Four Year Wonders Got Married: Ochka and ML

[ML]

New German defense minister stated that only Chancellor could make decision to allow Leopards be sent to Ukraine.

But then he went on to say that he put out the order to take inventory of all Leopards, where they were, what was their state of readiness, etc.

So sounds like Chancellor will soon be giving the green light.

I don't really understand Chancellor's worry about 'going it alone' when several other European states have stated they are ready to send Leopards to Ukraine.

Why he has been insisting to this point that USA must send Abrams, when USA has already sent tons of the latest fighting equipment?

[Hammer2722]

Yeah, it makes no sense to send Abrams tanks as they have jet turbine engines and the Ukrainians don't have the capability to maintain them properly. Tanks with diesels make better sense. Especially the Leopards since there are literally thousands of them out there.

[Bee Farmer]

I don't really understand Chancellor's worry about 'going it alone' when several other European states have stated they are ready to send Leopards to Ukraine.

Why he has been insisting to this point that USA must send Abrams, when USA has already sent tons of the latest fighting equipment?

Let's not forget that after WWI, Germany was prohibited from building up an army.  They built it up in the Soviet Union, and then brought everything back to Germany to launch the WWII offensives.

Germany is f**ked hardcore.  Germany is probably paying the highest price of any western country due to the conflict in Ukraine.
Their entire economy is based upon Russian natural gas.  And now that's gone.  (Nafta 2 killed their auto industry, since autos sold in the US have to be 80% made in North America.) 
BASF is currently in the process of moving all the physical infrastructure from Germany to Louisiana to try to stay alive.  They think they can get everything operational within 2 years, and then ship the petrochemical products back to Germany to keep their economy afloat.  I suspect it's wishful thinking.

I think Germany is hoping that somehow the situation in Ukraine can be resolve quickly and easily, Nord Stream can be repaired, and they can go back to being a big happy business family with Russia again and it can be business as usual again.  Germany is acting like a bitter ex who can't accept the divorce, and thinks that somehow everything can get worked out.  I think Germany is afraid of doing anything that would antagonize Russia, and prevent reconciliation between the two countries.  I think reconciliation with Russia is Germany's goal.

Natural gas prices are something like 6 times higher in Germany than they were before.

I would be curious to know what the Germans are asking for in negotiations.  Publicly it has been said the German want Americans to give Abrams tanks

I don't buy the argument that Ukraine can't work on Abrams tanks.  Ukraine has a very developed aerospace industry.  The logistics supply chain is an issue.  Abrams tanks weighing 10 or 20 tons more than other tanks is an issue in mud too.

[krimster2]

Tanks are an offensive weapon
and right now, both sides are playing more defense than offense

for Ukraine, the tanks would mainly be useful in an attempt to cut-off Crimea
while closing the Canal, and re-bombing the Kerch Bridge
and there's only ONE functioning gas pipe-line from Russia to Crimea that can can also be easily removed
and this pipeline fuels Crimea's two gas fired power generators

Crimea only has a handful of ports, so Ukraine can EASILY mine these a few km offshore
combine all the above and in a few months Crimea falls without spending a lot of Ukrainian lives
and you will capture BOATLOADS of Russian hardware as well!!

just cut-it off, and let it wither and die (what Putin is trying to do to Ukraine)
rather than invade and try to kill it

the Russian economy is bleeding HEAVILY
so if you're in a knife fight with such an enemy
a REALLY good strategy (and I KNOW)
is to keep him  working, while watching him bleed out until he falls
and because you KNOW this, you take lesser risks yourself, just pin him down

Russia is VERY pinned down!
if you start counting from Nov 2014, when Putin seized Crimea until now
Russia's GDP has declined 10%
and by the 10th anniversary of that date, it will likely be down 15%!!!

WOW!
all the economic ties to Europe that took Russians 50 years to build, are mostly gone
and again folks, look at the slope of the curve of these two variables
Russian Pipeline Gas vrs American LNG
Ka-Ching baby!
and lookin at that downward slope, when is the Russian one gonna be ZERO?

