|
I've heard so much about "Game of Thrones" that I'm getting the first few seasons through NETFLIX.
I'm also curious about a series called, "DaVinci's Demons". Anyone heard of it?
On my DVR I have ( in no particular order of prefernce).....
-The Chew
-Person of Interest
-The Following
-The Big Bang Theory
-Pawn Stars
-Cosmos:
-Last Man Standing
|
|
|
|
It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.
Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.
It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage). If we simply removed loopholes would that work for you? What about loopholes that government has put in place giving tax breaks for job creation, etc? GE gives back in the way of jobs and innovation. How many poor families can now afford refrigerators compared to the poor of the past? Same goes for cars, TV's, phones, etc. Sure, we can make them pay more but they have the capability of moving large portions of their infrastructure to other countries (global economy) which some say would hurt our poor (and hurt ever growing government coffers....and government keeps wanting more so who pays?) more than helping our economy. GE "doesn't pay tax" because the tax structure in the US is stupid. To bring overseas money home would require paying upwards of 30%, while most countries only require 0-3%. There have been plenty of CEOs in the news lately stating if the US fixed that issue they'd be more than happy to bring billions back and employ people here. Flat Tax is the way to go. 17% of everything you make over $30,000 and no deductions, loopholes, NOTHING. That would bring in more revenue and would save people money who have to now get their taxes done and pay for that or buy software and pay for that. And all those tax lawyers and other parasites would have to get more honest work. Billions would be saved by the people on that alone. Still have state tax systems to deal with. So if I make $40k salary I should pay 5% of my income in taxes, but if I make $400k you think it's fair that I pay 0.5%? |
|
|
|
It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.
Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.
It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage). If we simply removed loopholes would that work for you? What about loopholes that government has put in place giving tax breaks for job creation, etc? GE gives back in the way of jobs and innovation. How many poor families can now afford refrigerators compared to the poor of the past? Same goes for cars, TV's, phones, etc. Sure, we can make them pay more but they have the capability of moving large portions of their infrastructure to other countries (global economy) which some say would hurt our poor (and hurt ever growing government coffers....and government keeps wanting more so who pays?) more than helping our economy. GE "doesn't pay tax" because the tax structure in the US is stupid. To bring overseas money home would require paying upwards of 30%, while most countries only require 0-3%. There have been plenty of CEOs in the news lately stating if the US fixed that issue they'd be more than happy to bring billions back and employ people here. |
|
|
|
|
So now our nation has regressed from a modern, progressive country to a middle ages country where we not only have to execute people but we also have to torture them in the process. Nobody can tell me that they don't know how to execute people but they may be dysfunctional in Arizona where they have the likes of Joe Arpaio, who probably would have been run out of the old west, who treats prisoners like serfs that owed a debt to the vicaire in the dark ages. Where he fits I don't know, but it isn't anywhere in America of the free. It is more likely in about 13th century France or Spain where they treated prisoners like this and tortured many people as well as executed them. Not only are the police shooting people down in the US now in a wholesale manner but prisoners are also dying at a record rate in prison. Now they are torturing them in an act that ends in death. Maybe a sign of the cross for both the people that do this and the ones who are the recipients is in order!
|
|
|
|
|
I commented on it thusly because I found the notion that we will have any sort of significant sway in Saudi Arabia's internal political struggle (regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office) a bit surprising.
What sort of plan do you see a president as having? Can you give me a general concept? Clandestine activity of some sort?
