Want to search for posts across your favourite author? Just click on their name to reach their '100 most recent posts' page, and then use the search box located beside their name.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) ❤
No. of Recommendations: 1
President Trump is apparently losing patience with the parties involved in the Ukraine-Russian war. After telling the president of Ukraine that he should start a war and then try to find missiles, thee US has apparently stopped supplying Patriot anti-aircraft missiles - the only defense Ukraine has against ballistic missile attack. I was reported that the flow of US weapons to Ukraine has dried up, despite Ukraine's offer to pay for arms in cash, in advance.
Now that Ukraine has signed a letter of intent to share their rare earth mines with the US, it has been leaked that the peace plan which the US has been floating is basically the same as the Russian demands.
In the meantime, the Russians don't seem to be in any hurry to declare a cease-fired longer than a day.
Both Russia and our government have talked about how profitable to both parties it would be to normalize their relationship.
If the reports of what the US is proposing as a final solution are true, it would be forcing the capitulation of Ukraine without reparations in a rhyming with the 1919 treaty of Versailles.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 1
For those who are geographicaly (or temporally) challenged:
The Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, was the peace treaty that formally ended World War I. It was negotiated by the Allied powers (Britain, France, USA, etc.) and Germany. The treaty imposed harsh terms on Germany, including territory losses, demilitarization, and massive reparations.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 3
President Trump is apparently losing patience with the parties involved in the Ukraine-Russian war.
He has zero patience for anything. If it isn't "right now !!", he wanders off in an Alzheimer's daze. Which is why he lies so much. He can't do anything. Someone "behind the scenes" is not controlling but rather directing the path they want. He does not have a clue (and we all see it all the time).
No. of Recommendations: 1
Which was followed by the US adopting an isolationist stance setting the stage for WW2.
History loves to rhyme.
No. of Recommendations: 12
He has zero patience for anything. If it isn't "right now !!", he wanders off in an Alzheimer's daze. Which is why he lies so much. He can't do anything.
You may be right.
And I REALLY hate to say this, but--the board is probably at its best when we attack the ideas but (whatever is within our power) not the people. For example, I try hard (very hard) not to say insulting things about the person who is president of the US, though I'm more than happy to say that certain policies are inane.
Anyway, this is only a general comment about the ideal tone of the boards, nothing about you, or him. Being a non-US person, I have no party affiliation. Bleeding heart capitalist?
Jim
* As mentioned, you may of course be right in this instance. Nothing in my post actually contradicts your assertions.
No. of Recommendations: 15
You may be right.
And I REALLY hate to say this, but--the board is probably at its best when we attack the ideas but (whatever is within our power) not the people. For example, I try hard (very hard) not to say insulting things about the person who is president of the US, though I'm more than happy to say that certain policies are inane.
That would be easier if there was a single policy which was “nane”. I can’t think of one. Education? Shut it down, sue them bankrupt. Disease? Let 1,000 flower bloom. Defense? Spread classified info like it was the Fox & Friends morning show. Trade? Why trade? We can do it all! American exceptionalism!
Back in the before times, there was a small political movement building, it turned out (later) to be the Tea Party, although I didn’t realize it at the moment. I actually went to one meeting in the Howard Baker Center here in Tennessee; Baker being a long time senator, lauded across party lines, perhaps most famous for “What did the President know and when did he know it?” I assumed that a meeting in his named center would be of reasonable minds discussing governmental objectives.
Whew, was I wrong. It was the most absurd collection of misfits hooting and hollering and about awful how everything was and how we needed to destroy everything in order to “set the country on the right path”, never mind that they had all driven to the meeting in the $50,000 pick-up trucks, complaining about their near invisible tax rate. From that horrific meeting my understanding of this malodorous movement has only grown, and we see it now in full bloom: ignorants in thrall to sound bites and willing to take up shovels against “the elite”, who they blame for their (perceived) lot in life.
Sometimes a person should be attacked, at least by designation if not in person. On the other hand, both Caesar and Caligula learned the hard way that too much power wielded too carelessly can lead to a bad end. (I’m not sure if that improved things; I should check my history books.) In this case, however, there seems to be whole phalanxes of similarly viewed sycophants standing in line ready to take up the sword, so that solution probably wouldn’t help. I fear for the country and for the world economy, given the stupidity of the policies being thrown about so casually.
There, I said it. I feel better, thanks. This is so much cheaper than therapy.
No. of Recommendations: 17
That would be easier if there was a single policy which was “nane”. I can’t think of one.
First, kudos on the neonym. (my neologism for neologism)
Second, surely there are some good bits in US policy these days? Banning daylight savings time. The goal of reducing the US budget deficit is not without merit, though let us not speak about the proposed policy in that area.
Third, OK, yes, the fellow in charge seems to make a tempting target for the ad hominem, I admit it. I just think a discussion board is its best when attacking the person, rather than the idea, is mostly absent. Even though things aren't as funny sometimes.
