ADVERTISEMENT

Two more tankers attacked off Iran's coast

What is the upside for Trump starting a war with Iran? America is tired of Middle East wars, it would hurt him more than it would help him. Now who would want a war with the US that could be partially blamed on Trump?

Iran’s economy is currently collapsing, in six months Iran could be in full rebellion mode due to sanctions. Trump is winning this fight without firing a shot, common sense should tell you Iran needs a war much more than Trump wants one.
 
NinjaKnight said:
I'm fairly certain the original crazy has been abducted and replaced by a brain dead house salad. He has been posting nothing but straight up insane shit or 100% lies non stop for the last 72 hours. We might need DS to do a wellness check to see what happened.
Click to expand...
74 hours. As usual you do nothing but lie and make personal attacks. Butthurt much?
 
Cubs79 said:
I dont know what this means. Everyone picks whats they want to believe. You could choose to believe that clouds are made of marshmallows if you wanted to, but you wouldnt have any evidence to base your belief on. I dont base my beliefs on partisan politics, Democrats mostly suck too, I based my beliefs on actual evidence, which is reasonable and rational.
Click to expand...

Lol everything you’ve ever posted here has a particular partisan slant to it but ok then. This is what people usually say when they’re as partisan as anyone else but want to project as some critical thinking centrist
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Lol everything you’ve ever posted here has a particular partisan slant to it but ok then. This is what people usually say when they’re as partisan as anyone else but want to project as some critical thinking centrist
Click to expand...

A couple of things. First, Trump is who is always in the news now, which makes sense, he is the president. So obviously a lot of the conversation is about him. I am not a fan of him, so maybe it appears that I have a partisan slant, but I didnt post here when Dems were in power, so you dont know really know my views on them. Second, I am not a centrist and have no desire to project myself as one, I am not even a Democrat. I prefer the Democrats over Republicans for the most part in the current climate, certainly with domestic policy, but that doesnt make me a centrist Democrat. I am certainly to the left of main stream Democrats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
Cubs79 said:
A couple of things. First, Trump is who is always in the news now, which makes sense, he is the president. So obviously a lot of the conversation is about him. I am not a fan of him, so maybe it appears that I have a partisan slant, but I didnt post here when Dems were in power, so you dont know really know my views on them. Second, I am not a centrist and have no desire to project myself as one, I am not even a Democrat. I prefer the Democrats over Republicans for the most part in the current climate, certainly with domestic policy, but that doesnt make me a centrist Democrat. I am certainly to the left of main stream Democrats.
Click to expand...
You do realize that mainstream Democrats are left of any Democrat president in our history, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFKnightfan08, knightbeer, UCFWayne and 1 other person
Cubs79 said:
Huh? THe Iraq war started in 2003. How in the world are you trying to put something that started 16 years ago in the context of "not immediately available to us".
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about the Iraq war. I’m talking about the tankers. Do you believe Iran is responsible from the facts provided thus far orn are you just not trusting of ANYTHING that our government tells us?
 
Last edited:
Ucfmikes said:
I’m not talking about the Iraq war. I’m talking about the tankers. Do you believe Iran is responsible from the facts provided thus far orn are you just not trusting of ANYTHING that our government tells us?
Click to expand...

I think at this point it's now safe to say that Iran did this. Too much evidence to deny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
No, the US clearly did it. We sent in GWB on a small boat to carry out these attacks, just as he did during 9/11.
 
Cubs79 said:
It works in various forms in plenty of places, including the US.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to our entitlement programs that are exploding in cost and won't be there in hardly any form once people 35 and younger are trying to retire?
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Are you referring to our entitlement programs that are exploding in cost and won't be there in hardly any form once people 35 and younger are trying to retire?
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about social security? SS has been around since 1935 and has most certainly been a successful program. Obviously things change over time and some tweaks might have to be made, but are you really going to deny that social security hasn't been successful and that many Americans haven't benefited greatly from it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
Cubs79 said:
I assume you are talking about social security? SS has been around since 1935 and has most certainly been a successful program. Obviously things change over time and some tweaks might have to be made, but are you really going to deny that social security hasn't been successful and that many Americans haven't benefited greatly from it?
Click to expand...