Daily opearting costs of Ukrainian war $400 million/Day
Gas Industry Loss $150 million/day
Oil Industry Loss $100 million/day
other Loss $50 million/day
and a "Special Military Inventory Reduction Program" that's about $50 billion so far
followed by asset seizures of another $400 billion

If "we" can keep the war going AT LEAST until the Russian Presidential Election of March 2024
Russia will be like a HUGE giant yellow pimple, filled with yucky puss
and Ukraine will put it's thumb on one side
and NATO on the other
and you can imagine what's gonna happen

before the rats jump out of the sinking ship
they're gonna scratch and claw each other
with rat pack vrs rat pack down to the last rat

now am I glad I never let the Russians put "tats" on me or what?
what will happen when there's a HUGE mass exodus from Russia, at the end of next year, bigger than the draft dodgers in 2022...
in 2022, there was a mass exodus of oligarch money, $250 billion to be exact
to avoid "handing it over" to Russia's Internal Revenue in exhange for bonds that must be held...

Car sales in Russia collapsed by around 60% last year and it's still falling...
primarily a production issue
about 3.5 million people in Russia depend on the autmotive industry to make a living...

if you combine Russia's official unemployment rate and people on unpaid furlough statistics
you find about 1 in every 8 workers is NOT currently working in Russia today...

go into any "Gypermarket" in Moscva, and you see a massive change from a year ago, weird looking Russian Costco Style products with funky labels at 30% higher prices from then
more shopping security, "i.e. Babooshki Militsa" one in each isle to watch for shop lifters, nastiest harpies you could ever imagine if they catch someone, such shrieking you've NEVER heard!!!!
borja moi!!!

[ML]

I told my wife that I thought Joe would make a quick trip to Kyiv.
She thought he wouldn't due to security reasons.

[krimster2]

Putin's only hope for victory in Ukraine is to show that his will to win is stonger than Biden's will to win...
Biden's trip proved that HE's the one willing to go full-out and not ole Pooty-Poot hiding behind a table in Moscow

a brilliant premptive move by Biden, the ball has been FIRMLY kicked into Putin's court,
Putin will now be forced to raise the ante with a stronger offensive
and a new threatening ICBM Missile "test launch"

if either of these turn into disasters
then it increases chance of cloudy novichok weather in the summer  june-august

Putin needs an exit strategy (not just for Russia in Ukraine, but also for himself)
the question is how much of what he stole will he be allowed to keep
and who decides

I for one, would like the military to stage a coup and topple Putin and arrest ALL OLIGARCHS and confiscate EVERYTHING (before the west does anyway)

Then declare The Soviet Republic of Russia CCP
and all the animals will be equal once more
and we can all play and get along with others

I'm just a dreamer
that one day
all the workers of the world
will be united under one banner
and there will be no more exploitation
AHAHA, just kidding

[ML]

Surprisingly (given economic uncertainty) we sold another parcel of land last week, with cash payment.
I had not really wanted to sell as we are getting payoff this year for a sale last fall and I was concerned about tax brackets.
So when this couple contacted us (we have no For Sale signs out, but they got our info from an earlier buyer) I told wife I would tell them a price that was $20,000 higher than our sale last fall.
They replied:  OK, fine.
So I was in a panic until I ran the numbers and determined we would be in same marginal tax bracket even with their purchase, thus went ahead with the deal.

[ML]

Strange thing (or Boe can probably explain why it is not strange), concering wife's feeling about the second house we bought here in town.

She has mentioned softly a couple of times that she feels the house we are living in is not really 'her house' even after I put her name on new deed as equal co-owner.

So she is co-owner of current house, owns two condo's in Kyiv, multiple country properties west of Kyiv, and a townhouse in Ireland.

For this second house, I put her name on it as sole owner.  There are some property tax situations that I am playing around with in doing this.

And WOW . . . she is completely 'taken' by this second house.  It needs tons of work as has been a rental for 7 years.  She has completly sanded (on her knees) the very wide oak base board related to 1,400 square feet of oak flooring.  Next will come the trim boards around all doors.  I keep telling her we can hire this work done, but she wants to do it.

Just today a crew came in to sand down and refinish this 1,400 sq. ft. of flooring  Said it would take 5-7 days.  She is hoping they will stop for the day soon enough for her to go work on the side boards after she is finished teaching today!!  Then there are the doors themself, which she wants to clean, sand, stain and seal.  We have been paying a guy and his young daughters to do a lot of sweep up work inside house, garage, basement and outdoors; and more will come.

She has done tons of work on this current property . . .  but she seems almost obsessed with this second house . . . that is solely in her name.  She hasn't hinted at all about such feeling, but I can see it.