And lastly, my post may have been ill advised, aiming at the moon. Perhaps I should have started with the suggestion that we avoid ad hominem attacks against, say, Tom Hanks, and worked my way up...
Jim
PS, make me emperor of the US, and this is my proposal for balancing the budget:
Introduce a national value added tax (a type of sales tax). This will be hated, so the rate will be zero, initially, for three years. Who could argue?
Each subsequent year, the rate will set equal to the rate that would have resulted in no federal government deficit on average in the prior 3 years.
If lawmakers balance the budget, no sales tax. If they don't, then the year's deficit is made up by tax collections spread over the next few years. The legislators always get to decide, and they get to respond to emergencies without unwisely worrying about balancing the budget when one happens.
Truth be told, there is no need to balance the budget, as long as the average deficit is lower than the average nominal economic growth rate. So the VAT tax could be set to the rate that would have held the deficit to 2% of GDP in the prior 3 years. This has the advantage of producing a good supply of "risk free" assets which are very useful for greasing the economic wheels, while ensuring that the debt slowly slides as a fraction of GDP over time and remains supportable.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sometimes a person should be attacked .......
There, I said it. I feel better, thanks. This is so much cheaper than therapy.
Don't we already have two psychotherapy boards?
One for ridiculing the other side ("Atheists" board), one for spitting and attacking ("US Policy" board)?
No. of Recommendations: 3
PS, make me emperor of the US, and this is my proposal for balancing the budget:
Introduce a national value added tax (a type of sales tax). This will be hated, so the rate will be zero, initially, for three years. Who could argue?
Each subsequent year, the rate will set equal to the rate that would have resulted in no federal government deficit on average in the prior 3 years.
If lawmakers balance the budget, no sales tax. If they don't, then the year's deficit is made up by tax collections spread over the next few years. The legislators always get to decide, and they get to respond to emergencies without unwisely worrying about balancing the budget when one happens.
Truth be told, there is no need to balance the budget, as long as the average deficit is lower than the average nominal economic growth rate. So the VAT tax could be set to the rate that would have held the deficit to 2% of GDP in the prior 3 years. This has the advantage of producing a good supply of "risk free" assets which are very useful for greasing the economic wheels, while ensuring that the debt slowly slides as a fraction of GDP over time and remains supportable.
Complicated. And too many words for most people to follow. Mine is different for personal income:
Anything you receive as remuneration (money, free rent, interest, dividend, gifts, etc) is “income”. No deductions of any kind.
There are three tax rates: zero, 15%, 30%. If you make under (argue about the number) $30,000, your rate is zero. If you earn between $30,000 and $150,000 your tax rate is 15%. If you earn over $150,000 annually your tax rate is 30%.
People who authorize government spending in any capacity: if the tax receipts are sufficient, standard rates apply. If the government is in deficit, rates are doubled. (Declared (voted) wars or economic emergencies may provide a one year exemption.)
Eliminate, or at least severely cripple the “step up” basis for inheritance.
No. of Recommendations: 1
... money, free rent, interest, dividend, gifts, etc ...
In that etc I would want inheritance and deferred stock compensation.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The goal of reducing the US budget deficit is not without merit, though...
While that is the stated goal, because that goal is hard to dismiss out of hand, IMO it is just the talking point to increase acceptability of the actual goal, which is first and foremost increasing the power and net worth of The Orange Jesus and his disciples. It's hard not to attack the Liar in Chief, precisely because it's almost impossible to determine what his motives actually are, and if his stated goals are just pablum for the voters or actual policies.
IP
No. of Recommendations: 3
"The goal of reducing the US budget deficit is not without merit, though...
While that is the stated goal, because that goal is hard to dismiss out of hand, IMO it is just the talking point to increase acceptability of the actual goal"
yeah, I laugh pretty hard when Trump says he'll reduce the national debt, at the people who believe him. Trump Devotion Syndrome is a dangerous thing. Trump sure did not reduce the
deficit in his 1st term, he increased it more than any Prez in history. And in the current
iteration, if Trump gets his way, the national debt will explode again. Trump will say
virtually anything, even though he knows it will never get done. He lies without any
shame or remorse, that is just the way it is. But the Trump sycophant's lap it all up.
There are ZERO repercussions from his base for Trump spinning fairy tales at them.
So whether it's the annual budget deficit, or the interrelated national debt, 1 thing
we can be pretty sure of is that under Trump, it's going up, no matter what claims
he makes.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Eliminate, or at least severely cripple the “step up” basis for inheritance.
Under this plan, the whole concept of "inheritance" or "step up" is moot. Anything you receive is taxable as income ... including whatever you receive from someone who recently died. And, yes, if you receive a business worth $10M, you have to come up with the $3M tax payment or sell the business to get it. Of course, with people dying all the time, this means that there will be excess businesses for sale all the time, so that $10M business may only be worth $6M at that time, so the tax will only be $1.8M instead of $3M. It would also likely mean that most businesses would be under new management every 30 years or so (assuming the owner died at 85 and gave it to their heir aged 55 on average).
