not meant to be political.But they launched another misslle and UN security council has asked the world to cut off all diplomatic, commercial, and all other ties to the country. Are we on the brink of war? Where does this go?
You can't just write off 51 million South Koreans as collateral damage. For all their bluster about nuking another continent, if NK felt like they were down to their last card, I'm pretty sure NK would obliterate SK, and nobody would be able to stop it.
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
We're still technically at war. There's just an armistice in place.
Will anyone start a shooting war? Doubtful. Both sides know what the outcome would be and it's not good for anyone.
Kim is not going to give up. He'll make his brainwashed citizens eat dirt before he gives up his nuclear program.
All you have to do is look at the parasites found in the digestive system of the DPRK Army defector. If the army isn't well-fed, think about the state of the population outside of Pyongyang.
Where does this go? Beats me. I don't see the ROK and the USA giving up the military exercises and Kim won't stop.
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
A) You would allow NK to dictate the terms of security in the Asian Pacific by halting military exercises? I’m sure SK, Japan, and the rest of our allies would be thrilled....not to mention our own economic interests. Are you part of the Chinese politburo?
B) Even if the US did agree to the concessions you list, why would that deter Kim? Do you think he trusts the US to keep its word knowing full well that our leadership turns over within each decade? Nope. Kim wants the ability to tactically strike the US mainland with nukes because, in his opinion, is is a much more enduring guarentee of his livelihood
C) Your tax comments are cute. Even the CBO, which has historically stumbled when projecting impacts of tax cuts (they severely underestimated the tax revenues and growth projections of the Bush cuts), estimates that those earning $100k-$200k enjoy the largest benefits from the proposed reforms. The narrative that the poor would suffer are spurious as the standard deduction doubles and the individual mandate disproportionately affects lower income individuals. I won’t dig much deeper into this because it gets too political but you can read the CBO report yourself.
I wouldn’t say that many hands have dealt with this situation in a skilled manner in quite some time, and that’s across party lines. I believe a former politician recently made a plea for China and the US to ease up on NK, because that’s worked swimmingly in the past.
I wouldn’t say that many hands have dealt with this situation in a skilled manner in quite some time, and that’s across party lines. I believe a former politician recently made a plea for China and the US to ease up on NK, because that’s worked swimmingly in the past.
that a hot war with North Korea is inevitable. Only question is, will it be on Kim's terms, or ours?
What does this mean?
Doesn't matter whose terms a shooting war is on. The outcome will be the same: the DPRK will cease to exist and the ROK will pay a heavy price.
It's almost certainly wishful thinking to assume the risk and amount of collateral damage will be the same, no matter how long we wait to engage the DPRK.
insofar as any move by us causes extreme loss of South Korean lives. NK is expanding the mutually assured destruction possibility to mainland US, which sucks, but I'm not sure there's an answer. I'm not willing to risk 100,000 innocent SK lives for there to be one fewer maniac who wants us all dead.
It's not just North and South Koreans at risk here Â
And those are just the military personnel. There are over 150,000 American civilians and over 1,000,000 Chinese civilians.
Was just going to make the same point. Plus plenty of expats from our allies (UK, Australia). South Korea is of course also a great ally of ours, and I hate to see innocent people from any country die en masse.
Based on their census there are 25 million people in the greater metro Seoul area. That's right in range of artillery fire from NK...you would lose millions in a day, assuming we don't do some sort of evacuation, which is as good as saying, "we're coming". This would be a catastrophe of the highest magnitude.
is it not found ironic that we invaded their country, killed a couple million of their people, used nuclear weapons against their neighbor Japan (killing another half million, and counting), and currently surround their borders with state-of-the-art nukes, but now we insist that they're the threat, they're the rogue state and the global menace that must be contained. No, we just skip that part...
of course this thread will be deleted now, because someone just questioned the groupthink narrative of those who run this site. It's not political until someone does that, apparently.
RE: Not sure why your estimates on number of lives lost is so low... Â
Based on their census there are 25 million people in the greater metro Seoul area. That's right in range of artillery fire from NK...you would lose millions in a day, assuming we don't do some sort of evacuation, which is as good as saying, "we're coming". This would be a catastrophe of the highest magnitude.
Yeah, Mike from SI's casualty estimate of 100,000 South Korean lives is way low. "millions" might be high. Let's just say a lot of us (and I'm 35 miles from the DMZ) are going to die.
Mark C: your posts are not lost on me. I fully understand the DPRK's position. I'm not saying I agree with it, however.
I don't think your posts are grounds for deletion.