Anyway, the time can come after it is all finished off . . . we have wild ass guessed $100,000 for new roof, new shakes/shingles for gable ends, new kitchen cabinets and flooring, some new bath fixtures, refinishing the oak flooring, all new kitchen appliances, washer/dryer, etc., etc., etc. . . . when she might do a 'Turbo' job on me.

[Trenchcoat]

Saw a program on TV a few years back, it was about a Millionaire English guy living in the UK. He was into the Orchestra scene, didn't play so much himself but went along to listen. Anyway, he ended up picking up a FSW who played the Chelo I think or some instrument like that. She was much, much younger than he was, likely at least a twenty year age gap, he was starting to age a bit, near retirement age if he worked. Think they had a child together also. Anyhow, after they had been together a number of years he decides to give her a large sum of money, around a million pounds I think it was. Seems it was kind of to say, 'hey to those that think this chick is just with me for my money here's to prove otherwise'. He subsequently found out that she was basically with him because he had money, duh! Not long after she left him and hooked up with a much younger dude - why of course would she be with a much older dude otherwise???

Didn't end well for either I'm afraid. The Millionaire guy no doubt feeling humiliated and made a fool off ended up murdering her. The Police of course found out it was him and he got sent down for a long time, probably the rest of his life.

Moral of the story is I think, never let go off your hold on the power in a relationship, the money. It's what the women want you to have and respect you for it however much they may complain. Lose control of the money in the relationship and you risk losing the relationship.

[ML]

Moral of the story is I think, never let go off your hold on the power in a relationship, the money. It's what the women want you to have and respect you for it however much they may complain. Lose control of the money in the relationship and you risk losing the relationship.

Sounds like pretty good reasoning/advice.
I did give her a big chunk with this second house; but there is a much bigger chunk left, so we will see.
Thanks for posting.

[Trenchcoat]

Sounds like pretty good reasoning/advice.
I did give her a big chunk with this second house; but there is a much bigger chunk left, so we will see.
Thanks for posting.

You're a decent guy ML so I hope whatever happens works out for the best for you. She may just be happy to have her own place and be able to have it how she wants. I know with my town (terrace) house that I enjoy being able to have it how I want. I've spent more time and money than needs be on it both the house and the garden. It should pay dividends in the end in terms of greater house value, living enjoyment and lodger income for a small house though. I done a lot of work and I don't even intend to live in it all that much but it should be more bearable should I need to than a bland dull house & garden/back yard where I might end up hating to live.

So I don't think even with the above said it's necessarily a sure thing that she would leave you, it possibly may not be a great move but who knows. There's the case for companionship and I get the impression from your posts on here you're likely a great guy to be around. Even if there was a split it would at least set you free to go fish again in the FSU, you could be jetting off like me to Chișinău to find one  . So yeah I wouldn't get doom & gloomy about it but in a way see it as a test to see if she would stick by you in old age when you need care or find out then when it's too late. At least finding out now you can take action while you're still able bodied and find another girl, it may however not come to that and she may just enjoy home renovating as chicks love all that interiors stuff. So either way I wouldn't sweat it.

[BC]

Moral of the story is I think, never let go off your hold on the power in a relationship, the money. It's what the women want you to have and respect you for it however much they may complain. Lose control of the money in the relationship and you risk losing the relationship.

Money is just another aspect of building a trusting relationship.  The most important part IMO is for both partners to sit down together, understand the household income, and be able to maintain a household budget. A one-sided, restrictive 'allowance' is something you give your young kids, not your wife, and in certain circumstances, could border on abuse.  Heck, someday she might well out-earn you by a bundle, maybe even be the sole earner in your household. 

[Boethius]

ML, I suspect the reason she prefers the new house is because it is something you purchased together.  The home you live in, even if she has added touches, is your house, from a time before you were together.  A fair number of people feel this way, probably women more than men.  I personally wouldn't care, I don't think. 

Moral of the story is I think, never let go off your hold on the power in a relationship, the money. It's what the women want you to have and respect you for it however much they may complain. Lose control of the money in the relationship and you risk losing the relationship.

No, that isn't the moral.  The moral is, if you use money as bait, don't be surprised at the results.  His wife probably never respected him.  In a marriage, you don't live with money.  You live with an individual. 

