Total posts: 17,895
-->
@n8nrgmi
can you find any reputable sources that state the government will be forced to find revenue to compensate for the shortfall? i showed you one source, but my stance is stated everywhere that i see. i agree there is conflicting legislation, but the outcome is always stated in the way i describe
I’m not disputing your outcome. Barring any other events what you say will happen but the other events will happen. The conflicting law is you can’t spend the money you don’t have right? The trust fund will run out of money by 2035 and it will be cut by 25%. But the law also states that we are entitled to our full benefit. Those two laws go against each other but as you know our government is founded upon loopholes. A loophole the government uses is using the general fund for a small portion of Social Security. Where the money for the general fund come from? Borrowing and income tax. You have to consider a holistic approach.
What Death23 just sums up what I’m saying.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you are still factually incorrect. you must not be able to read the link i provided. just google it. it is common knowledge that social security will be cut twenty five percent ish around the year 2035. it doesn't matter that it's considered mandatory funding. there's no way to fund it, legally.
No, the trust fund for Social Security will run out at that point. Americans will still get benefits because Congress will be forced to “find” money for the program under the Social Security. General Revenue can be used and is being used right now but in small amounts. The govt will be forced to use that because there is conflict in legislation.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is disgusting. Pelosi is holding up the bill just so she can get a trillion dollars for New york and California.
Yup, even the stuff they agree on like preventing evictions, all in a separate bill, was blocked by Schumer and Pelosi.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Nice try, but not the case. According to https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/601197/what-trumps-payroll-tax-cut-will-mean-for-you"Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, however, says that Social Security and Medicare funding won't drop. Money will be transferred from the federal government's general fund to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to cover any payroll tax amounts not collected, according to Mnuchin."
I tried to tell him that it’s the law to fund entitlement programs but liberals haven’t taken Government 101 yet.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Government 101 my friend. Mandatory spending means mandatory unless changed by the law which required legislation.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
so you guys should just state explicitly that you are cool with the government not keeping its promise to pay benefits for folks' contributions, and that you prefer that that promise not be kept sooner than later. and ya'll should also state that trump was wrong to initially promise that we shouldn't cut those programs.
It’s gonna implode anyways lol.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you are factually incorrect that the government must pay full benefits even if the source if funding is inadequate...
That’s not what your source says lol. It talks about at what point the trust fund will self implode because old people outnumber young people. The government can cut spending and/or borrow money to fill it lol
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
it looks like ya'll just support trump no matter what he does. if he doesn't attack social security and medicare, you will say good job for sticking to your promise not to. if he does attack them, you will say good job those are government mismanagement and waste at its finest.
He’s not attacking Social Security and Medicare lol. They will get funding no matter what because it’s required by law to do so. I personally think entitlement spending should be cut, but it’s politics and it would be political suicide to do so right now which would result in radicals in charge of the government which would be worse.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the path benefits are on now, medicare is suppose to be cut within about eight years, and social security by 25% within fifteen years. if these dont have a source of revenue through payroll taxes, the cuts will come much sooner.
So you’d rather continue kicking the can down the road along with establishing your Green New Deals and Medicare for Alls, etc. We’ve known it was going to fail for years but it’s just been politically inconvenient to do something about it.
But once again you don’t understand what required by law means. You are forced to pay for those first in every budget every fiscal year which constitutes two thirds of the annual budget. The only “cuts” can come from passing of legislation. Otherwise the govt is forced to borrow more money or cut spending elsewhere. Government 101
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Entitlements are going to implode anyways because Democrats don’t want people to have kids and fund Medicare for All and Green New Deals
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
so you're cool with the government reneging on their promise to pay beneficiaries, and having the trust fund run out sooner than expected and everyone's benefits getting cut sooner than expected? if that is your position, how do you justify it?
It’s literally illegal rn lol. Entitlement spending is required by law. The money will just come from other places as it has for the past decade
Created:
It was a postponement of the payroll tax cut. Any permanent payroll tax cut would have to be passed by Congress. Entitlement spending is required by law to always be there.
Not to mention Joe Biden is on record from the Senate floor saying he wants tie reduct Social Security and Medicare. Trump has pledged to protect those even if it means cutting spending elsewhere.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you read the Harvard study?
Yup
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
How would they if the drug addicts get filtered out and if the drug dealers aren't allowed entry?
How are you going to filter them if the border is open lol.
If that's true, then the vast majority of Latin Americans coming in won't be drug addicts.
Sure but it’ll make Americans druggies, which is bad lol.
What if we just checked everyone who was from Latin America if they had drugs and if they didn't, they were let into the nation?
That’s border security my man. Your entire premise fails if you are screening people at the border lol.
Why? If your main concern is drugs, then why can't we have open borders with Africa for example since Africa isn't as loaded with illicit drugs as Mexico is?
Violation of Constitution specifically the Equal Protection Clause. It’s unlawful discrimination lol. You either have security for everyone or for none.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@fauxlaw
lol I will never understand why the right is so obsessed with Benghazi. Why do you think this issue matters?
“What difference at this point does it make?”
-Hillary Clinton
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
you're comparing apples to oranges. It is alot easier to manage a single city than it is a massive nation. Of course you can keep your government small when you only have 5 million people in your entire country in an area under 300 square miles.
Using this same logic you can’t compare the US with other countries cause the US is bigger
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
again, why? Why do you think that refocusing them onto the tasks they are best equipped for is a bad thing? If they don't have to waste their time harassing homeless people they will have more time to actually do things related to crime.
Cause that’s not what black people want. They want the same amount of police presence or more. Defunding means less police presence if not all.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
just because the right is not absolute doesn't mean the government can infringe on it without meeting criteria and of course the supreme court. What's happened and if people like HB could have their way they would put the onus on the citizens to show why they need their right rather than putting the burden of proof where it rightly belongs.