Based on their census there are 25 million people in the greater metro Seoul area. That's right in range of artillery fire from NK...you would lose millions in a day, assuming we don't do some sort of evacuation, which is as good as saying, "we're coming". This would be a catastrophe of the highest magnitude.
Yeah, Mike from SI's casualty estimate of 100,000 South Korean lives is way low. "millions" might be high. Let's just say a lot of us (and I'm 35 miles from the DMZ) are going to die.
Mark C: your posts are not lost on me. I fully understand the DPRK's position. I'm not saying I agree with it, however.
I don't think your posts are grounds for deletion.
My bad. I was trying to avoid hyperbole but apparently went too far the other way. In any event, stay safe. I pray for Mattis and McMaster sometimes.
RE: We're already at mutually assured destruction Â
insofar as any move by us causes extreme loss of South Korean lives. NK is expanding the mutually assured destruction possibility to mainland US, which sucks, but I'm not sure there's an answer. I'm not willing to risk 100,000 innocent SK lives for there to be one fewer maniac who wants us all dead.
The 2018 Winter Olympics are being held in South Korea. It's scary to think how close athletes from all over the world will be to North Korea & this crazy man!
That for all the money we've invested in ballistic missile defense we are afraid to try and shoot down one of their missile test because we aren't sure our systems will work correctly. It certainly does reveal the limits of US power.
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
Dont take this the wrong way but you're a fucking idiot...
I think the counter battery ability of us/rok forces is Â
Being underestimated - how maybe salvos can nk launch before the launch point is triangulated and receiving return fire? Anything fixed we probably already know about.
Regardless, any military conflict means mass civilian casualties. I wonder what coup potential we have there, to install a more moderate person capable of greater liberalization. No easy answers.
is it not found ironic that we invaded their country, killed a couple million of their people, used nuclear weapons against their neighbor Japan (killing another half million, and counting), and currently surround their borders with state-of-the-art nukes, but now we insist that they're the threat, they're the rogue state and the global menace that must be contained. No, we just skip that part...
Great Post - wrong in every point.
1.) We invaded their country? When did that happen? Did you forget the part where NK had the ROK and US Armies surrounded in a pocket around Busan? They invaded ROK.
2.)The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 80 k each and saved at least 2-5 million civilians from our final invasion had Hirohito not ended the war. Estimates for US casualties range between 250-500k dead an 500 k to 1 million wounded had we invaded the Home Islands. We "only" had 480,000 killed in all of WW2 in both theaters. So more would have died in the battle of Japan than in the rest of the war...
3.) We "surround" their borders because they have been testing nukes and missiles in violation of the UN. They have also splashed their missiles in Japanese EEZ waters and fired them over Japanese Islands - technically an act of war when you fire ballistic missiles into somebody else's territory.
4.) Kim Jong Un threaten to shoot missiles at Guam or Hawaii or did you miss that, too.
I was going to go with it fits on a list of "America is the Great Satan" bullet points because that's kind of who he is. But your point at least has some rationality.
and guess that he means that since we used nukes on Japan, the north believes we wouldn't hesitate to use them on North Korea.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
Given the tenor of the post I think it was another cheap shot that we are the only country to have used them. We did. It ended a war.
But I agree with the brainwashing part. But does Kim Jong Un believe it? Seems the only people brainwashed would be the ordinary citizen to keep them quiet. I think he is afraid of being overthrown, so he threatens everyone with a nuke to keep him in power.
have a pretty significant black market of phones. They can see what its like out in the world, thats why people defect. I just think they're scared shitless to make a move. Kim sets dogs on his own family, he'd have 0 compunction taking yours out. Add a gestapo like secret police presence and you've got citizens basically waiting in fear, hoping for a better outcome.
somebody said, the Chinese are the key. They have been reluctant to act because NK is a trading partner. They are also afraid of millions of NK refugees pouring over their common border. But they have been getting tougher lately. Any war would cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
He’s living the high life getting huge worldwide media attention, playing NBA 2K, gorging 24/7. Why the hell would Fearless Eater give up such a sweet gig only to be reduced to ash? Forget the tweeter in chief for a moment, because he doesn’t remotely help the optics, but purely from Un’s perspective, why do it?
somebody said, the Chinese are the key. They have been reluctant to act because NK is a trading partner. They are also afraid of millions of NK refugees pouring over their common border. But they have been getting tougher lately. Any war would cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
My personal opinion is that President Xi wants the U.S. to back off fighting against the Chinese expansion in the South China Sea. They are using NK as a bargaining chip to get our "backing" on the "sea grab."