[Trenchcoat]

Money is just another aspect of building a trusting relationship.  The most important part IMO is for both partners to sit down together, understand the household income, and be able to maintain a household budget. A one-sided, restrictive 'allowance' is something you give your young kids, not your wife, and in certain circumstances, could border on abuse.  Heck, someday she might well out-earn you by a bundle, maybe even be the sole earner in your household.

That's western thinking BC, I would rather the woman not go out to work forgoing her earning more doesn't bother me, the risk of upsetting the hypergamy scale does as we all know what that can bring. Giving her restrictive allowance would suit me fine as after all that is what happens out in the FSU and are used to. No problem for me to work out the Household budget makes most sense for me to handle that.

[BC]

What you described could be considered domestic/spousal abuse in the UK, Trench.

-having your finances controlled, or not
being given enough to buy food,
medication or pay bills

-not being allowed to leave your house,
or stopped from going to college
or work

[ML]

One of the best (short analysis) I have read.
- - - - - - - - - -

History forecasts inevitable major war  February 27, 2023 by John M. Crisp

Our future is foreshadowed by our past, and few human activities have shaped our history more than our near-irresistible compulsion to fight each other. War is as characteristic of humanity as religion and the drive to procreate.

At our best, we aspire to beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. Religion has generally made a virtue of peace. History is replete with organizations that have campaigned against war in the abstract. Even now, the aptly named British-based MAW (Movement for the Abolition of War) asserts that war is not inevitable and imagines its eradication.

Whether the admirable goals of these efforts were ever actually realistic is not as important as the regrettable fact that they have manifestly failed. The scent of war is in the air, and it’s growing stronger. And as much as we may hate it, we cannot ignore it.

We sometimes speak of “just” and “unjust” wars. Unjust wars contain subcategories: wars that are “ill advised,” “based on misinformation” or “just plain stupid.” Unfortunately, we usually make these judgments only in retrospect, long after great resources and many lives have been wasted.

But history doesn’t run in retrospect, and the current war in Ukraine lies before us. Locally, the war is about territory and sovereignty. Globally, the stakes are much higher. It’s not unduly idealistic to characterize the war as a showdown between authoritarianism and democracy, between tyranny and freedom. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that the West must choose between these polar opposites.

Thus far, the West has chosen. The United States, NATO and the European Union have engineered a calibrated response that, combined with Ukrainian courage and will, has brought the war to a precarious stalemate.

The stalemate is unlikely to last, however, and although the Biden administration has committed to standing behind Ukraine for “as long as it takes,” there’s no guarantee that a Republican-controlled House — or many ordinary Americans, for that matter — will be willing to maintain this level of support.

In fact, polls and prominent Republicans — House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, former president Donald Trump, presidential aspirant Ron DeSantis — have shown signs of waning support for Ukraine. Concerns about the war are legitimate. But much of this equivocation reflects domestic politics: Many Republicans would rather see Joe Biden lose in Ukraine than Vladimir Putin.

But before we bail on Ukraine, consider two stark facts:

First, there are “good guys” and “bad guys” in this global conflict. We are on the side of the “good guys.” I’m wary of the term “exceptional” to describe our nation. It sounds like bragging, the sort of thing that other people should say about us, rather than what we should say about ourselves.

But despite our flaws and failures our system of governance is far superior to Russia’s, China’s, Iran’s, Saudi Arabia’s, Hungary’s or that of any of the burgeoning autocracies in the world.

Unfortunately, autocracy and tyranny are the historical default, and maintaining an exceptional democratic nation in a dangerous world requires positive action.

Second, positive action in defense of democracy often requires force. The last war that we could reasonably call a “good war” was World War II, the worldwide struggle to defend Western values — freedom, individual rights, equality, self-governance — from Nazi Germany and an imperialist Japan.

The war in Ukraine is that same struggle, writ small.

Do not mistake me for a hawk. I came of age in a generation that made an anthem out of “All we are saying … is give peace a chance.” But the growing conflict between freedom and tyranny is unlikely to be resolved peacefully. The fact that the major opponents in this conflict have nuclear weapons makes our prospects unimaginably dangerous. A major war would be catastrophic. Nevertheless, this is a war that the West cannot afford to lose.

One hopes for a diplomatic resolution. History suggests otherwise.  We often say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Unfortunately, even those who remember history are often doomed to repeat it, as well.
John M. Crisp, an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service.

