One more argument for you not to support him.

I don't.

Also , I don't see how Bernie the bomber will stop messing with countries.

Social security money was "borrowed" (more like stolen) by the US treasure. This money should have been invested in more profitable things. The deficit hole in the social security should have appeared latter, maybe in 20-30 years without that current investment in government bonds. Also, if you lift the imposable cap (113,700$ actually) the program can fund itself for a very long time.

Ahh okay thanks for the clarification.

At the least I think Social Security reform is needed. Means test the program (meaning eliminate payout of benefits to people with incomes over a certain amount), gradually increase the retirement age by 1 month every year for 24 years, and gradually decrease payment benefits (college kids won't care about this). I hold the position that Social Security as passed was unconstitutional, but since its here to stay we may as well make it work for those who really really really need it.

Also , I don't see how Bernie the bomber will stop messing with countries.

Contrasts, between B. Sanders (#1), H. Clinton (#2)and B. Carson (#3):

America should lower military spending.
1; 2

NSA should stop spying upon other countries.
1; 2; 3

America should (forcibly) stop Russian airstrikes in Syria.
2

America should get out of the Syrian war.
1

Edited 2/24/2016 04:36:20

He supported many interventions while in Congress, don't see how what he says trumps what he did.

This is all assuming that what they say is what's going to happen. And there he had to go with the mob mentality - if he becomes dictator, he leads the mob mentality.

Edited 2/24/2016 04:49:36

He often went against the people who he's supposed to represent. In the 90s, he threw a "town hall" where he didn't let the people voice their opinions and spouted out US propaganda. He was a Democratic Party puppet they used to keep down the possibility of a third party. He went against the mob mentality nearly everytime (which was to not bomb random places).

Trump pretends to be incompetent. Behind him and the other candidates are giant PR teams. Don't be confused or deceived. Ever.

@[AOE] JaiBharat909

I partially agree with that. Social security should be reformed and retirement age should increase as well, as the human life expectancy is getting higher as well. And maybe even faster then you proposed, and it should increase to 70 years by 2040.

About and gradually decreasing payment benefits it depends on whom, you shouldn't decrease payments for elder people after they paid for the entire actual system. We can't punish them after they contributed for their entire life to the system and we can't change rules after they were set. But I agree benefits should decrease to yet to be retired people.

And yea, college kids shouldn't care about it. I firmly believe in that even though I won't retire before some 50 years, maybe more if we increase the retirement age ;).

I hold the position that Social Security as passed was unconstitutional, but since its here to stay we may as well make it work for those who really really really need it.

shhh, don't spoiler me, I've barelly started reading about the New Deal and I haven't reached that part yet. So, I won't argue with you on that.

I can't agree with anything that harms retired people, they don't get paid enough already.

@{BM}-Paugers
Retired people are never the source of the problem, bad management of social security funds are. Plus, the retirement age isn't 80 years old in any country in the world. Stop saying bullshit.


Retirement age in Sweden: 61-67 years depending in several factors.
Retirement age in Denmark: 65 years.
Retirement age in Norway: 67 years.
Retirement age in Japan: 60 years!!!


Retirement age in the US: 66 years. As I said, the retirement age isn't the problem.


Also, it took me 30 seconds to prove you were wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_age

Edited 2/24/2016 15:25:44

http://www.exeas.org/resources/pdf/retirement-japan-campbell.pdf

These generalizations apply throughout the industrialized world, but retirement in the United States and
Japan does differ in important respects. First, Japanese companies have long set their retirement ages at
a much younger point than have American firms. For many years "normal" mandatory retirement was 65
in the United States and 55 in Japan. Today, mandatory retirement has been nearly abolished by law in
the United States, while most Japanese companies now allow employees to work until age 60.

