Agree or disagree

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.c...45392.html

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

The biggest problem with any stroll down alternative history lane is the inability to foresee the consequences of the change.

Just consider one exceedingly dire scenario. Had we not gone into Iraq and got Saddam, we could have faced a widespread war in the middle east if an emboldened Saddam attacked Israel. It could have led to nuclear conflict. We would have been drawn into the conflict at some point. Heck, we could have been involved in WWIII.

(04-10-2017 11:06 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  The biggest problem with any stroll down alternative history lane is the inability to foresee the consequences of the change.

Just consider one exceedingly dire scenario. Had we not gone into Iraq and got Saddam, we could have faced a widespread war in the middle east if an emboldened Saddam attacked Israel. It could have led to nuclear conflict. We would have been drawn into the conflict at some point. Heck, we could have been involved in WWIII.

Iraq doesn't and didn't have nukes so who would have used them in this scenario?

(04-10-2017 11:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:06 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  The biggest problem with any stroll down alternative history lane is the inability to foresee the consequences of the change.

Just consider one exceedingly dire scenario. Had we not gone into Iraq and got Saddam, we could have faced a widespread war in the middle east if an emboldened Saddam attacked Israel. It could have led to nuclear conflict. We would have been drawn into the conflict at some point. Heck, we could have been involved in WWIII.

Iraq doesn't and didn't have nukes so who would have used them in this scenario?

What would have stopped Iraq from getting nukes?

(04-10-2017 10:07 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  Agree or disagree

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.c...45392.html

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Of course he is correct.

He'd also be correct if he said any of the following:

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on entitlement benefits instead of investing

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on roads and bridges instead of investing

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on bureacracy instead of investing

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on cheese instead of investing

(04-10-2017 11:56 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 10:07 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  Agree or disagree

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.c...45392.html

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Of course he is correct.

He'd also be correct if he said any of the following:

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on entitlement benefits instead of investing

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on roads and bridges instead of investing

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on bureacracy instead of investing

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on cheese instead of investing

I disagree with the entitlement benefits. Programs like Social Security aren't entitlements. They are investments that people and companies paid into.

Grossly simplistic. You can easily take the argument back even further and opined on why did the U.S. get involved in Vietnam? Korea? WW2? WW1? Why spend trillions (in today's dollars) on the Cold War military build up? But...let's take all our toys and go home. Then we'll have a slew of other people railing against the U.S. for removing itself from the "obligations" of living in the world by refusing to engage in any military action or protect other countries from aggression.

(04-10-2017 12:19 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:56 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 10:07 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  Agree or disagree

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.c...45392.html

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Of course he is correct.

He'd also be correct if he said any of the following:

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on entitlement benefits instead of investing

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on roads and bridges instead of investing

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on bureacracy instead of investing

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on cheese instead of investing

I disagree with the entitlement benefits. Programs like Social Security aren't entitlements. They are investments that people and companies paid into.

It's a mixed bag. All of it is compulsory, but some of it is paid out even to people who did not invest. But the true evil was when the gov't did not treat this money as real investments earmarked exclusively for pension and medical obligations and instead tapped that money for the day to day spending for gov't uses. That's the ultimate sin that the gov't needs to rectify - now.

He's not wrong. The military and its spending really do need to reduced.

(04-10-2017 12:25 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:19 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:56 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 10:07 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  Agree or disagree

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.c...45392.html

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Of course he is correct.

He'd also be correct if he said any of the following:

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on entitlement benefits instead of investing

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on roads and bridges instead of investing

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on bureacracy instead of investing

Quote:Chinese billionaire says US wasted trillions on cheese instead of investing

I disagree with the entitlement benefits. Programs like Social Security aren't entitlements. They are investments that people and companies paid into.

It's a mixed bag. All of it is compulsory, but some of it is paid out even to people who did not invest. But the true evil was when the gov't did not treat this money as real investments earmarked exclusively for pension and medical obligations and instead tapped that money for the day to day spending for gov't uses. That's the ultimate sin that the gov't needs to rectify - now.

I could not agree with you more. They stole that money and need to put it back and leave it alone.