[ML]

A great piece, although perhaps a little too 'deep' for average boy or girl.
- - - - - - - - -

Today’s debt ceiling will become tomorrow’s dreaded debt bomb

February 27, 2023by Karl W. Smith

As disconcerting as the U.S.’s current debt situation is, the outlook is even worse. When the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office updated its forecasts this month, it estimated that debt held by the public will climb to $46 trillion by 2033 from $31 trillion currently. This puts the country one step closer to the dreaded “debt bomb” scenario, which would make today’s battle over whether to raise the $31 trillion debt ceiling look quaint in comparison.

In short, a debt bomb occurs when a country’s borrowings get so large that it has to borrow just to service the debt and meet interest payments. That, in theory, causes interest rates to rise, forcing a government to accumulate yet even more debt. In a sense, a debt bomb is a death spiral for a country.

There are ways out, but they’re all painful. Once this pernicious cycle has started, the only way it can be arrested is by a sharp increase in taxes, an equally sharp decrease in spending or a default. The third scenario is unthinkable for the U.S., which oversees the world’s primary reserve currency. Congress would undoubtedly take the steps necessary to prevent a default, but a rapid rise in taxes and collapse in spending would almost certainly throw the country into a severe recession — or worse.

So, where do things stand? The key stat to look at is federal interest payments as a percentage of gross domestic product. In 2022, such outlays amounted to 1.87% of GDP. Although that’s higher than any time in the past 20 years, it’s a fair bit lower than the 1991 peak of 3.16%. Indeed, it’s lower than the entire period from 1980 to 2001.

That’s not to say there aren’t similarities between today and the period from 1980 to 2001. The most obvious is Federal Reserve policy. Just like now, the central bank then was pursuing a deliberate disinflationary policy. Policymakers need to keep interest rates high relative to the growth rate of the economy if it hopes to stamp out inflation. The downside to such a strategy is that even in good times, when government revenue surges, interest on existing debt would surge as well, preventing the budget deficit from narrowing by much.

What’s different is that back then both the White House and Congress made decreasing the size of government a priority. Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP shrank from a peak of 22.9% in 1983 to 17.7% in 2001. The decline wasn’t linear, with outlays increasing a bit from 1980 to 1983 as the effect of higher interest rates overwhelmed a drop in non-interest spending.

In contrast, the CBO projects federal outlays will rise from 23.7% of GDP in 2023 to 25.3% in 2033. Moreover, the CBO predicts that trend to continue indefinitely, with outlays reaching as much as 29% of GDP after 2044. As a result, federal interest payments are on track to reach 3.6% of GDP by 2033 and as much as 6.2% by 2044. The latter figure is twice as high as anything the U.S. has seen in the post-war period. If these projections are accurate the U.S. will become vulnerable to a debt-bomb scenario over the next 10 to 20 years.

What’s really worrisome is that the CBO’s estimates may actually be optimistic. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) produces alternative projections relative to the CBO baseline that have proven accurate. Under its scenarios, interest reaches 3.9% of GDP in 2033 and 4.4% in 2044. If the CRFB’s high-cost scenario proves correct, federal interest payments as a percentage of GDP will reach record levels by 2025. That makes a debt-bomb a realistic possibility by the early 2030s.

One might hold out hope that higher revenues could alleviate the problem, but that would be going against history. The CBO estimates that federal revenues averaged 17.4% of GDP from 1974 to 2022. In 2022, they reached 19.6% on the back of booming asset prices and corporate profits. Thus, revenues are already well above historical norms and likely to decline in the future. Indeed, the CBO projects they will average 18.1% by 2032.

Revenues only played a small role when the federal budget was brought into balance over the 1980s and 1990s. In 1981, revenues were a then record 19.1% of GDP, before shrinking over most of the next 20 years, matching roughly the historical average. Closing the deficit gap with revenues alone would require unprecedented increases in tax receipts in the face of falling asset prices. That’s extremely difficult to accomplish while maintaining the Biden administration’s promise that no family making less $400,000 a year will see their taxes increase.

This leaves little hope that America will alter its fiscal trajectory over the next decade. Unless Congress and the White House make a sharp reversal and miraculously come up with a plan to shrink the deficit, the U.S. will be staring at the risk of a damaging debt bomb before too long.

Karl W. Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist.
Previously, he was vice president for federal policy at the Tax Foundation.

