2020 Presidential Election - Trump versus Biden

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,453
Reaction score
3,631
Points
113
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.
It has to be raised. It was not designed to fund retirement for 20 + years.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,630
Reaction score
2,087
Points
113
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?
The bolded is the problem. SS is part of that problem.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,102
Reaction score
620
Points
113
The bolded is the problem. SS is part of that problem.
Maybe so. A small part, I would argue. The bigger issue is you losing your nose to spite your face. Run the numbers, live longer, you will come out easily ahead, both in $$ and other issues related to other not having money. It's the best insurance you will ever buy, unless you burn your house down or regularly total your cars.

I've said my piece on this. I know I'm right, so I guess that's it.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,630
Reaction score
2,087
Points
113
Maybe so. A small part, I would argue. The bigger issue is you losing your nose to spite your face. Run the numbers, live longer, you will come out easily ahead, both in $$ and other issues related to other not having money. It's the best insurance you will ever buy, unless you burn your house down or regularly total your cars.

I've said my piece on this. I know I'm right, so I guess that's it.
Fair enough. I will say that I don't care if I come out ahead or behind in $$. I don't like having to support the shortcomings of others. I'm for self accountability, good or bad, more than I am for "coming out ahead".
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,102
Reaction score
620
Points
113
Fair enough. I will say that I don't care if I come out ahead or behind in $$. I don't like having to support the shortcomings of others. I'm for self accountability, good or bad, more than I am for "coming out ahead".
Big props to you for acknowledging the flip side when you choose principle over pragmatism. I don’t happen to agree with your choice here, but respect the fact that you concede that the downside exists and you are making a choice.

S2 could learn from you that sticking by principle sometimes has a permanent cost. He justifies his view with the thought the cost will correct itself in the long run. But that ignores human nature, which is pretty much 100% flawed. This one will not correct itself.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,024
Reaction score
1,849
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.
We had one of the best economies in modern US history, better than any other economies in the world, all demographics were doing better than ever, and we were reducing our military conflicts in the world.

Polls measure popularity, but they don’t reflect who voters will vote for at the time of an election. Trump is not popular with a lot of people who will vote for him.

If the election had been scheduled for last December, the Democrats wouldn’t have been engaged in that ridiculous attempt to oust Trump from office. Nancy Pelosi and congress were less popular than Trump. Forced to choose, Trump would’ve won an election, not a poll, by a larger margin in December than he did in 2016.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
265
Points
83
It has to be raised. It was not designed to fund retirement for 20 + years.
Start by eliminating the income cap for payments into the system. This would raise my families taxes significantly which is fine. That should add quite a few more years of solvency.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,102
Reaction score
620
Points
113
Who else was downplaying the coronavirus in the winter months? The MSM.
What a perfect way to illustrate how horrible the president's lies were to the American public. Thank you.

If you need my comment explained to you, go to the back of the line with BGA.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,024
Reaction score
1,849
Points
113
What a perfect way to illustrate how horrible the president's lies were to the American public. Thank you.

If you need my comment explained to you, go to the back of the line with BGA.
You’ve got to be joking. Trump influenced the media? 🤦‍♂️

Yeah, when he put the China travel ban on, it was “hysterical xenophobia” and an over-reaction.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,453
Reaction score
3,631
Points
113
We had one of the best economies in modern US history, better than any other economies in the world, all demographics were doing better than ever, and we were reducing our military conflicts in the world.

Polls measure popularity, but they don’t reflect who voters will vote for at the time of an election. Trump is not popular with a lot of people who will vote for him.

If the election had been scheduled for last December, the Democrats wouldn’t have been engaged in that ridiculous attempt to oust Trump from office. Nancy Pelosi and congress were less popular than Trump. Forced to choose, Trump would’ve won an election, not a poll, by a larger margin in December than he did in 2016.
Despite the "greatest economy in the history of the world :rolleyes:" Trump has been at -10 or worse approval almost his entire tenure and at no point prior to COVID was he even close to Joe Biden in polling. It is really no different than now. Could Trump have won in December? Yes. Was he likely to? No. Would have won in a "slam dunk"? Or course not. You're being ridiculous.