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
A) You would allow NK to dictate the terms of security in the Asian Pacific by halting military exercises? I’m sure SK, Japan, and the rest of our allies would be thrilled....not to mention our own economic interests. Are you part of the Chinese politburo?
B) Even if the US did agree to the concessions you list, why would that deter Kim? Do you think he trusts the US to keep its word knowing full well that our leadership turns over within each decade? Nope. Kim wants the ability to tactically strike the US mainland with nukes because, in his opinion, is is a much more enduring guarentee of his livelihood
C) Your tax comments are cute. Even the CBO, which has historically stumbled when projecting impacts of tax cuts (they severely underestimated the tax revenues and growth projections of the Bush cuts), estimates that those earning $100k-$200k enjoy the largest benefits from the proposed reforms. The narrative that the poor would suffer are spurious as the standard deduction doubles and the individual mandate disproportionately affects lower income individuals. I won’t dig much deeper into this because it gets too political but you can read the CBO report yourself.
On A and B I said nothing of the sort.
On the tax side, first and most importantly I respect your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.
What you wrote about the tax plan, however, is such a deviation from reality, that I will not discuss it further, except to say, every analysis of it overwhelmingly shows that it benefits virtually soley the top 1 percent.
The CBO report, and all other outside analysis quite convincingly show it will crumble the poor. In fact, republicans in support of the bill have been quite blunt about it.
"The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate GOP tax plan shows it would hurt Americans earning less than $30,000, The Washington Post reports, and it would hurt them more than originally thought"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/26/senate-gop-tax-bill-hurts-the-poor-more-than-originally-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.eaa7b016065b
Maybe we live in alternate realities?
The CBO underreported the growth from Bush Tax cuts? That statement highlights your partisan and not really worth discussing with until your willing to look at it in a clear lens.
Releasing the individ mandate ill drive health care prices as much as 46% on everyone.
Repealing the estate tax only helps the richest 5000 families.
As the debt rises more cuts will be coming to medicare and medicaid.
If you dont think this is about a transfer of wealth to the rich you are kidding yourself. In fact, the theory behind the tax cuts producing growth is based on that premise.
China’s done more recently than they had for years... Â
Brinksmanship isn’t necessarily limited to NK and the US in this equation, rather Xi needs to believe that the US is seriously considering military action that would destabilize his world. Bombastic rhetoric, additional exercises, and three carriers in close proximity does just that.
There’s been chatter that the Chinese are fearful that they have less leverage these days than they had in the past but they still control petrol inflows and account for 90% of known trade. In fact, the NK economy had enjoyed quite a boom last year, largely via trade.....unfortunate for us.
is it not found ironic that we invaded their country, killed a couple million of their people, used nuclear weapons against their neighbor Japan (killing another half million, and counting), and currently surround their borders with state-of-the-art nukes, but now we insist that they're the threat, they're the rogue state and the global menace that must be contained. No, we just skip that part...
Great Post - wrong in every point.
1.) We invaded their country? When did that happen? Did you forget the part where NK had the ROK and US Armies surrounded in a pocket around Busan? They invaded ROK.
2.)The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 80 k each and saved at least 2-5 million civilians from our final invasion had Hirohito not ended the war. Estimates for US casualties range between 250-500k dead an 500 k to 1 million wounded had we invaded the Home Islands. We "only" had 480,000 killed in all of WW2 in both theaters. So more would have died in the battle of Japan than in the rest of the war...
3.) We "surround" their borders because they have been testing nukes and missiles in violation of the UN. They have also splashed their missiles in Japanese EEZ waters and fired them over Japanese Islands - technically an act of war when you fire ballistic missiles into somebody else's territory.
4.) Kim Jong Un threaten to shoot missiles at Guam or Hawaii or did you miss that, too.
I agree with some of this.
But technically we did invade North Korea since the leader we backed in south Korea for 30 plus years was a dictator and thus didn't have consent of the governed. So in some sense we invaded.
The US has been surrounding Korea for 50 years as part of the COld war. The recent events regarding their nukes is not why we initially surrounded their country. We surround borders of the entire world to maintain the post-WW 2 order. One can argue thats imperialism and one can argue its the only way for the world to stay stable. Either way, it is for our self-interest and not for the reasons you mentioned.
Again, while we focus on Korea, the New Deal is about to be destroyed.
Kim's a fuck. But not suicidal. Well be fine.
Lets also be clear on this, neither leader is acting sane.
It seems you are a bit to passionate here and thus likely blinding yourself to some of whats going on.
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
Dont take this the wrong way but you're a fucking idiot...
