brabus Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 6 hours ago, SocialD said: Real estate professional. Check that box and your deductions add up fast. A buddy is a 320 Captain with 30+ properties...his effective tax rate is eye watering. Slumlord it is! Better late than never. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 16 hours ago, tac airlifter said: until we start trimming some of the excessive government fat raising taxes should be off the table. Yes, that's been my whole argument. The only path forward is to do both. Saying "no raising taxes until we balance the budget" is functionally equivalent to saying "let it burn, I don't care." You need to meet the other side halfway ("I'll take a 5% tax increase if you agree to raise social security and medicare ages by five years", etc.). A couple folks in this thread seem to think it's as simple as cutting the budget. Well, it is, but the most simple things are very hard. I'd rather make a compromise that achieves the goal of righting our ship, than dig my heels in and watch the water wash further and further up the deck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tac airlifter Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 2 hours ago, Stoker said: Yes, that's been my whole argument. The only path forward is to do both. Saying "no raising taxes until we balance the budget" is functionally equivalent to saying "let it burn, I don't care." You need to meet the other side halfway ("I'll take a 5% tax increase if you agree to raise social security and medicare ages by five years", etc.). A couple folks in this thread seem to think it's as simple as cutting the budget. Well, it is, but the most simple things are very hard. I'd rather make a compromise that achieves the goal of righting our ship, than dig my heels in and watch the water wash further and further up the deck. No, we need to see cuts before anything else. Too much scar tissue from decades of unaccountable runaway federal spending; compromise is impossible unless faith is restored. Let me see actual big ticket cuts, agencies dissolved, etc. before asking for another penny in taxes. Or say “we have to raise taxes to afford funding the UKR war” and let people vote on it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BashiChuni Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 does anyone with half a brain really think F-16s are gonna make a dent in this war? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 10 hours ago, Springer said: Kyiv is demanding F-16s and 2 Ukrainian pilots just proved they can master the jet 4 times faster than the Pentagon thought possible: report Erin Snodgrass Updated 18 May 2023·3-min read Scroll back up to restore default view. Ukrainian pilots can master F-16 jets in four months, per an Air Force document obtained by Yahoo News. That's more than four times faster than Pentagon officials were forecasting earlier this year. The internal assessment is likely to ratchet up pressure on Biden to send Ukraine the planes. Two Ukrainian pilots proved they can master the American-made F-16 fighter jets in just four months — more than four times faster than the Pentagon previously predicted — in a performance that is likely to ratchet up the growing pressure on the Biden Administration to send the lightweight warplanes to Ukraine. Yahoo News on Thursday obtained and published an internal US Air Force assessment that detailed the F-16 training two Ukrainian pilots underwent at Morris Air National Guard Base in Tucson, Arizona, in late February and early March. Over the course of eleven and a half total hours in nine separate simulations, the Ukrainian airmen outperformed US expectations in their quick ability to learn the ins and outs of the aircraft, according to the document. An Air Force official confirmed to Insider that the Ukrainian Air Force Baseline Pilot Assessment Report is an authentic document to determine baseline abilities. Four experienced US air force instructors assessed the Ukrainian pilots and determined the pilots could perform several "relatively technical" maneuvers, including landing after losing an engine and withstanding mock attacks, Yahoo News reported, citing the assessment. The Ukrainian airmen received no official training on the F-16 flight simulator beyond a brief introduction to the aircraft before their training, the document said. The two men were already qualified to operate a MiG-29 and Su-27 respectively, both Soviet-era fighter jets that comprise the majority of Ukraine's remaining air force, according to the outlet. In a February Congressional hearing, Colin Kahl, the outgoing US undersecretary of defense for policy said training Ukrainian soldiers on F-16s would take approximately 18 months — the same amount of time it would require to export the warplanes to Ukraine. The long projected training time was one of the reasons the Pentagon has frequently cited as cause for not giving Ukraine the much-desired planes, for which they have been jockeying for months. Ukrainian defense leaders say the F-16s are necessary to shoot down Russian strike fighters that are dropping bombs. But the report published by Yahoo on Thursday deduces that four months is a "realistic training timeline" for Ukrainian pilots to undergo training on the aircraft. The internal document was also shared with several NATO allies who deal in the warplanes, the outlet reported. Meanwhile, European leaders this week, including top officials in the UK and Germany, continued to pressure the Biden administration to make a decision on sending the F-16s. On Thursday, the Biden administration suggested it would not stop other NATO allies from exporting the American-made aircraft to Ukraine, CNN reported. 