No President with double digit negative approval ratings has ever won re-election much less "in a slam dunk." It would require more than 10% of voters to say both disapprove of Trump's job performance AND vote for him anyway. That isn't and was never going to happen. He would have lost the popular vote then as now, and his only route to victory is to pull of an EC inside straight. That is not even close to a slam dunk victory.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,024
Reaction score
1,849
Points
113
Despite the "greatest economy in the history of the world :rolleyes:" Trump has been at -10 or worse approval almost his entire tenure and at no point prior to COVID was he even close to Joe Biden in polling. It is really no different than now. Could Trump have won in December? Yes. Was he likely to? No. Would have won in a "slam dunk"? Or course not. You're being ridiculous.

No President with double digit negative approval ratings has ever won re-election much less "in a slam dunk." It would require more than 10% of voters to say both disapprove of Trump's job performance AND vote for him anyway. That isn't and was never going to happen. He would have lost the popular vote then as now, and his only route to victory is to pull of an EC inside straight. That is not even close to a slam dunk victory.
Maybe you should consider this:
8E1623BA-62DF-4F6C-99C1-E1E672C7C2BD.jpeg


And in January 2020, Pew measured Trump’s favorability at 49%.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,453
Reaction score
3,631
Points
113
Maybe you should consider this:
View attachment 9321

If we must beat 2016 dead horses, Hillary was nearly as unpopular as Don, so he won the "I hate both candidates. At least he'll shake things up. It'll be refreshing!" vote.

Also, Trump's victory in 2016 is the same path he has to victory now and is and was very, very far from a "slam dunk" you fool.
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
9,479
Reaction score
778
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.
I’d like nothing more than to eliminate social security. But people are morons and don’t save. I saw numbers earlier this week that 60% of people in their 40s have $50k or less saved for retirement. For people in their 50s about 50% have $50k or less.

I’m not about to advocate for social security, but Americans are terrible at saving and investing and there would be huge social consequences without it. Unless it forced people to change their behavior.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,024
Reaction score
1,849
Points
113
If we must beat 2016 dead horses, Hillary was nearly as unpopular as Don, so he won the "I hate both candidates. At least he'll shake things up. It'll be refreshing!" vote.

Also, Trump's victory in 2016 is the same path he has to victory now and is and was very, very far from a "slam dunk" you fool.
This Pew poll measured Trump’s approval, not Hillary’s. The same as it did in January 2020.

Now you’re saying it was Hillary’s fault. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
7,705
Reaction score
1,050
Points
113
I’d like nothing more than to eliminate social security. But people are morons and don’t save. I saw numbers earlier this week that 60% of people in their 40s have $50k or less saved for retirement. For people in their 50s about 50% have $50k or less.

I’m not about to advocate for social security, but Americans are terrible at saving and investing and there would be huge social consequences without it. Unless it forced people to change their behavior.
Save or prepare to never retire.
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
9,479
Reaction score
778
Points
113
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.
This is the simplest solution. When social security was formed, people on average only used it for about 5 years iirc. Now people are using it for 20 or 30 years or more. It’s not unusual for couples that live into their 90s to collect north of $1M.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,453
Reaction score
3,631
Points
113
This Pew poll measured Trump’s approval, not Hillary’s. The same as it did in January 2020.

Now you’re saying it was Hillary’s fault. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
You're spinning and deflecting to 2016. Trump was never winning in a "slam dunk". You made a dumb, foolish statement and are trying to change the subject instead of owning it.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,024
Reaction score
1,849
Points
113
I’d like nothing more than to eliminate social security. But people are morons and don’t save. I saw numbers earlier this week that 60% of people in their 40s have $50k or less saved for retirement. For people in their 50s about 50% have $50k or less.

I’m not about to advocate for social security, but Americans are terrible at saving and investing and there would be huge social consequences without it. Unless it forced people to change their behavior.
I agree. But don’t let the government put its hands on the money. Let people manage it just like they manage their 401Ks, only without access until retirement age. As designed, retirees SS funds are accumulated by those currently working, not their own savings.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,024
Reaction score
1,849
Points
113
You're spinning and deflecting to 2016. Trump was never winning in a "slam dunk". You made a dumb, foolish statement and are trying to change the subject instead of owning it.
Changing the subject? You brought up Hillary. I’m pointing out that Trump’s approval was abysmal before he was elected in 2016 and was significantly better than that last winter before the pandemic.

It also points out the very real possibility that Trump could win again.

