The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Funny, I didn't say anything about "officially". But sure why should that stop you straw-manning and generally talking bollox as usual.

I would add that that barefaced lie by the US government representative is a further unwitting admission that blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline was an act of terrorism. Else why would they lie about it?

It also bears out the point by @Paul Rigby about the neocon warmongers divided amongst themselves. When they publicly lie in an official capacity for all the world to see and the whole world knows they're lying, they're in serious trouble - even if they're too stupid to realise it themselves.

And that illustrates @Chris Barnard's point about the lack of self-awareness of these one-eyed jingoists and their fellow travellers.

“The owl of Minerva only spreads its wings with the falling of the dusk.” 
Hegel 

At this rate all the owls will be dead, dusk is going to be all day long and we’ll be putting iodine on our corn flakes if the morons get their way. 

[Ron Bulman]

Bryan Cranston Educates Chris Wallace on Why 'Make America Great Again' Can Be 'Construed as a Racist Remark' (msn.com)

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Funny, I didn't know William was officially in charge of announcing such things...

And of course he isn't, and of course Cotter has no proof of such a thing yet of course he's tremendously upset such a thing could happen as an answer to Russia bombing Ukraine's infrastructure, raping it's women and massacring it's children. Uh huh.

Matt,

     I suspected, from day one, that the U.S. was involved in the Nordstream demolition, with the acquiescence of Norway and our EU allies.  Who else had the means and motive to de-fund Putin's mass murder machine?

    But John Cotter has had his panties in a bunch ever since Paul Rigby posted the Seymour Hersch article claiming that the demolition was a U.S. op.   And John has now posted at least ten redundant comments on the subject-- even claiming that the pipeline demolition was an act of "terrorism" by the God awful Yanks.

    What can we say about a guy like Cotter who is outraged about a strategic military pipeline demolition, to undermine a war criminal, while refusing to comment on Putin's historic war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine?  

     Cotter seems to have great empathy for gas pipelines and precious little for the suffering Ukrainians and massacred Russian conscripts in Ukraine.

    

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

BERNIE SANDERS: Sanders goes in to say, if we raised the cap on the amount that people are currently required to pay into Social Security, which is now at $250 K a year. Social security would be solvent for 75 years! and we could increase benefits!

It's kind of a no brainer, isn't it? Why couldn't this just be another Biden moment, like his revealing past public Republican statements  about eliminating Social Security and Medicare? We've been played as dummies!

Is there any doubt that if there was a political assassination in the U.S. It would be because of an inevitable Sanders Presidency?,

Bernie Sanders: Here's the crazy situation. Somebody making $10 million in a year is contributing the EXACT SAME AMOUNT into Social Security as somebody making $160,000. Let's raise the cap and expand Social Security benefits, not cut them.

 

 

I would prefer a modest national property tax to fund Social Security. 

[Benjamin Cole]

From the AP no less.

They must also be Russian stooges....

WASHINGTON (AP) — Three days before the pro-President Donald Trump riot at the Capitol, the Pentagon asked the U.S Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower.

And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. The police turned them down both times, according to a defense official and two people familiar with the matter.

Despite plenty of warnings of a possible insurrection and ample resources and time to prepare, the Capitol Police planned only for a free speech demonstration.

Still stinging from the uproar over the violent response by law enforcement to protests last June near the White House, officials also were intent on avoiding any appearance that the federal government was deploying active duty or National Guard troops against Americans.

The result is the U.S. Capitol was overrun Wednesday and officers in a law enforcement agency with a large operating budget and experience in high-security events protecting lawmakers were overwhelmed for the world to see. Four protesters died including one shot inside the building.

---30---

This is actually a rather mild description of what happened, and still exaggerates the scrum by use of such glorified words as "insurrection." 

The federal government had heavily, heavily infiltrated the only two, loosely organized and small groups present that day, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys. 

The 1/6 scrum-event remains unexplained---but the unimportant event becomes a spin-weavers dream, kool-aid for the blue-red pissing wars, and Deep State narratives.

Remember, be afraid, very very afraid of foreign enemies and domestic subversives. 

Remember when pissing blue or red, the most important color is white---as in, you are getting snowed. 

 

[Douglas Caddy]

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

16 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Still stinging from the uproar over the violent response by law enforcement to protests last June near the White House,

First off, what date is this article? What are they talking about here? Is this article from 2021 talking about Lafayette square?

 I get the usual innuendo. What is your theory? Give me a few hundred words on what you think happened and be specific.

31 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I would prefer a modest national property tax to fund Social Security. 

Ok, Why? You would be taxing everyone who had a house? That's a middle class tax as in numbers there are many more small property owners. Have you checked any studies that a modest tax could extend and increase Social Security benefits?

[Mark Knight]

44 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I would prefer a modest national property tax to fund Social Security. 

Do you own property in the US? [If not, it would explain why you're a proponent of such.]

[Benjamin Cole]

4 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Do you own property in the US? [If not, it would explain why you're a proponent of such.]

When I lived in the US, I owned modest property on and off, and family members own property in the US.

For a moderator, you have a knack for making ad hominem commentary. 

Really, try setting a standard. 

[Mark Knight]

In 2020 I did a paper for a college course examining the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Social Security actuaries are, by law, limited to project out to a maximum of 75 years. Their conclusion was that if the cap were removed from income subject to tax for Social Security, the fund would remain solvent for as long as they are allowed to project.

Others have stated that removing the cap would fund Social Security "in perpetuity."

The tax RATE would never have to increase.

The AGE at which recipients could begin collecting Social Security would never have to be raised.

And Social Security BENEFITS would never have to be cut.

The only people keeping this from occurring are those representing RICH Americans.

 

And Ben...there would be no need for a federal property tax, which at this point doesn't exist.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

7 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

First off, what date is this article? What are they talking about here? Is this article from 2021 talking about Lafayette square?

 I get the usual innuendo. What is your theory? Give me a few hundred words on what you think happened and be specific.

Ok, Why? You would be taxing everyone who had a house? That's a middle class tax as in numbers there are many more small property owners. Have you checked any studies that a modest tax could extend and increase Social Security benefits?

Kirk:

It is hard to explain the 1/6 event when we have only one  "investigation" that was akin to the Warren Commission investigation---that is, there was only one narrative allowed, and no defense counsel present, and no rules on the admissibility of evidence and so on. 

That is called a kangaroo court. 

In 1965, after reading the WC report, could I tell you what happened? No, it was a posthumous kangaroo court. 

In 1964, I might only have reasonable skepticism regarding the JFKA. 

I have reasonable skepticism regarding what happened on 1/6. 

------

On property taxes, I think they are a better idea than wage taxes. 

I am tempted to say, "never tax wages." Wages result from working. 

It is big topic, but in general income taxes of all kinds, personal and corporate, domestic and international, have become a big global shell game. 

Property taxes cannot be dodged, and can be transparent (in fact usually are. You can find out what properties pay in taxes). 

Well, this topic rather far afield....

[Mark Knight]

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

When I lived in the US, I owned modest property on and off, and family members own property in the US.

For a moderator, you have a knack for making ad hominem commentary. 

Really, try setting a standard. 

What about my comment constitutes an ad hominem attack? Is it not common for people who DON'T have something [such as great wealth] to suggest we start taxing what they don't have? You may not have been in America RECENTLY, but that has been a fact for my entire 68+ years here on this Earth.

People who don't own airplanes or yachts are always wanting the taxes to land on the people who have airplanes and yachts. It has ever been so, and it will always be so. I'm simply pointing out a universal truth.

For you to consider that an ad hominem is not merely ridiculous, but awfully thin-skinned of you.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

6 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

In 2020 I did a paper for a college course examining the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Social Security actuaries are, by law, limited to project out to a maximum of 75 years. Their conclusion was that if the cap were removed from income subject to tax for Social Security, the fund would remain solvent for as long as they are allowed to project.

Others have stated that removing the cap would fund Social Security "in perpetuity."

The tax RATE would never have to increase.

The AGE at which recipients could begin collecting Social Security would never have to be raised.

And Social Security BENEFITS would never have to be cut.

The only people keeping this from occurring are those representing RICH Americans.

 

And Ben...there would be no need for a federal property tax, which at this point doesn't exist.

 

I admire the research effort you have made, and if you want to post your paper here, I would read it. 

I would prefer never to tax wage income at all, or, possibly, never tax wage income under some level such a $30 an hour....

[Benjamin Cole]

1 minute ago, Mark Knight said:

What about my comment constitutes an ad hominem attack? Is it not common for people who DON'T have something [such as great wealth] to suggest we start taxing what they don't have? You may not have been in America RECENTLY, but that has been a fact for my entire 68+ years here on this Earth.

People who don't own airplanes or yachts are always wanting the taxes to land on the people who have airplanes and yachts. It has ever been so, and it will always be so. I'm simply pointing out a universal truth.

For you to consider that an ad hominem is not merely ridiculous, but awfully thin-skinned of you.

 

You impugn motives, and imply self-interest in someone addressing a public issue. 

Should I say you prefer the Donk Party, as you want to live on welfare? 

People who want to live on welfare do support the Donks....

Try to avoid ad hominem arguments. You should be setting a standard, not a low bar...

 

[Mark Knight]

Just because I [correctly] deduced that you no longer own property in the US from the fact that you advocate a property tax to fund Social Security does NOT make it an ad hominem.

Ray Charles could see that connection, and he's not only blind but dead for several years now.

As I pointed out, EVERY human advocates for his/her own self-interest. It's not JUST you. It's EVERYONE.

When it comes to taxes, they are most successfully collected from people who HAVE the commodity being taxed. If you were to levy a tax on my yacht, my airplane, or my business, you'd collect nothing. I have no yacht, no airplane, no business.

Ask anyone who thinks SOMETHING should be taxed, what they believe should be taxed FIRST. I will wager that 99.9 times out of 100, that person will suggest something that they personally do NOT own. Like yachts. Like airplanes. Like second and third homes. 

If pointing out that particular common foible of human nature constitutes an ad hominem, then we might as well shut down everything here and go home. Because then EVERY comment becomes an ad hominem.