A second, paradoxical, difference is that many more older men work in Japan than in the United States: in
1987, 36 percent of Japanese men aged 65 and over were in the labor force, compared with just 16
percent of American men (the figures are 15 percent versus 7 percent for women). The paradox derives
from the concept of retirement itself, which has different connotations in the two countries. Americans
tend to see retirement as stopping work altogether, while the commonest word for retirement in
Japanese, teinen (literally, "prescribed year"), refers to the age limit set by an organization for remaining
in one's main job or career line.

The trend of Japanese men over the age of 60 working has started to decline; however, older men in Japan go on to work after the age of 60. Paugers is wrong, though.

We would say, but we can't risk him leaving the SQUUUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!

About the oil, as I said, it's not very lucrative right now, and I used the current proven reserves to make the statement that scottish oil will soon be fully extracted.

Firstly, North Sea oil isn't nearly done. Many reliable sources says it has about 100 years to go, which is in a world where nuclear power and renewable energy are the most popular by far. It might not be too strong short term, but to gain extra money, Scotland can nationalise the oil, and make sure that our market is filled with the people that want to buy "moral oil" (like Norway's).

Plus, the tories aren't stealing your oil, it's normal to share the ressources benefits of one region with your country (even though the region that extracts it should have a bigger income on it). If you get independent, that wouldn't be the case of course.

The Tories ARE stealing Scotland's oil. They steal millions, if not billions of pounds worth from Scotland, when it is OUR OIL, NOT THEIRS. England can survive on their own without our oil.

- Need to take over programs that are actually taken in charge by the "federal government", such as healthcare (where scotland pays LESS then it receives), education, safety,... That would be a problem that could be solved in a few years period, but you'll have overcosts in the beggining.

Scotland already has their own NHS. Even though the Scottish NHS is partially reliant on the English NHS, the funding for it will be received in the other industries which will now be Scottish, instead of English (like oil). Furthermore, look at these tax statistics:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02829/IHT_map_2829532c.jpg

As you can see, Scotland isn't only paying more tax than the average English region, it is also paying more than areas that are more populated than it (North West), something that no other region does.

Therefore, Scotland will have enough money to fund these things, especially seeing as taxes will be increased for the richer people, when the Tories aren't in charge of who gets taxed anymore.

- Losing many jobs and companies that will move to England in case of independence, such as the scotish royal bank for example (and yea, they said they would leave in case of independence). The situation would however be stabilized in the medium term.

Scotland has 3 major banks. Clydesdale, Bank of Scotland, and RBS. Only RBS said that they'd move to England, which would still leave 2 major, reliant, credible banks in Scotland. Companies would in fact invest more in Scotland, however, seeing as the average person will have more money than they would have, in the UK, and more average money means more for the businesses.

- Losing the pound, nope the UK wouldn't let you keep that ;). You'll have troubles on this, but it can be solved on the medium term as well, or on the short term if scotland joins the euro.

Yeah, this is the most (and one of the only 2) valid argument against independence. Alex Salmond was rather stupid, in saying that we would be able to engage in a currency union when that obviously wasn't the case. If we wouldn't get in the EU (which we very likely would however get into), then there would have to be an official Scottish Pound. Luckily, the Clydesdale and Bank of Scotland banks are already strong enough, and reliable enough, that people would trust the currency, provided it has a good start.

- Dropping out of the EU. That's probably the biggest problem, if scotland is independent it won't stay by default in the union. There's no status for that, and it would be probably voted on the european parliament with every country able to veto. Good luck on avoiding the UK, or even spain to veto your stay in the union. That's probably a thing that isn't really fixable.

If the UK leaves the EU, then the UK isn't a problem. The UK isn't Scotland's enemy, the Tories are. If Corbyn becomes Prime Minister, I can safely say that the UK-Scotland relations would be waay better, so we just have to survive until 2020. About Spain, if they reject Scotland joining, this will only worsen their situation. They'd be put under huge international pressure, and internal pressure as well. They could risk losing Catalonia (which is HUGE for Spanish economy), as well as Euskadi, Galicia, and perhaps some others. Spain isn't a problem.