Amen
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
and they certainly could if it wasn't for that pesky constitution forcing the government to recognize unalienable individual rights. You should really study up on that so you understand it, same goes for free speech.
He justifies completing gun control using the fact that no right is absolute. Well guess what it’s absolute to ban guns lmao
Created:
Posted in:
“Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make some move on this.” -Joe Biden 1977
“Poor kids are just as smart as white kids.”-Joe Biden 2020
“If you don’t support me, then you ain’t black” -Joe Biden 2020
"Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly diverse attitudes about different things.” -Joe Biden 2020
So tell me again who doesn’t like black people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
Don’t you do risk management for a living lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
of course not. And almost no one is advocating for getting rid of the police. Defunding and abolishing are not the same thing.
I think you misunderstood what black people want. They don’t want less police which is the result of complete defunding as preached by Alexandria Ocasió Cortez, nor do they want a partial defunding of police which reduces the number of police assets on the street. Defunding in any form leads to less police presence which black people don’t want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
That's hardly a surprise given the integral role in society they play.
Glad to see you don’t support defunding the police!
Created:
Posted in:
81% of black people want the same amount of police or more police. Just want to leave that here.
Getting rid of police officers isn’t popular in America for some reason.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Can you define an assault weapon for me?
A scary looking weapon
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Shhh, don’t give them their next target smh
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
ask them why they won't allow people to have grenade launchers and nuclear arms devices, or machine guns. (though some of those fools want people to have machine guns, too)
Americans can legally own grenade launchers, machine guns, and even fighter jets. During the Revolutionary Era, many Americans owned cannons for private use especially in the shipping industry. At that point in time however, the 14th Amendment didn’t exist so states could create their own laws limiting such methods. The main problem comes with DC v Heller which solidified the notion of a firearm being used for personal safety and McDonald v Chicago incorporating the 2nd Amendment to the states.
However, at the same time DC v Heller clearly states that regulation is possible on a federal level since as you stated no right is absolute. Do I need a nuke to protect myself? Not really since it would ensure my own destruction.
Your whole argument about the militia initially at that time might be true but you also have to consider that every person between 16 and 60 (correct me if I’m wrong) was required to be a part of the militia and thus required to own a gun. They never regulated how they used the gun and many state constitutions enabled the lawful carry of weapon for personal protection. Now, we know that this requirement currently isn’t necessary. All of this changes with the aforementioned incorporation of the Second Amendment. If according to the militia definition, Americans could carry firearms and be used for self-defense which wasn’t outlawed at that time and openly accepted as a common right then there’s no authority the federal government has to outright ban them. Using a militia definition there are arguably no boundaries so gun restriction arguments fall apart.
That being said, states do have the authority to regulate under the current law, just not the right to outright ban all firearms or create a barrier that serves the same purpose.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're more of the cerebral Marxist and less of the violent type, I'll grant you that.
The masterminds are always the dangerous ones - Lenin, Stalin, Mao, you name it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, They actually can't nominate Rice because they can't control the Durham investigation.
Forgot about that one 😂
If they go with Harris, you will see a looping repeat of Harris calling Biden out for being a racist old white man during the primary debates.
Exactly. I have a bold prediction to a liberal buddy of mine: Trump wins 15% of African Americans.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Actual election will be Trump vs Biden's VP
It’s down to Susan Rice and Kamala Harris apparently. Either of them would be great. Susan Rice and Benghazi plus her son being conservative af. Kamala with her own hits on Joe and her crime policy as DA and AG against black people. Not to mention she’s a California liberal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
@Crocodile
Y’all planning on playing ?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Removing Trump isn't going to actually fix anything. Unless feeling bad is the only problem you have.Trump is a symptom, not the disease.
Joe’s Campaign isn’t even knocking on doors. GOP outraised Dems in July. 50% turnout on GOP side in a practically uncontested Senate Primary in Arizona. Dems are in for a rude awakening.
Created:
Posted in:
Aight since I haven’t hammered yet it’s pretty obvious I’m not scum
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
They already took out a person in Missouri who was a part of the black caucus.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Looks promising 😂
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree, Marxism is terrible.#defundgovernment
Don’t Marxists want the defunding of the government so that everyone is equal?😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Has the police body cam footage changed your mind?
I haven’t watched it but I don’t think so. There’s no excuse kneeling on someone’s neck when they’re already handcuffed and you have 3 other officers around you.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If a government can’t protect federal courthouses (the seats of justice) then how can the govt provide justice for black people lol
Created:
Posted in:
Pie why are you still not claiming
Character is Gaz. Dude was in charge of 4 slaves or something until I met Shallan Davar when I became good. Im Vanilla town and can influence the game with my vote and voice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Why haven't you claimed yet?
I didn’t see a reason to. It’s a pretty clear cut scenario. If I’m scum then Water must be town or Water is scum and I’m town. I know Water is lying because he lied about me being guilty and he lied about not revealing who his guilty was instantly feigning ignorance. Post 21 and 24 are supportive of my case. Water said he wouldn’t reveal himself until he got a guilty. When he did get a guilty he didn’t instantly reveal it. It has scum written all over it.
Also why didn't you hammer yesterday?
I was on the Croc wagon. Water said he would hammer but he didn’t even bother voting for Cookie at the end. All I know is that Water is confirmed scum. If you want to VTNL we can do that but in that scenario Ragnar or you likely die tonight.
Tomorrow if I’m allow Im advocating for a VTNL just to cut the numbers a bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
1. iLikePie5 Cop, investigate Warren, investigate Pie (scum)
I think you meant Water here
Created: