Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 31st May 2017, 04:08
  #8181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,649
Reynolds

Not sure sure Russia is joining NATO, acquiring on the other hand....
West Coast is online now  
Old 31st May 2017, 04:29
  #8182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
And to think that the single biggest importer of American armaments for the last decade is the same country that provided 15 of the 17 9/11 hijackers. Go figure.
Hempy is offline  
Old 31st May 2017, 07:36
  #8183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by Um... lifting... View Post
System's different over here on the west side of the pond. Charitable deductions (for normal folk, not the super rich) come right off the top of Adjusted Gross Income up to a certain % (30 or 50, generally, depending upon the sort of charity and how much money you made). To only allow charitable contributions from income that's not going to be taxed anyway removes most if not all of the financial incentive to be charitable.
I think I described it badly. I've done some googling but I think the question is so basic that the answers aren't there in black and white! I could be wrong, but as far as I can see the US and UK systems are pretty similar - if I illustrate this with a grossly over-simplified example could you tell me where I have it wrong?

Let's assume you live in a country where the income tax is 50% (to make the maths easy). Let's assume you make 10m/yr, so in principle you'd pay 5m in income tax and get to keep 5m.

Now if you make a "deductible" charitable donation of 1m your *taxable* income drops to 9m, so you only pay 4.5m in income tax, and you get to keep 4.5m. So the donation of 1m still reduced your post-tax income by 500k.

The only way I could see that the US system would be different would be if you could actually deduct the whole of the donated amount from the tax bill rather than from the income to be taxed - is that what I'm missing?

For info - in the UK when we say something is "paid from untaxed income" we mean that the payment reduces the total income before tax is calculated. That's generally how "deductibles" work over here.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 31st May 2017, 08:36
  #8184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,649
And to think that the single biggest importer of American armaments for the last decade is the same country that provided 15 of the 17 9/11 hijackers. Go figure.
And to think another large importer of US arms, the UK has had the majority of Islamic terror acts perpetrated by its own citizens, many of whom were actually born there. To think the US sells arms to Australia when numbets of her own citizens have gone all jihadi and participated in terrorist attacks.
West Coast is online now  
Old 31st May 2017, 08:45
  #8185 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 0
This may cause some concern for those familiar with the rules of Scrabble....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-twitter-post

I understand he doesn't drink so... that can be ruled out ........however, other causations are available.
Krystal n chips is online now  
Old 31st May 2017, 11:07
  #8186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
If you let Germany "go East" ethical, what do you do to the democratic aspirations of those in Poland? The Baltic states? What message does that send to those who, heretofore, would have allied and partnered with the United States no matter where it might be?

I would think this to be of import as you try to coalesce a grouping to counter China. Already Oz is having doubts...or should they just bugger off as well?

Not to rally to the Teutonic cause, but Germany is responsible for around 700K jobs in les etats unis. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/w...T.nav=top-news

I am not as sanguine as you in how easily those could be replaced by what...other U.S. workers? Or would the jobs simply be lost if the Huns were cashiered out of the country?

I dig. You and the other Seraphims don't like Europe. Think though of the second and third order effects of your idol's destruction of the post war order.
Uncle Fred is online now  
Old 31st May 2017, 11:11
  #8187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 41
Posts: 597
Latest from the dyslexic Twitterer In Chief:

SMT Member is offline  
Old 31st May 2017, 12:15
  #8188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 72
Posts: 16,612
A worthy exercise would be to ask why did Marshall et al seek to "save" Europe after the war?
Europe was devastated by the fighting and people were starving....and rather than see people live in misery at risk of dying....the United States came to the aid of Europe.

Was there political gain to be had....probably.

But what was the basic motive....I guess you will have to decide that on your own...from the perspective of where your family was at the time.

http://marshallfoundation.org/marsha...marshall-plan/

Look at today's Venezuela for what happens when people cannot feed their families or buy necessary goods.


In the UK....Food Rationing ended when?

What was the situation re Housing in the UK at the end of the War?

Why was Churchill removed so quickly after the War?
SASless is offline  
Old 31st May 2017, 12:38
  #8189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,654
SASless also the Russian Bear was on the border of a wrecked continent that America (quite rightly) had had enough of fighting for but also did not want to fall under Soviet domination so there was very good cause to pour money into the German and French economies.

Food rationing ended 4th July 1954. In Germany it had finished over 4 years earlier on 18th January 1950.