Yes. But when DJT made these arguments regarding NATO and how we were being fleeced by other countries not paying their part - or to have the "audacity" to have foreign countries that are hosting U.S. troops to pay for the U.S. for being there was ridiculed as irresponsible...

And...that dickhead Jack Ma directly benefits by the U.S. keeping the peace so that the international economy can run unscathed. Let's see how good China would have it if they were the ones who had to keep the peace in the world. Let them spend their treasure keeping this mess going.

(04-10-2017 12:19 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I disagree with the entitlement benefits. Programs like Social Security aren't entitlements. They are investments that people and companies paid into.

Ideally, yes... But when you can pull more out than you put in, it stops being a pure investment.

(04-10-2017 11:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:06 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  The biggest problem with any stroll down alternative history lane is the inability to foresee the consequences of the change.

Just consider one exceedingly dire scenario. Had we not gone into Iraq and got Saddam, we could have faced a widespread war in the middle east if an emboldened Saddam attacked Israel. It could have led to nuclear conflict. We would have been drawn into the conflict at some point. Heck, we could have been involved in WWIII.

Iraq doesn't and didn't have nukes so who would have used them in this scenario?

How do you think Israel would have responded if Iraq attacked them with chemical weapons?

(04-10-2017 12:41 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:19 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I disagree with the entitlement benefits. Programs like Social Security aren't entitlements. They are investments that people and companies paid into.

Ideally, yes... But when you can pull more out than you put in, it stops being a pure investment.

Since I'm already retired, I did the calculations. I have every W-2 and did the calculation of present value using a 5% compounding factor. At the time of my retirement, my account would have been worth about $500,000.

Since I'm collecting about $46,000 a year, and assuming the balance continues to earn, I'll go into a net loss for SSI after about 13 years, or in my case, when I turn 81.

Had I earned at 8% (my own account has seen an annualized 9% return for almost 30 years), I would have had an account value of $650,000.

candidate trump said the same g_damned thing ...

PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH

(04-10-2017 01:09 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:41 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:19 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I disagree with the entitlement benefits. Programs like Social Security aren't entitlements. They are investments that people and companies paid into.

Ideally, yes... But when you can pull more out than you put in, it stops being a pure investment.

Since I'm already retired, I did the calculations. I have every W-2 and did the calculation of present value using a 5% compounding factor. At the time of my retirement, my account would have been worth about $500,000.

Since I'm collecting about $46,000 a year, and assuming the balance continues to earn, I'll go into a net loss for SSI after about 13 years, or in my case, when I turn 81.

Had I earned at 8% (my own account has seen an annualized 9% return for almost 30 years), I would have had an account value of $650,000.

For a lot of people that's true. I've already put in a lot more than a quarter million and I still have some of my best working years in front of me (lord willing).

But I'm not talking about everyone, There are people who will take more out than they put in.

(04-10-2017 01:23 PM)green Wrote:  

candidate trump said the same g_damned thing ...

PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH

because he knew that we had a ****** president at that time...

(04-10-2017 01:45 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  because he knew that we had a ****** president at that time...

Missiles flying. Rubio's happy. McCain ecstatic. Hillary's on board. A complete policy change in 48 hrs.
-- @IngrahamAngle

THOSE WHO FORGET THE PAST

(04-10-2017 01:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:06 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  The biggest problem with any stroll down alternative history lane is the inability to foresee the consequences of the change.

Just consider one exceedingly dire scenario. Had we not gone into Iraq and got Saddam, we could have faced a widespread war in the middle east if an emboldened Saddam attacked Israel. It could have led to nuclear conflict. We would have been drawn into the conflict at some point. Heck, we could have been involved in WWIII.

Iraq doesn't and didn't have nukes so who would have used them in this scenario?

How do you think Israel would have responded if Iraq attacked them with chemical weapons?

I don't know, what makes you think Saddam would have done that to Irarel aside from bluster? Iran blusters about wanting to wipe them off the face of the earth all the time yet they haven't tried it. How about this question, when was the last time the US tried to implement regime change in the Middle East that worked?