Has it helped people? Sure. Does that in itself make it a "great" program? No, not really, especially knowing that this is essentially a government sponsored ponzi scheme sold under the lie of "retirement insurance" or whatever. The generation of people who passed SS and then expanded it every 10 years surely benefited.

But, just wait 'til much smaller and younger generations are asked to pay SS for the boomers fully retiring. All while knowing that SS in this form will not exist for when they retire.

What's the saying about socialism? You eventually run out of...….
 
Cubs79 said:
Nobody said he didn't make mistakes. But you cant possibly think that mainstream democrats in 2019 are to the left of him, which was the original point that you are now trying to avoid.
Click to expand...
fair enough, i had forgotten just how far left he was. we will have to see the first 2 dnc debates and circle back. i dont think they are to far from fdr.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Has it helped people? Sure. Does that in itself make it a "great" program? No, not really, especially knowing that this is essentially a government sponsored ponzi scheme sold under the lie of "retirement insurance" or whatever. The generation of people who passed SS and then expanded it every 10 years surely benefited.

But, just wait 'til much smaller and younger generations are asked to pay SS for the boomers fully retiring. All while knowing that SS in this form will not exist for when they retire.

What's the saying about socialism? You eventually run out of...….
Click to expand...

Do you think any candidate who ran on a platform of abolishing SS would have a chance to win in either party?

I don't know why you put "great" in quotes. I said it has been a successful program, and it has. The boomers are already retiring, and it will certainly need some tweaks, but you are acting as if it is beyond repair, which quite simply isn't true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
Cubs79 said:
Do you think any candidate who ran on a platform of abolishing SS would have a chance to win in either party?

I don't know why you put "great" in quotes. I said it has been a successful program, and it has. The boomers are already retiring, and it will certainly need some tweaks, but you are acting as if it is beyond repair, which quite simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

I didn't say abolishing, but please remember that when people like Paul Ryan or otherwise made proposals to do exactly what you said, and tweak/reform SS, the left immediately ran commercials depicting him throwing old people off cliffs or sending them to their death.

So yea, that's what even basic reforms are up against. Constant claims that reforming SS or any other entitlement will immediately leave people dying in the streets. Good luck.

A good start would be simply rephrasing SS to reflect that this is a tax for welfare that we're talking about and not building some retirement fund as it's been sold always
 
UCFKnight85 said:
I didn't say abolishing, but please remember that when people like Paul Ryan or otherwise made proposals to do exactly what you said, and tweak/reform SS, the left immediately ran commercials depicting him throwing old people off cliffs or sending them to their death.

So yea, that's what even basic reforms are up against. Constant claims that reforming SS or any other entitlement will immediately leave people dying in the streets. Good luck.

A good start would be simply rephrasing SS to reflect that this is a tax for welfare that we're talking about and not building some retirement fund as it's been sold always
Click to expand...

But if you don't think it has been a successful program then why wouldn't people want it to be abolished?

Paul Ryan wanted to make cuts to SS and medicare. That is most certainly not exactly what I said. A small payroll tax increase would easily keep it fully solvent. So just because people didn't want to just slash benefits like Paul Ryan, doesn't mean they aren't willing to work on reform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
Cubs79 said:
But if you don't think it has been a successful program then why wouldn't people want it to be abolished?

Paul Ryan wanted to make cuts to SS and medicare. That is most certainly not exactly what I said. A small payroll tax increase would easily keep it fully solvent. So just because people didn't want to just slash benefits like Paul Ryan, doesn't mean they aren't willing to work on reform.
Click to expand...
SS is already solvent. The problem is that the federal govt has been borrowing from it for years and can't pay it back. Not to mention the fact that if it should exist at all it should be treated as a tax and not a retirement account. Means testing shouldn't be that big of an issue but the left freaks out at any option that doesn't include raising the tax rate on contributions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne and UCFKnight85
Cubs79 said:
But if you don't think it has been a successful program then why wouldn't people want it to be abolished?