He's a November 2017. Only question is dupe or troll?
is it not found ironic that we invaded their country, killed a couple million of their people, used nuclear weapons against their neighbor Japan (killing another half million, and counting), and currently surround their borders with state-of-the-art nukes, but now we insist that they're the threat, they're the rogue state and the global menace that must be contained. No, we just skip that part...
Great Post - wrong in every point.
1.) We invaded their country? When did that happen? Did you forget the part where NK had the ROK and US Armies surrounded in a pocket around Busan? They invaded ROK.
2.)The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 80 k each and saved at least 2-5 million civilians from our final invasion had Hirohito not ended the war. Estimates for US casualties range between 250-500k dead an 500 k to 1 million wounded had we invaded the Home Islands. We "only" had 480,000 killed in all of WW2 in both theaters. So more would have died in the battle of Japan than in the rest of the war...
3.) We "surround" their borders because they have been testing nukes and missiles in violation of the UN. They have also splashed their missiles in Japanese EEZ waters and fired them over Japanese Islands - technically an act of war when you fire ballistic missiles into somebody else's territory.
4.) Kim Jong Un threaten to shoot missiles at Guam or Hawaii or did you miss that, too.
All true. And add the fact that South Korea is nuke free and we are in the area due to treaties with allies who surround their borders. But when you're dealing with the brainwashed it's of little use.
somebody said, the Chinese are the key. They have been reluctant to act because NK is a trading partner. They are also afraid of millions of NK refugees pouring over their common border. But they have been getting tougher lately. Any war would cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
My personal opinion is that President Xi wants the U.S. to back off fighting against the Chinese expansion in the South China Sea. They are using NK as a bargaining chip to get our "backing" on the "sea grab."
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
Dont take this the wrong way but you're a fucking idiot...
He's a November 2017. Only question is dupe or troll?
Now that the substance of what I wrote has been refuted, I do feel like an idiot!!!
The chinese and british agree with me: "The proposal that Beijing has been pushing is known as “freeze for freeze”. The idea is that North Korea will freeze its nuclear programme, in return for the US freezing military exercises that the North Koreans find threatening."
https://www.ft.com/content/9f7e3acc-c473-11e7-a1d2-6786f39ef675
is it not found ironic that we invaded their country, killed a couple million of their people, used nuclear weapons against their neighbor Japan (killing another half million, and counting), and currently surround their borders with state-of-the-art nukes, but now we insist that they're the threat, they're the rogue state and the global menace that must be contained. No, we just skip that part...
Great Post - wrong in every point.
1.) We invaded their country? When did that happen? Did you forget the part where NK had the ROK and US Armies surrounded in a pocket around Busan? They invaded ROK.
2.)The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 80 k each and saved at least 2-5 million civilians from our final invasion had Hirohito not ended the war. Estimates for US casualties range between 250-500k dead an 500 k to 1 million wounded had we invaded the Home Islands. We "only" had 480,000 killed in all of WW2 in both theaters. So more would have died in the battle of Japan than in the rest of the war...
3.) We "surround" their borders because they have been testing nukes and missiles in violation of the UN. They have also splashed their missiles in Japanese EEZ waters and fired them over Japanese Islands - technically an act of war when you fire ballistic missiles into somebody else's territory.
4.) Kim Jong Un threaten to shoot missiles at Guam or Hawaii or did you miss that, too.
All true. And add the fact that South Korea is nuke free and we are in the area due to treaties with allies who surround their borders. But when you're dealing with the brainwashed it's of little use.
The USA has been threatening them with Nuclear weapons for decades. The US has been there long before the North even broached arming and the treaties were made with dictators of South Korea.
Majorities of Koreans favor a diplomatic solution, and that their country be front and center in diplomacy and think the US is exaggerating the situation.
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
A) You would allow NK to dictate the terms of security in the Asian Pacific by halting military exercises? I’m sure SK, Japan, and the rest of our allies would be thrilled....not to mention our own economic interests. Are you part of the Chinese politburo?
B) Even if the US did agree to the concessions you list, why would that deter Kim? Do you think he trusts the US to keep its word knowing full well that our leadership turns over within each decade? Nope. Kim wants the ability to tactically strike the US mainland with nukes because, in his opinion, is is a much more enduring guarentee of his livelihood
C) Your tax comments are cute. Even the CBO, which has historically stumbled when projecting impacts of tax cuts (they severely underestimated the tax revenues and growth projections of the Bush cuts), estimates that those earning $100k-$200k enjoy the largest benefits from the proposed reforms. The narrative that the poor would suffer are spurious as the standard deduction doubles and the individual mandate disproportionately affects lower income individuals. I won’t dig much deeper into this because it gets too political but you can read the CBO report yourself.
