work until he's 70. Hell, I don't have a physically demanding job and I won't work full-time until I'm 70.
That's their and your choice. Life expectancy is higher. It's common sense the retirement age should **proportionately** follow. The solution is easy and multi-faceted.
 
Top Bottom