I stand by everything I’ve posted on the subject. Stop with the insults. It’s making you look very desperate. And give arguing with facts a try instead of “only a fool” comments.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,453
Reaction score
3,631
Points
113
Changing the subject? You brought up Hillary. I’m pointing out that Trump’s approval was abysmal before he was elected in 2016 and was significantly better than that last winter before the pandemic.

It also points out the very real possibility that Trump could win again.
Of course he can win again. I never said otherwise. I called out your ridiculous assertion that he was cruising to an easy slam dunk win if not for COVID.

You brought up 2016. That was far from a slam dunk win for Trump. It was a stupid deflection that doesn't help your argument. If he wins in 2020 it will be nearly identical to his win in 2016. That has always been true and your assertion otherwise is wishful thinking/delusion.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,024
Reaction score
1,849
Points
113
Of course he can win again. I never said otherwise. I called out your ridiculous assertion that he was cruising to an easy slam dunk win if not for COVID.

You brought up 2016. That was far from a slam dunk win for Trump. It was a stupid deflection that doesn't help your argument. If he wins in 2020 it will be nearly identical to his win in 2016. That has always been true and your assertion otherwise is wishful thinking/delusion.
howie, I ”brought up” 2016 b/c that’s the only actual election with actual results that we have to compare. And I compared his favorability pre-election to the 2016 results, which is what we are attempting to do here, specifically last winter before CV.

You have yet to use one fact to make your argument. You’ve given a lot of your assumptions.

BTW, Trump’s electoral college win was by a wide margin. My suggestion is that his hypothetical electoral college win last December is that it would’ve been a greater margin.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,102
Reaction score
620
Points
113
This is the simplest solution. When social security was formed, people on average only used it for about 5 years iirc. Now people are using it for 20 or 30 years or more. It’s not unusual for couples that live into their 90s to collect north of $1M.
I don't know for sure if your stats are right, but close enough (not saying they aren't). The point is, sorry if you were a laborer and you're "tired." You can still claim, but now your benefits are much lower. If you wait, you get more. Some actuary would figure it all out and it would be solvent. Raise the cap a bit too. Done.

But not if we just say "hey, let's not pay because I want to get re-elected!! Weeeee!!!!"
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,102
Reaction score
620
Points
113
I agree. But don’t let the government put its hands on the money. Let people manage it just like they manage their 401Ks, only without access until retirement age. As designed, retirees SS funds are accumulated by those currently working, not their own savings.
While I can see why you would like your idea - and at least it's not the whack idea to get rid of it altogether - it's still a bad idea. Either you open up the investment options to every possible investment there is - so a person could easily bust the account to 0 - or you force the government to pick winners and losers (which investments are available). Total no-go.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,024
Reaction score
1,849
Points
113
While I can see why you would like your idea - and at least it's not the whack idea to get rid of it altogether - it's still a bad idea. Either you open up the investment options to every possible investment there is - so a person could easily bust the account to 0 - or you force the government to pick winners and losers (which investments are available). Total no-go.
Investors aren’t likely to choose highly risky investments if they can’t collect until retirement, although appropriate higher risk investing is strategically sound when younger. But you could also require only certain investment vehicles and require diversification of invested funds to minimize risk.

The main point is that, although the government could set parameters for appropriate investing, the individual has more control over their own retirement savings rather than having the government manage it.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,102
Reaction score
620
Points
113
Investors aren’t likely to choose highly risky investments if they can’t collect until retirement, although appropriate higher risk investing is strategically sound when younger. But you could also require only certain investment vehicles and require diversification of invested funds to minimize risk.

The main point is that, although the government could set parameters for appropriate investing, the individual has more control over their own retirement savings rather than having the government manage it.
Ha ha ha!!! Learn to read. I addressed both of these. You can't predict what an investor that has no clue what he is doing will do. And you can't let the government pick winners and losers so blatantly - Jesus, that's a Republican standard bearer. I gotta go to a bonfire, beers and brats. Turn off the TV, KFC.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
6,482
Reaction score
1,110
Points
113
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.
Life expectancy isn't as high as you think. For blue collar workers, it has actually gone down in the last decade or so.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,221
Reaction score
2,227
Points
113
Make no mistake, there are plenty of swing voters who care that Trump intentionally misled the public about the coronavirus.
 
Top Bottom