- Cameron already said scotland isn't getting a second referendum. It really won't happen on the short term.

If the UK leaves the EU, then I can guarantee there is another one. UK will be put under enough pressure by the EU to give in to the Europhile Scots, and he will give.

If not, then we just have to wait for Labour to get control for another IndieRef.

+1. This is the single biggest reason why Cameron is pushing for the UK to remain in the EU. Cameron is worried about his legacy as prime minister. Period. He knows that if the UK leaves the EU, he'll have given the SNP and Scottish nationalists their best argument for a second referendum in less than 5 years. Based on the blowout the SNP gave to the Lib-Dems and Labour in the general election, I can guarantee that Nicola Sturgeon and Angus Robertson will be quite organized to win. What does this mean? A majority vote for the UK to leave the EU is also a majority vote to let Scotland declare independence. This fact alone will brand Cameron as the most infamous prime minister in several decades in British history. That's why Cameron is seething at Boris Johnson and is angry at his MPs for trying to court UKIP votes by supporting the No side.

Totally agreed, +1

Why do something that's going to also run out in 100 years? If you keep on picking the short goals over and over again, over a long time, the long goals will smash the short goals.

Sounds like somebody is annoyed that his country got devastated by Chernobyl.

Chernobyl was Ukraine, X lives in Belarus.

It's right on the border though

Yeah, also, Chernobyl is in the north of Ukraine. It spread very quickly to the north as well, and hugely affected southern Belarus, is what I mean.

Chernobyl happened because Russians cut corners, and decided to experiment on what would happen if they shut down all the emergency systems.

@OxTheArtist

The Tories ARE stealing Scotland's oil. They steal millions, if not billions of pounds worth from Scotland, when it is OUR OIL, NOT THEIRS. England can survive on their own without our oil.

Nobody is stealing your oil, as I said, the revenue provided by the extraction of national ressources should be shared with other regions as a way to distribute wealth. There's nothing wrong on it. If you want scotish oil for scotland, get your own country for it.

Scotland has 3 major banks.

You dodged my argument right here. I wasn't speaking about problems because of scotland losing it's banks, but about losing many corporations and jobs that would be relocated to the UK in case of independence. The problem of a bank leaving isn't a big deal at all, you could lose the siege of all your three banks to england and it wouldn't be a problem because if there's demand for credit, there will be supply, from scotish banks or from international ones, it doesn't matter.
What matter is the tax revenue and jobs lost because of companies IN GENERAL, not only banks, leaving the region.

Scotland already has their own NHS.

Yea, but it's still not funded only by scotland and you rely, guess what?, in england taxpayers to fund it.

About Spain, if they reject Scotland joining, this will only worsen their situation. They'd be put under huge international pressure, and internal pressure as well. They could risk losing Catalonia (which is HUGE for Spanish economy), as well as Euskadi, Galicia, and perhaps some others. Spain isn't a problem.

LOOOL, you just said a big BULLSHIT here. Spain will never support an independent scotland in the EU. One of the main arguments against the independence of their own regions is the fact that they would lose the EU membership if they left Spain. It's less liquely they'd support Scotland entering the EU then the UK for real.

If the UK leaves the EU, then I can guarantee there is another one.

Yea, I pointed that out. But what if the UK doesn't leaves the union? It's still more liquely the UK will stay in the union then leave.
What if the labour party doesn't take back the parliament any soon? The labour party is really in a bad position right now, if Corbyn doesn't manage to get a win in the next elections, the party will see a huge crisis, which is really possible under the current stupid UK electoral system and a thing the SNP rise hasn't really contributed to avoid.


PS: As I said, I'm for the people's choice to run themselves, if scots want to leave the UK, they should have the right to. Plus, If I was a liberal region having to support the tories fucking my country, I'd pretty much wanna get independent as well.

Edited 2/24/2016 21:41:11

My belief is that moderates and progressive conservatives will support Bernie or Hillary over Trump if he manages to win the Republican presidential nomination.