[krimster2]

any arguments about "the ecoomy" are not going to be made in "good faith" by republicans...

facts:
the biggest surge in the deficits was ALWAYS under Republicans when they cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans.... 
The record deficit was Trump of course, part of the "plan" to deconstruct the DEEP STATE, i.e. the American government
under Bill Clinton, we actually HAD a balanced budget!!!

Republicans want the money that goes to social security to go to wall street instead
so they've been trying years to "privitize it" just to give it to them
now they also want to cut it so they can take the inflows to social security from the poor instead of income taxes on the wealthy

can you say "CLASS WAR"?
and that's what this is...

but since you all watch "conservative christian news"
you know the real problem is transexual atheists crossing the southern border to stage transexual shows to brainwash our children into using flouride toothpaste
so noone takes you guys seriously with your jewish space lasers and george santos and all the rest

a historical side note:
you should read Benjamin Franklyn's observation of the British economy under the gold standard vrs the "colonial dollar" a fiat currency
the gold standard favored the aristocracy, the printed colonial dollars gave the new american economy a huge advantage over the inflexible gold standard

a lot of the dollars aren't borrowed but created by credit
the Treasury can add for instance, a billion dollars to the balance sheet of a federal reserve branch with just a computer
that's credit, and it spends just like a t-bill purchased by china
it's called debt monetization, check it out...

bottom line, the wealthiest Americans didn't want to pay taxes
so they gamed the system
now they want poor people to make up the shortfall
it's not too hard for you to understand, now is it?

[ML]

What does your reply have to do with the analysis provided by the author  giving strong evidence that the problem is perhaps insurmountable ?

He doesn't suggest a solution, nor have I.

My sources of current news are local newspaper, Wall Street Journal, and left wing PBS (because I want to avoid commercials), and Fox News Sunday (Shannon Bream is beautiful to look at). 

Fox News Sunday was nothing like the rest of Fox (which I cannot get) under Chris Wallace and the same holds for current under Shannon. 

Unlike CBS, NBC, and ABC . . . Fox News Sunday has 2 left wingers and 2 right wingers on their analyis panel.

I don't know why Fox News Sunday shows up on my local channel, whereas the weekday Fox News does not.

So I do not watch on TV any right wing news, nor do I watch any Christian news.

I am conservative in my economics and liberal regarding social items. 
I don't care who is buggering whom.

[krimster2]

his "analysis" is BS
oligarchs WANT the governments to spend more than they take in to stimulate the economy to make stocks and other assets rise in value
but they don't want to pay the taxes to support this

the republican party did "donor support" to cut the taxes of their wealthiest donors to a tiny fraction of what it was in 1980
hence "the middle class tax cut" LOL that cut corporate taxes 50%

does he address this in his article?
no, how convieniant to be omitted...


then you use oligarch controlled media like fox or bloomberg
to push the fake narrative
that golly, since rich people pay much LESS taxes now (and we won't even mention this, of course)
by default then, poor people receiving entitled benefits (entitled - because the PEOPLE paid for them)
are the ones who are gonna HAVE TO pay...
by receiving less social benefits, THAT THEY ALREADY PAID FOR...

you wanna pay off a trillion of government debt, or 2 trillion, or 10 trillion?
simple, tell the treasury to issue a credit to the federal reserve
and then have them deposit it as a payment towards the debt

you just pulled the money out of thin air
and reduced the debt by a couple of trillion
so easy, a cave man, or majorie taylor green could do it, even trump

the debt ceiling can be breached, by minting a trillion dollar platinum coin, read about it...
why not make a bunch of em, and pay off the debt
and use some coins to build a new panama canal and reduce our fossil fuel use
by building small modular nuclear reactors and renewables
oh, and fund a new nuclear arms race...
cuz the 50 year old leftovers from the cold war against the USSR
aren't gonna be good enuff to go up against china, iran, north korea...
we need all new stuff
and frankly rich oligarchs are REALLY annoying
and the best way to get them to STFU
is to tax the living daylights out of them

debt and credit go together...
we can use credit to cancel out at least part of the debt

banks are middlemen - their profits are a cost to everyone else
big banks borrow from the feds discount window at .25% interest
and flip this money to college students for something like 20X higher interest rate
and we pat ourselves on the back for having a free market economy
while we make a generation of new debt slaves
millions who toil away most of their lives for the benefit of a few bank executives
freedumb  and keepitallism

[ML]

Yes, top 50% of taxpayers don't pay their fair share.
They only paid 97% of Federal income taxes.
Top 1% only paid 42.3%.
OMG they paid almost as much as the remaining 99% of taxpayers.
But that's not enough.

http://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/

The average income tax rate in 2020 was 13.6 percent. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 25.99 percent average rate, more than eight times higher than the 3.1 percent average rate paid by the bottom half of taxpayers.