It also isn't necessarily the duty of the President to come up with a fine detail plan for something like that anyway. So I'm not sure what you mean by "he doesn't have a plan". I'm sure that the DoD has several 'plans' on file or in the works and has for years. That's actually one of the things that made Bush so horrible with foreign policy is that he often "shot from the hip." Working with and trusting your bureaucrats and specialists is pretty important for things like this.
|
|
|
|
I should also point out I think it will be very chaotic if the infighting in the House of Saud starts while Obama is still in power. Perhaps it's bias, but I don't think he has a game plan to take advantage of events to edge towards an outcome most beneficial to the US. No one could guarantee one, of course. How much influence do you think ANY US president would have in an internal struggle among the Al Sauds and the internal religious institutions? Do you honestly think that we'll really have any significant say in the end there regardless of who is in office? Our public backing of any individual candidate in Saudi Arabia is more likely to hurt them domestically than help them. In order to come out on top, any Prince in likely going to need to court the religious institutions and being a friend of the US isn't likely to help with that. |
|
|
|
I wasn't particularly saying that the US would do everything in it's power to keep any dictator in control, because the individual dictators are of little consequence. One of the differences in Egypt was disinterest in supporting Mubarak even a little, and not trying to push another dictator in behind. The Muslim Brotherhood was always going to take over should the government be opened up democratically. Everyone knew this and we knew that the fall of Mubarak meant the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. There was little that could be done in that case. Not sure what dictator you expected us to try to prop up in Mubarak's place nor how you expected President Obama to accomplish such a thing. Even when the army broke electoral law to try to prevent Morsi from winning, he still won. Even when the army tried to prevent popular Muslim Brotherhood candidates from running (in clear violation of the principles of democracy) the Brotherhood still came out on top. The Muslim Brotherhood didn't win through clean elections, they won despite dirty play from the military. Not sure what else you would have expected us to do that the Army itself didn't do? |
|
|
|
You're seeming to want to conflate uncontrollable circumstance with allowing situations to develop. I find this a bit unfair and one sided. The situation in Sudan was "uncontrollable" but even larger and more massive protests and military intervention in Egypt was supposed to be controllable? Nimiery wasn't ousted because of the civil war, the military took over because of northern political pressure and popular unrest (once again not the unrest in South Sudan or Darfur). You seem to be under the idea that we had any real control over whether or not regime change would occur in Egypt without ever stating why you think that. We verbally encouraged democratic reform which was the same thing that Reagan did in Sudan. What would you have had us do? Deploy troops and gun down the protestors? hyperbole to be sure, but I don't understand how you see the US as having possibly prevented regime change in Egypt. The very notion seems to rather ignore what was happening internally in Egypt. Likewise, if you notice I've never given President Obama credit for the regime change in Tunisia, or Yemen, and that's because we didn't do it. Just like we didn't do it in Egypt. |
|
|
|
|
Numeiry was the most pro-US leader that an independent Sudan has had. A lot of African states (even those who sided with us during the Cold War) espoused the ideology of African Socialism, that didn't prevent us from working with / supporting them, and Reagan did absolutely work closely with Nimeiry and Egypt to counter Gaddafi in Libya, the triple coalition was a cornerstone of our foreign policy in the area. Of course we didn't align perfectly with him (we didn't with Mubarak either) which is why, when the time came, both presidencies publicly supported "democratic" reforms / transitions, particularly when the militaries of both states stepped in to enforce it.
|
|
|
|
In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.
Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway. Before I go any further, I don't recall you talking about Sudan and Reagan...what was your point there? Because as you know, Sudan was at most a pawn in issues relating to Ethiopia. And the Leadership in Ethiopia making close connections with the Soviet Union. If you're talking about Reagan possibly picking winners and losers in a peripheral fight in Ethiopia, then that isn't exactly the same as letting hand picked dictators fall. I mentioned Sudan under Reagan which I mentioned the last time we discussed Egypt, because it is located in the same geo-political region, and was part of our triple alliance between the US - Egypt -and Sudan. I reference the Nimeiry Administration which was probably the most pro-US administration to ever exist in the Sudan, and one that fell to populist protests / demands for democracy while Reagan was in office (the military intervened to form a transitional government much like Egypt's military did). Despite how heavily we relied on Sudan to check Gaddafi's growing influence in Chad and his moves in eastern Libya (Sudan is a historical and current weapons smuggling route to both the Middle East and North Africa) the US has to and did, under Reagan pay homage to a more democratic process even though it left us with a leader who was much more adverse to the Untied States, not to mention the subsequent toppling of that administration by Bashir in 1989 (a coup which took place under HW Bush). President Obama pretty much followed the same standard course with Egypt, only we've maintained better working relations with the end result (Sisi's government) than we managed to with the end result in Sudan (though we still do share intelligence there). I also think that saying that we "let him fall" rather suggests that we had more control over the issue than we actually did. It would be like saying that Reagan "Let Nimeiry fall" when I think it would be more appropriate to simply say that we rolled with what was largely happening on the ground and defaulted during unstable times to our general talking points which favor democratic reform. We saw the same process under HW Bush in Africa starting in 1989 and especially in the early 1990s with the fall of many of Africa's notorious big men (even those that had been aligned with us during the Cold War). Kaunda fell in 1991, Siad Barre also in 1991, etc Under Clinton Hastings Banda fell in 1994, Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997, etc. Under Bush W: Pervez Musharraf fell in 2008. Well, the Reagan/Sudan thing is not as one dimensional as you seem to be saying. This isn't particularly an area I'm overly familiar with, but saying the Nimeiry admin was "the most pro American" is a bit disingenuous. He came to power as a pro socialist/pro pan Arabist, neither of which was particularly pro American foreign policy. He did become somewhat of an American ally, but when he started with the Sharia law thing, he essentially caused a civil war that he couldn't be protected from. Regime change is something that pretty much every presidency has to deal with to one extent or another. President Obama is facing a larger challenge on that front than his predecessor (George W. Bush) due to the Arab Spring, but he played it very pragmatically in Egypt, Libya, North Korea, Yemen, and largely in Pakistan as well (since the new regime came into power largely while he was first taking office), if a little timidly in Syria. President Obama's big departure from our past engagement in Egypt was that he was willing to talk to the Muslim Brotherhood, which was pretty pragmatic considering that they were the obvious candidates for control of a post-Mubarak government. |
|
|
|
In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.
Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway. Before I go any further, I don't recall you talking about Sudan and Reagan...what was your point there? Because as you know, Sudan was at most a pawn in issues relating to Ethiopia. And the Leadership in Ethiopia making close connections with the Soviet Union. If you're talking about Reagan possibly picking winners and losers in a peripheral fight in Ethiopia, then that isn't exactly the same as letting hand picked dictators fall. I mentioned Sudan under Reagan which I mentioned the last time we discussed Egypt, because it is located in the same geo-political region, and was part of our triple alliance between the US - Egypt -and Sudan. I reference the Nimeiry Administration which was probably the most pro-US administration to ever exist in the Sudan, and one that fell to populist protests / demands for democracy while Reagan was in office (the military intervened to form a transitional government much like Egypt's military did). Despite how heavily we relied on Sudan to check Gaddafi's growing influence in Chad and his moves in eastern Libya (Sudan is a historical and current weapons smuggling route to both the Middle East and North Africa) the US has to and did, under Reagan pay homage to a more democratic process even though it left us with a leader who was much more adverse to the Untied States, not to mention the subsequent toppling of that administration by Bashir in 1989 (a coup which took place under HW Bush). President Obama pretty much followed the same standard course with Egypt, only we've maintained better working relations with the end result (Sisi's government) than we managed to with the end result in Sudan (though we still do share intelligence there). I also think that saying that we "let him fall" rather suggests that we had more control over the issue than we actually did. It would be like saying that Reagan "Let Nimeiry fall" when I think it would be more appropriate to simply say that we rolled with what was largely happening on the ground and defaulted during unstable times to our general talking points which favor democratic reform. We saw the same process under HW Bush in Africa starting in 1989 and especially in the early 1990s with the fall of many of Africa's notorious big men (even those that had been aligned with us during the Cold War). Kaunda fell in 1991, Siad Barre also in 1991, etc Under Clinton Hastings Banda fell in 1994, Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997, etc. Under Bush W: Pervez Musharraf fell in 2008. |
|
|
|
In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.
Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway. |
|
|
|
|
How far has Islam now proven to be still a dark age religion? How far must it go to say we are a dark age religion ? Very strange. Most of ISIS fighters don't come from countries where FGM is practised (Sudan, Somalia) or is it anything to do with Islam. It seems like a move to antagonise the West especially after FGM has become headline news.
Could ISIS be playing a 'double agent' role?
|
|
|
|
|
Our economy needs 2 million new jobs a year just to keep up with the population.
And the recession continues to add to the total demand. Those employment needs from 2006 to the present didn't just zero out every year; the line just kept getting longer.
200,000 part time workers a month isn't even putting a dent in the problem.
|
|
|
|
The general policy of injecting instability into countries, and either publicly or privately assisting tough dictators hold on to power. And inserting them into power in some cases. I'm not speaking of public policy, but rather the pragmatic side of it.
You didn't really give a country example. We've already been over Egypt and noted how his stance there has been pretty consistent with historical US policy, particularly when compared to Reagan's dealings with Sudan, and we talked about Libya, where the US has long opposed Gaddafi. So where else are we talking about? If anything I've found the current administration to be MUCH more pragmatic than the previous one. We've handled the DPRK better, Burma better (both more pragmatically) and we've pulled out largely from Iraq and Afghanistan while simultaneously keeping a clearly non-ideological based drone program active. |
|
|
|
As a personal aside, I used to do legal work for one of the largest infrastructure construction companies in the world. It is based in a Western European country and has a market cap in the billions, but it still received Ex-Im financing for equipment purchasing in many markets in which it operates. This made it a more competitive bidder in developing world infrastructure projects than U.S.-based companies.
On my personal note: I have work experience with the US Ex-Im bank in helping US businesses establish footholds in Africa (like Caterpillar, and GE). We dish out about $15 billion in subsidized loans for our companies overseas and to companies that have purchase guarantees for US products. China meanwhile dishes out $111 billion. We can't even compete in subsidized financing with South Korea. Our Ex-Im operations are VERY modest when it comes to international markets. You didn't really address the point about it costing U.S. jobs or putting U.S. businesses at a disadvantage versus their foreign competitors. That's because it doesn't in any meaningful way. Especially when a basic cost-benefit analysis is done and the fact that it only represents 2% of our overseas exports is taken into account. It is a pretty small (relatively) operation; like I said: a niche market, but vital to breaking into emerging higher risk markets and in competing with foreign companies that receive MUCH greater financial assistance from their home countries. It also netted over $1billion in government revenue last year. US businesses are already disadvantaged in overseas emerging market financing, take this away, and we'll be even less competitive which I highly doubt would be good for US jobs. So is the Export-Import Bank corporate welfare or a jobs program? |
|
|
|
As a personal aside, I used to do legal work for one of the largest infrastructure construction companies in the world. It is based in a Western European country and has a market cap in the billions, but it still received Ex-Im financing for equipment purchasing in many markets in which it operates. This made it a more competitive bidder in developing world infrastructure projects than U.S.-based companies.
On my personal note: I have work experience with the US Ex-Im bank in helping US businesses establish footholds in Africa (like Caterpillar, and GE). We dish out about $15 billion in subsidized loans for our companies overseas and to companies that have purchase guarantees for US products. China meanwhile dishes out $111 billion. We can't even compete in subsidized financing with South Korea. Our Ex-Im operations are VERY modest when it comes to international markets. You didn't really address the point about it costing U.S. jobs or putting U.S. businesses at a disadvantage versus their foreign competitors. |
|
|
|
|
As a personal aside, I used to do legal work for one of the largest infrastructure construction companies in the world. It is based in a Western European country and has a market cap in the billions, but it still received Ex-Im financing for equipment purchasing in many markets in which it operates. This made it a more competitive bidder in developing world infrastructure projects than U.S.-based companies.
|
|
|
|
Ex-Im financing is a pretty niche market. It's subsidized loans aren't for competition against other US businesses (we leave that financing to the private market), they are for competition against foreign businesses which also enjoy much larger subsidies from their host countries.