Housing in the cities of Britain was devastated (but nothing in comparison to Germany) with 20% of the housing stock lost

Churchill was removed so quickly because people wanted to get rid of the wartime coalition Government and replace it with a Labour Government as they were perceived as more humane than the Conservatives in a time of great loss for so may families. It was the first and only time my ex-RAF father voted Labour!!
LowNSlow is offline  
Old 31st May 2017, 14:21
  #8190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 72
Posts: 16,612
Marshall at a Harvard Commencement Speech announced a policy that turned American Foreign Policy completely around and headed it in a new direction.

As "LowNSlow" correctly stated....the threat of the Soviets also played a role in that change but only as a symptom rather than a cause.

Disorder, chaos, and unrest would have been very beneficial to the Soviets end game.

Reflections on the Marshall Plan | Harvard Gazette
SASless is offline  
Old 31st May 2017, 17:01
  #8191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,594
Originally Posted by PDR1 View Post
Funny how he can only answer by throwing insults at people. Like all trumpite acolytes, when presented with unfortunate facts that they can't counter they just bluster and play the man rather than the ball.
Since you falsely accuse me of being a Trump acolyte, that makes you a liar. It is somewhat ironic that you can't answer someone who disagrees with you, or who points out your error, without dishonestly attempting to put them in a pigeon hole. And, back to my response to you, since you really don't know what you are talking about (see Whiskey Rebellion for but one example of why I called you on your BS) I again recommend that you not pretend that you do. (I have read your input in other sub-forums and found that you are quite knowledgeable on some topics ... this is not a general dismissal of your input.)
Originally Posted by Ancient Mariner View Post
This is getting a bit off topic, and I'll conclude with one suggestion, the USA is more interested in having a presence here in Norway, than we are. Just look at the geography.
Per, who is "we?"
Who in your government is for, and who is against? All Norway has to do to leave NATO, per the Washington treaty that your government is signatory to, is give a one year notice and begin the process. What's stopping that?

@Uncle Fred
I am not saying that Germany and Europe will just take their football and sulk off, but why make security cooperation so bloody hard when it does not need to be?
What, btw, is Trump going to do with the German car manufacturing and steel plants in the United States? Does he even know that the Germans have great investiture in America and provide a lot of good jobs? Again, it is great that he is telling everyone to sod off, but he really ought to consider how this frays a great economic and security relationship.
More or less my view on the matter. Trump has a long habit of making a lot of waves/noise -- it's a habit which in the political world is possibly a way to get elected but (IMO) is a sub optimal way to do business/the job at hand. (You may find of interest/amusing his lawsuit against the NFL back in the 1980's when he and some other wealthy sorts tried to set up a competing professional football league). (The Wikipedia article on the USFL/NFL lawsuit has enough meat to suffice if you are curious).

@reynoldsno1
I made a joke a while ago about the US leaving NATO, and Russia joining ... I'm not sure it's quite so jocular anymore.
I think that if "US leaves NATO" NATO ceases to exist. What then happens is that each member looks about and examines it various security needs, and then looks at what collective security arrangement best suits them.
The WEU had a military structure (I suppose it still does), there was the BeNeLux back in the day, and the EU has a variety of structure already in place to possibly fold in a collective security agreement/coalition.
Would a European collective security coalition with Russia involved arise? Yes, if a number of nations including Russia all had some core security challenges that they were facing that doing as a group was more attractive than doing separately.
Is there something of that gravity on the horizon? Not sure, my magic 8-ball is at the cleaners.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 31st May 2017 at 17:26.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 31st May 2017, 17:33
  #8192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
I think it is rude to attempt to help those who do not ask. It is aggression to help those who protest. It is clueless to attempt either. America, show some sense, and save a whole lotta dough. Leave the World alone ffs.

MYOB. Every mother's son, please.
Concours77 is offline  
Old 31st May 2017, 17:53
  #8193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
Perhaps a new Europe would just need a new Russian-German Non-Aggression Pact? Worked before so well, maybe a Mulligan.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 31st May 2017, 18:25
  #8194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,594
Concours:
I think it is rude to attempt to help those who do not ask
To whom do you refer in that sentence?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 31st May 2017, 19:09
  #8195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Lonewolf 50

Europe. However, there have been whiny requests, and unspoken expectations that we foot the bill....

IRAQ. AFGHANISTAN. ISRAEL. VIETNAM. SYRIA, etc. etc. "No foreign entanglements." From the only George who deserves our respect?
Concours77 is offline  
Old 31st May 2017, 19:33
  #8196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,649
Fred

It's not that we don't like Euros, it's a matter of what's the return on investment? Russia isn't the Soviet Union, no one is marching to the English channel. A united euro effort to stop regional aggression would keep Vlad in check. Why do I as a US tax payer need to subsidize the German's defense?