The top 1 percent’s  share of federal income taxes paid rose from 38.8 percent to 42.3 percent.

The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.3 percent.

[krimster2]

more BS...

google how top corps pay ZERO taxes
look how many in the financial industry get special treatment, like the "carried interest" tax break
do your comparison about taxes with ALL TAXES as a percentage of income vrs rich and poor...
and you see the poor, PAY WAY more than their share of taxes
and of course, it's by design

look how Teddy Roosevelt stood up for the working class when income taxes were introduced
"we don't want to tax the labor of the working class"
but instead the income derived from capital
so, indexed for inflation, first income tax didn't start until $60,000 yr income (today's dollars)

the republican party, the party of "big business"
has dramatically reduced taxes for the rich
but not so much for average Americans
so, ya gotta scare 'em
with madeup stories about transexuals from tiajuana who voted for Biden

any of this sound familiar
or do you still believe in right wing fairy tales

of course your sources don't want you to know this
cuz it'd show that poor people like YOU are getting ripped off by the rich
and trust me, you ain't rich, so thinking you're one, isn't gonna make you one
especially when YOU are being played like a fiddle

how happy are ya gonna be when most of the rich people ripping you off in the USA
are ALL gonna be rich Chinese a-holes
will you still like keepitalism?

[ML]

The 'facts' I presented were for individuals, so why you are being intellectually dishonest by bringing in corporate taxes?

And, you are confusing (again deliberately and dishonestly) tax rates vs tax dollar amounts.
The top 1% and 50% pay the vast dollar amounts compared to bottom group no matter what you want to present as tax rates.

Doesn't matter what tax breaks the top are getting, they are still carrying almost the entire burden for us.

Rather than complain about the (absurdly high) dollar level of tax dollars paid by the top . . . we should all be embarassed that others are carrying the load for us.

More than 72 million American households will pay no federal income taxes this year, marking a large decline from last year, the Tax Policy Center said.

So how can these folks be taken advantage of in the tax system when they pay zero federal income taxes?

And again, don't try to pull fast switches (a typical form intellectual dishonesty) by talking about other taxes in reply to my discussion of federal income taxes.

Notice I have not used bombastic wording.

[krimster2]

you don't get to cherry-pick your data to fit the BS narrative
instead, your narrative falls flat with the facts, cuz it's FALSE

why bother defendig it, it's BS....
and you KNOW IT

you're a good example
of poor whites who will always work against their own economic interests to support the status quo
cuz they think they're benefitting from it

critical race theory breakthrough  = most white people are ignorant idiots and EASY to manipulate
example: more of you went off to die for massa in the civil war than who are dying now for Putin
how stoopid would you have to be to do this...
yet, here are white people, by the hundreds of thousands...
like lemmings to the sea

to me, ya'll are just plain dumb, almost child-like, devoid of any common sense
and no matter how much I try and help you people
you refuse to listen

[ML]

Wife's parents are both suffering greatly from leg and back problems from a lifetime of hard physical work in garden and with small animals (in addition to their day jobs).

Now both can hardly get up from chairs, sofa, etc.

My wife is very distraught.

The mother needs knee surgery which she says is too expensive.

We have left several thousand dollars with them (which has never been touched) and told that we will send whatever more is needed.

Mother became very upset.

"I have never taken any money from others and will not do it now . . . and that is my final answer."

My wife did talk this week to her mother's female cousin asking her to help the parents (and receive   payments from us) . . . but to never tell that we asked her to do such and never mentioning money received.

This cousin is not in perfect health either, but better than either parent.

This cousin played a good role in that, when wife talked to parents today, mother mentioned how nice it was that her cousin just happened to come by as she was returning from a nearby village where she had a garden area.  The cousin then went to nearest grocery store and brought back some staple items.

Now to find a way to get some money to this (technology challenged) cousin.
Wife is to talk to the cousin's daughter to see about setting up a PayPal account or some such.