Some interesting comments from the CEO of Delta Airlines in Congressional testimony: In trying to justify its aircraft financing program, the Bank has made numerous inaccurate and misleading arguments. Consider its argument that its financing supports jobs here at home. Delta knows firsthand that the Bank’s statements on this front are unreliable.
The Bank has repeatedly touted two deals it financed involving Delta TechOps and the Brazilian airline GOL, asserting that these guarantees “support[] an estimated 400 jobs at Delta TechOps, according to Ex-Im Bank’s jobs-calculation methodology” – which GAO has criticized. Contrary to the Bank’s public pronouncements, however, that financing did not support, much less create, a single job at Delta TechOps. The guarantees helped GOL to issue cheap debt in 2012, ostensibly to pay the costs of a Delta TechOps contract to provide maintenance service for GOL’s narrowbody aircraft engines. The truth is that the contract was signed in 2010 and the Bank’s support arrived only after the contract had been finalized, the work was underway, and payments were being made. If the Bank is willing to publicize a deal where it is so wrong on the facts, it raises the question of what the Bank is doing in the vast majority of transactions as to which it discloses little if any information. Worse, the Bank reported to Congress that the reason it approved these two guarantees was to “overcome maturity or other limitations in private-sector financing.” That statement is misleading (if not outright false) because it implies that GOL needed help to pay its bills or that Delta would have lost the deal without the Bank’s support. In fact, the contract was signed in 2010 for a five-year term, and was being fully performed, without GOL’s needing, seeking, or receiving Ex-Im support. Although the Ex-Im guarantees were nominally related to the 2010 TechOps contract, their actual effect was to provide GOL with low-cost working capital in 2012 and beyond. The Bank’s statutory justification and motive to provide financing for a contract that was already in place, was proceeding in a normal commercial manner, and did not involve competition from a subsidized foreign competitor is not apparent to us. He also noted that the Ex-Im financing subsidies on widebody aircraft to foreign carriers costs Americans jobs with Delta and other American carriers. This is because the Ex-Im subsidies provide foreign carriers with essentially one free jet for every eight they purchase, while Delta and other American carriers get no similar subsidy on widebody, long-haul aircraft. This necessarily results in Delta being less competitive in the marketplace and reduces employment. |
|
|
|
MHO should just send over a "Reset Button" to Libya and all will be well. There won't even be a need for any childish hashtags.
How would everything be all well if Libya was engaged in a long lasting civil war with Gaddafi at the head of things? Having celebrities hold up signs with douche chill inducing sayings is a cure all.. ...? I have no idea what you are attempting to reference. I only use junk like twitter to examine terrorism chatter. So you don't want to Bring Back "Our" Girls or Stop Koney? So you are talking about twitter then. In that case I'll say that many terrorist organizations rely on twitter for recruitment and the dissemination of propaganda, ignoring the platform simply because you thinks it silly, is dumb. So you are claiming this was appropriate and successful. Wow, you really are a Regime sycophant. Though in such an age where we have seen twitter used in countless conflict and political outbursts and episodes, it isn't intelligent to ignore the impact that social media has on political and military landscapes, especially since so much of the world is so young and has grown up using these networks as primary means of social communication and informational dissemination. Once again, just because you can't see the value in them doesn't mean that terrorist groups haven't been happily utilizing them to spread their messages and recruit youth into their forces, why you think we shouldn't fight back against that or pay attention to such tools is more than a bit beyond me. I doubt it. I think you're putting a criteria in place that the American people disagree with. The only immediate things Obama could do with most issues is put boots on the ground in these areas, and he won election twice campaigning against that. It's ridiculous to hypothesize that the voting public changed their mind. The alternative is to gradually run Russia broke, which is slower but can easily happen. Or to stop interfering as much in the internal affairs of other countries. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