As LW said, the time to rework NATO or dissolve it in favor of a regional approach to security threats may be upon us.
West Coast is online now  
Old 31st May 2017, 20:30
  #8197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,594
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
It's not that we don't like Euros, it's a matter of what's the return on investment? Russia isn't the Soviet Union, no one is marching to the English channel. A united euro effort to stop regional aggression would keep Vlad in check. Why do I as a US tax payer need to subsidize the German's defense?

As LW said, the time to rework NATO or dissolve it in favor of a regional approach to security threats may be upon us.
West Coast, it was apparently upon us in the early to mid 90's, but the actual decision taken was quite different: out of area ops, expansion of NATO, and a new strategic direction. At the same time, there was a growing sentiment in Western Europe that a European Independent Security Identity was in Europe's interest. This was all going on about the time that the Euro was getting closer to reality, Eurocorps was being not just talked about but being planned, the WEU flotilla was working along side NATO, but under WEU political aegis, and the "no more passport checks at the borders" initiative was getting closer to reality.


I found it an odd juxtaposition: on the one hand signs of Europe needing less US collective security participation, and on the other hand increased alliance size and activity beyond the original charter.


The situation now is quite a bit different.
Russia is in a new position relative to then, and it being a generation later;
Europe's security environment is (IMO) quite different now that NATO has increased its membership to where it has no Warsaw Pact buffer (then again, Turkey never had that) between NATO and the largest local hegemon / power.
The relationship with the power across the pond has undergone some profound changes, to include the NATO operation in Afghanistan and the various NATO allies who did or did not join in the Iraq coalition, not to mention the fall out of the Iraq coalition getting considerable introspection in various European capitals.


From the European side, the question has to be asked in each capital: what collective security issue do we have in Common with the Americans (if any)? Is NATO the way to address that, or is there another avenue?


In Washington, the question looks different, since we are in regional security relationships with various parties all over the globe. (Japan, South Korea, Australia, and various ASEAN nations being the most significant ones beyond NATO). Where is our main effort, can NATO be an economy of force if it isn't the main effort?


We then toss in our various security relationships in the Mid East, which appear to have been the main effort for the past decade or so, and ask: is this still the main effort, or is Asia the main effort? Why, or why not?


If I had the answers to that, I'd write that book and maybe make some money. But I don't. What I think is happening is that Trump thinks that NATO/Europe is no longer the main effort for collective security, the other two are, so NATO ought to be at most a geo strategic economy of force. What bugs me about that point of view is that we've had a substantial out of area NATO op in Afghanistan ... which argues for making sure alliance ties remain strong as we are likely to work together in a variety of ways with a variety of NATO allies.
As is critical to coalitions that hope to succeed, we have established habitual relationships and interoperability to an impressive level of detail. Throwing all that out, for a short term objective, strikes me as ill advised.


ADDENDUM: Ambassador to Italy. Hmm, the US DoS site notes that it is vacant. But in January, a guy named Lewis Eisenberg was the prospective fill. Goldman Sachs alum, and GOP fund raiser. Did he decline the nom, or did the Senate simply not confirm him yet? Or did he never get a formal nom?

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 31st May 2017 at 20:59.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 31st May 2017, 21:36
  #8198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
And, back to my response to you, since you really don't know what you are talking about (see Whiskey Rebellion for but one example of why I called you on your BS) I again recommend that you not pretend that you do.
Uh-huh. So are you going to explain how a failed tax revolt is in any way related to anything I said, and then procede to actually address my points, or are you just going to continue playing the man rather than the ball?

(I have read your input in other sub-forums and found that you are quite knowledgeable on some topics ... this is not a general dismissal of your input.)
I have read your input on various topics and found that you are in no position to patronise anyone. So either play the ball or stop playing - playing the man is just an admission of dogmatic cluelessness.

PDR

PS - you appear to be assuming that I have never lived in the Colonies. FYI, that would be a bad assumption.
PDR1 is offline  
Old 31st May 2017, 22:15
  #8199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,649
LW

I reject the concept that the time to redefine NATO has past. The clear and present threat represented by the Soviets was a valid reason to spend huge sums of taxpayer dollars to prevent but nothing like it exists now to justify the US outlay when the euros possess the capabilities to deal with it. Fighting non state sponsored terrorism doesn't need the vast resources NATO possesses, even with the slackers not carrying their share of the burden.

Again, what is our return on investment?
West Coast is online now  
Old 1st Jun 2017, 00:01
  #8200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 610
WC

Except for the Trident subs what is the return for any of our military? Outside of sufficient nukes to obliterate most of the world the rest of the military has been of no value since WWII, which was the last time the US was at even a minimal risk. All the wars since were just a waste of money and bodies.
The Sultan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.