Paul Ryan wanted to make cuts to SS and medicare. That is most certainly not exactly what I said. A small payroll tax increase would easily keep it fully solvent. So just because people didn't want to just slash benefits like Paul Ryan, doesn't mean they aren't willing to work on reform.
Click to expand...

A small payroll tax absolutely would not keep SS solvent given it's on path to be insolvent by 2035 and this assumes that NO new obligations are piled on top of it, which is exactly the opposite of what Democrats are promising right now. Not to mention that parts of Medicare go insolvent by 2025.

And again, saying we're going to just tax younger people more to pay for these older people is not how this program was sold to people. You're just describing a new expansion of welfare to keep up, not building anything new for younger generations.

Telling people they've got to pay far more in the future to pay for people who paid far less into the system years ago is a pretty bad proposal IMO. It's even worse when you consider that basically no math supports SS being solvent for young people today unless you install HUGE tax hikes that they pay pretty much their entire lives, but then results in a worse economy and weaker growth.
 
Crazyhole said:
SS is already solvent. The problem is that the federal govt has been borrowing from it for years and can't pay it back. Not to mention the fact that if it should exist at all it should be treated as a tax and not a retirement account. Means testing shouldn't be that big of an issue but the left freaks out at any option that doesn't include raising the tax rate on contributions.
Click to expand...

It is fully solvent until around 2035, but there will need to be some small changes. After that time benefits would need to be cut by 20% or so. This isn't that difficult to fix, but the fix needs to start sooner rather than later.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ucfversusbcs
UCFKnight85 said:
A small payroll tax absolutely would not keep SS solvent given it's on path to be insolvent by 2035 and this assumes that NO new obligations are piled on top of it, which is exactly the opposite of what Democrats are promising right now. Not to mention that parts of Medicare go insolvent by 2025.

And again, saying we're going to just tax younger people more to pay for these older people is not how this program was sold to people. You're just describing a new expansion of welfare to keep up, not building anything new for younger generations.

Telling people they've got to pay far more in the future to pay for people who paid far less into the system years ago is a pretty bad proposal IMO. It's even worse when you consider that basically no math supports SS being solvent for young people today unless you install HUGE tax hikes that they pay pretty much their entire lives, but then results in a worse economy and weaker growth.
Click to expand...

Based on what you say it seems like you want to abolish it, yes? And if you think it is a bad proposal then why don't Republicans run on getting rid of it?

You are way over exaggerating the demise of the program. Even in 2035, it would still pay out about 80% of benefits if we made no changes. It isn't difficult to get that 20% back with a small payroll tax increase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ucfversusbcs
Cubs79 said:
It is fully solvent until around 2035, but there will need to be some small changes. After that time benefits would need to be cut by 20% or so. This isn't that difficult to fix, but the fix needs to start sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
It's fully solvent beyond then if the money that was borrowed gets put back with interest accrued. By 2035 the Boomer generation will be aging out of the program and it will be fine. Adding taxes to it only gives the federal govt more money to rob so that they can make it look like our balance sheet isn't as bad as it really is.
 
Cubs79 said:
Based on what you say it seems like you want to abolish it, yes? And if you think it is a bad proposal then why don't Republicans run on getting rid of it?

You are way over exaggerating the demise of the program. Even in 2035, it would still pay out about 80% of benefits if we made no changes. It isn't difficult to get that 20% back with a small payroll tax increase.
Click to expand...

In what world does reform equal abolish? You're making no sense here.

Here's the basic problem with reforming SS: everyone would have to finally admit that this is just a big welfare program and not "paying into an insurance fund". That fundamentally changes how we view SS but it'd be finally telling the truth. For instance, if you want to say that we shouldn't be sending SS checks to wealthy retirees then fine, but you have to fundamentally change the legal structure and probably re-pass the entire bill since under current law, SS is supposed to be "pay in to get out" when you retire. If you start means testing like this, which is maybe necessary, you have to change the entire intent of the law.