05/23/2023: The story has been updated to include comment from the US Air Force. Read the original article on Business Insider That article is over a year old... Fake news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokin Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 On 6/1/2024 at 11:17 AM, tac airlifter said: No, we need to see cuts before anything else. Too much scar tissue from decades of unaccountable runaway federal spending; compromise is impossible unless faith is restored. Let me see actual big ticket cuts, agencies dissolved, etc. before asking for another penny in taxes. Or say “we have to raise taxes to afford funding the UKR war” and let people vote on it. This. We cannot tax our way out of this mess. Our current debt is approaching $267,000 per taxpayer. Or about 30% more than last year's GDP. You'd have to have a 100% federal tax rate on absolutely everything, not just those who currently pay taxes, for an entire year and we still would be in debt. To say it another way, the entire US population would have to give all their income for an entire year to the Feds. And state, county, and local governments would have to also work for free for the year. And that would still only pay off 69% of our debt. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springer Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 15 hours ago, Magnum said: That article is over a year old... Fake news. Missed the date but 4 mths ago sold patio furniture to a former TUS ANG F-16 instructor and said they were underway with the Ukraine students making the transition. First Ukrainian Pilots Graduate US F-16 Training (airandspaceforces.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunya Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 hour ago, Springer said: Missed the date but 4 mths ago sold patio furniture to a former TUS ANG F-16 instructor and said they were underway with the Ukraine students making the transition. First Ukrainian Pilots Graduate US F-16 Training (airandspaceforces.com) At least that'll be less wasteful than the Afghan C-130 crews we trained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 On 6/3/2024 at 8:59 PM, Smokin said: This. We cannot tax our way out of this mess. Our current debt is approaching $267,000 per taxpayer. Or about 30% more than last year's GDP. You'd have to have a 100% federal tax rate on absolutely everything, not just those who currently pay taxes, for an entire year and we still would be in debt. To say it another way, the entire US population would have to give all their income for an entire year to the Feds. And state, county, and local governments would have to also work for free for the year. And that would still only pay off 69% of our debt. Debt and deficit are two different things. Closing the gap on the deficit will eliminate the debt in the long run. You can eliminate the deficit by taxing the entire US population roughly 5% of their income. Honestly, it might be a great compromise agreement - pass a constitutional amendment that if the budget is in deficit, we hit everyone with a 5% surtax. That would rile the hell out of huge chunks of the population (as I clearly have done here), which means Congress would have real incentives to reduce spending to avoid it. Just sitting around angry at spending and hoping government will magically reduce itself in size isn't productive thinking, though. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokin Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 I get what you're saying and in general agree, but closing the gap won't eliminate the debt. We have a deficit and debt problem. Killing the deficit would decrease the debt growth to only interest, which would be a significant victory in these absurd times. But I don't think a 5% surtax that is only applied to the debt would even cover the interest at this point. The interest alone was pushing 1 trillion last year. If we balanced the budget and found an extra trillion in the seat cushions, that would only stop the debt from growing, wouldn't pay off a penny. We'd still owe $267K per taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BashiChuni Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 1 hour ago, Stoker said: You can eliminate the deficit by taxing the entire US population roughly 5% of their income. Honestly, it might be a great compromise agreement - pass a constitutional amendment that if the budget is in deficit, we hit everyone with a 5% surtax. That would rile the hell out of huge chunks of the population (as I clearly have done here), which means Congress would have real incentives to reduce spending to avoid it. not a bad idea for compromise. there'd have to be fucking ZERO loopholes on that. maybe people under the poverty level are exempt. but everyone else smashed with 5% flat. the problem is the government's nature is to spend money. the only fix to that is smaller government. first thing i'd do if i were king is slap the DoD with a 20% budget reduction across the board. suddenly ukraine won't seem so important. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BashiChuni Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/biden-ukraine-weapons-strike-russia-00160731 It’s a stunning shift the administration initially said would escalate the war by more directly involving the U.S. in the fight. But worsening conditions for Ukraine on the battlefield –– namely Russia’s advances and improved position in Kharkiv –– led the president to change his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swizzle Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 1 hour ago, BashiChuni said: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/biden-ukraine-weapons-strike-russia-00160731 It’s a stunning shift the administration initially said would escalate the war by more directly involving the U.S. in the fight. But worsening conditions for Ukraine on the battlefield –– namely Russia’s advances and improved position in Kharkiv –– led the president to change his mind. Got a friend who always says, "Rules matter till they don't." He's always been right save two exceptions - death and taxes. Haven't seen their exceptions, have seen their deductions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swizzle Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 Speaking of absolutes and their lingering hauntings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BashiChuni Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 33 minutes ago, Swizzle said: Got a friend who always says, "Rules matter till they don't." He's always been right save two exceptions - death and taxes. Haven't seen their exceptions, have seen their deductions! yeah but your cuck friend wasn't escalating a conflict against a nuclear armed nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ratner Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 6 hours ago, BashiChuni said: yeah but your cuck friend wasn't escalating a conflict against a nuclear armed nation. I have yet to meet someone who uses the term "cuck" as a pejorative who can reliably make a woman cum. Your internet troll persona is weak and frightened, but now you're venturing into the 14-year-old with an internet connection territory. Relax a little. 1 1 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swizzle Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 6 hours ago, BashiChuni said: yeah but your cuck friend wasn't escalating a conflict against a nuclear armed nation. Yeesh, got issues? Why the personnal attack on him? Cannot you not see the saying's wisdom that rules, this case political boundaries, are nearly ever absolute and context matters? Situations change and decisions adjust, boundaries adjust, and 'rules' revised. Even in matters of great importance like potentially escalatory actions against a nuclear superpower which seem make you blindy lash out against strangers. So, why this wild animalistic behavior? Scared of assertiveness? Like Providing weapons without restrictions because the situation changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tac airlifter Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/06/us-escalation-in-ukraine-needs-a-plan.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email Good (and short) opinion piece analyzing US strategy in UKR given recent increased authorities allowing US weaponry used against deep targets within RUS. TLDR: Reactive, escalatory towards an ill-defined objective and overall immature. It speaks to my primary issue with our involvement there, namely that our pol/mil leadership is simply too retarded to win & our dumb meddling will make things worse for UKR and us. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BashiChuni Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 the only 14 year old behavior here are you two bozos wanting to escalate into a war where we do not belong, cannot win, and one which has potentially devastating nuclear consequences. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer6 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 You guys are missing out. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayton Bigsby Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Yeah quit quoting PravdaTASSi, don’t need to see the noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BashiChuni Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 More platitudes. serious question for you war hawks… what does victory look like in Ukraine? Can you achieve it? Will you commit the US to do it? because right now we have no strategic end state and are walking down another Vietnam/afghanistan. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrndPndr Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 14 minutes ago, BashiChuni said: More platitudes. <SNIP> because right now we have no strategic end state and are walking down another Vietnam/afghanistan. Sorry, I don't see either boots on the ground or air assets employed downrange there, what are we walking down exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BashiChuni Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 1 hour ago, GrndPndr said: Sorry, I don't see either boots on the ground or air assets employed downrange there, what are we walking down exactly? what does victory look like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brabus Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 2 hours ago, GrndPndr said: Sorry, I don't see either boots on the ground or air assets employed downrange there, what are we walking down exactly? I’m not commenting either direction, but we’re basically at Vietnam-like in the late 50s/early 60s “before” the war. I’m sure many people had similar thoughts during that time period too. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance and all that, but the comparison to that specific time period of SEA is not invalid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now