As it stands now, you can't tell a wealthy retiree that they aren't entitled to their SS payments since they were told all their lives, maybe when they were poor and paying the SS payroll tax years ago, that this is actually an insurance fund and they're due a payment upon turning 65 either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
UCFKnight85 said:
In what world does reform equal abolish? You're making no sense here.

Here's the basic problem with reforming SS: everyone would have to finally admit that this is just a big welfare program and not "paying into an insurance fund". That fundamentally changes how we view SS but it'd be finally telling the truth. For instance, if you want to say that we shouldn't be sending SS checks to wealthy retirees then fine, but you have to fundamentally change the legal structure and probably re-pass the entire bill since under current law, SS is supposed to be "pay in to get out" when you retire. If you start means testing like this, which is maybe necessary, you have to change the entire intent of the law.

As it stands now, you can't tell a wealthy retiree that they aren't entitled to their SS payments since they were told all their lives, maybe when they were poor and paying the SS payroll tax years ago, that this is actually an insurance fund and they're due a payment upon turning 65 either way.
Click to expand...
This 200%. Just the fact that there is an employer contribution proves that it's a welfare program, and in all honesty I don't really have that much of a problem with it. There are older people who need that money and they paid in to it their entire lives for the benefit of others, they should receive the benefit of the program. At the same time, it's just silly that my parents get a check every month for SS when they're worth 20 million bucks, or Warren Buffet gets a check when he's worth 50 billion. I'm willing to bet that we could cut 20% just by means testing and then restructure the thing as being an honest to goodness welfare program and nobody who actually needs it would be denied.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
In what world does reform equal abolish? You're making no sense here.

Here's the basic problem with reforming SS: everyone would have to finally admit that this is just a big welfare program and not "paying into an insurance fund". That fundamentally changes how we view SS but it'd be finally telling the truth. For instance, if you want to say that we shouldn't be sending SS checks to wealthy retirees then fine, but you have to fundamentally change the legal structure and probably re-pass the entire bill since under current law, SS is supposed to be "pay in to get out" when you retire. If you start means testing like this, which is maybe necessary, you have to change the entire intent of the law.

As it stands now, you can't tell a wealthy retiree that they aren't entitled to their SS payments since they were told all their lives, maybe when they were poor and paying the SS payroll tax years ago, that this is actually an insurance fund and they're due a payment upon turning 65 either way.
Click to expand...


I have told you that a small payroll tax increase would solve the issue, so I am not sure why you are directing everything else at me as if that was my position.

SO what is your solution? You are confusing, because it is clear you dont like the program, but you apparently dont want to abolish it, but you also have all of these issues with reforming. So, what is it you would like to see?
 
Crazyhole said:
It's fully solvent beyond then if the money that was borrowed gets put back with interest accrued. By 2035 the Boomer generation will be aging out of the program and it will be fine. Adding taxes to it only gives the federal govt more money to rob so that they can make it look like our balance sheet isn't as bad as it really is.
Click to expand...

The idea congress raided SS and spent it on other projects isnt accurate.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/20/did-congress-really-steal-from-social-security.aspx
 
Cubs79 said:
You don't see the vast majority of Democrats calling for those things either.
Click to expand...

Well, let's look at which Dem candidates are for and against shiela Jackson Lee's proposal for reparations:

For:

Booker
Harris
Sanders
Castro
Klobuchar
Warren
Gillibrand
O'Rourke
Gabbard
Gravel
Hickenlooper
Inslee
Messam
Williamson
Yang


Against:

Buttigueg
Schultz

Undecided:

Biden



Where do I find the mainstream position here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Crazyhole said:
Well, let's look at which Dem candidates are for and against shiela Jackson Lee's proposal for reparations:

For:

Booker
Harris
Sanders
Castro
Klobuchar
Warren
Gillibrand
O'Rourke
Gabbard
Gravel
Hickenlooper
Inslee
Messam
Williamson
Yang


Against:

Buttigueg
Schultz

Undecided:

Biden



Where do I find the mainstream position here?
Click to expand...

Her proposal is to study reparations and its potential impacts. There is nothing specific in her proposal beyond conducting studies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back