On A and B I said nothing of the sort.
On the tax side, first and most importantly I respect your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.
What you wrote about the tax plan, however, is such a deviation from reality, that I will not discuss it further, except to say, every analysis of it overwhelmingly shows that it benefits virtually soley the top 1 percent.
The CBO report, and all other outside analysis quite convincingly show it will crumble the poor. In fact, republicans in support of the bill have been quite blunt about it.
"The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate GOP tax plan shows it would hurt Americans earning less than $30,000, The Washington Post reports, and it would hurt them more than originally thought"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/26/senate-gop-tax-bill-hurts-the-poor-more-than-originally-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.eaa7b016065b
Maybe we live in alternate realities?
The CBO underreported the growth from Bush Tax cuts? That statement highlights your partisan and not really worth discussing with until your willing to look at it in a clear lens.
Releasing the individ mandate ill drive health care prices as much as 46% on everyone.
Repealing the estate tax only helps the richest 5000 families.
As the debt rises more cuts will be coming to medicare and medicaid.
- If you dont think this is about a transfer of wealth to the rich you are kidding yourself. In fact, the theory behind the tax cuts producing growth is based on that premise.
Partisanship isn’t driving my understanding or discussion regarding tax cuts or reform, my professional capacity is.
- The WaPo article that you cite leads with a sensationalized headline but when you dig into it, just as you would when you dig into the data, you notice that all is not as it appears. The issue revolves around the individual mandate- forcing Americans to purchase insurance or suffer a penalty- and this disproportionately affects the poor. The WaPo notes, “the CBO and JCT analyses make it seem as if a family is actually getting money taken away from them, but in reality, most of these families making under $30,000 don’t pay any income tax. The credits and subsidies they received to help them buy health insurance were typically sent directly from the government to the insurance company. So these families are unlikely to see and changes to their tax bills.” No tax increase, here. In fact, the lowest tax brackets are reduced, the standard deduction is doubled, and the child tax credit is increased. You simply have less government money funneled to the insurance companies through credits for people that were induced under the threat of penalty to purchase insurance that they didn’t want or need.
- 27% of the Estate Tax burden falls on the top 0.1%, 61% on the top 1%, and 88% on the top 10%.....we’re hardly talking about just the uber wealthy. In fact, the ultra wealthy would simply create a foundation or non-profit and obfuscate wealth transfer taxes.
- The CBO tax forecast for 2003-2008 pre-cuts was $13.24t....they estimated post-tax cut the revenues brought in would drop to $12.92t. Ultimately, actual tax revenues collected were $13.31, exceeding both pre & post-Bush tax cut CBO forecasts.
But technically we did invade North Korea since the leader we backed in south Korea for 30 plus years was a dictator and thus didn't have consent of the governed. So in some sense we invaded.
The US has been surrounding Korea for 50 years as part of the Cold war. The recent events regarding their nukes is not why we initially surrounded their country. We surround borders of the entire world to maintain the post-WW 2 order. One can argue thats imperialism and one can argue its the only way for the world to stay stable. Either way, it is for our self-interest and not for the reasons you mentioned.
Again, while we focus on Korea, the New Deal is about to be destroyed.
It seems you are a bit to passionate here and thus likely blinding yourself to some of whats going on.
None of what you posted was correct and I am blinded by my passion? It is not passion, it is history.
We backed a dictator so that is how we invaded? You got me there! But we did not invade the North until they attacked the South, so what does a dictator in South Korea have to do with North Korea invading the south in 1950.
I'll agree our military patrolling the world is for our own self interest and is stated as much by the government - not a secret. I would prefer we pulled back and let the rest of the world take care of itself. See how long that would last before China and Russia would jump right in to fill the void and stated as much.
But technically we did invade North Korea since the leader we backed in south Korea for 30 plus years was a dictator and thus didn't have consent of the governed. So in some sense we invaded.
The US has been surrounding Korea for 50 years as part of the Cold war. The recent events regarding their nukes is not why we initially surrounded their country. We surround borders of the entire world to maintain the post-WW 2 order. One can argue thats imperialism and one can argue its the only way for the world to stay stable. Either way, it is for our self-interest and not for the reasons you mentioned.
Again, while we focus on Korea, the New Deal is about to be destroyed.
It seems you are a bit to passionate here and thus likely blinding yourself to some of whats going on.
None of what you posted was correct and I am blinded by my passion? It is not passion, it is history.
We backed a dictator so that is how we invaded? You got me there! But we did not invade the North until they attacked the South, so what does a dictator in South Korea have to do with North Korea invading the south in 1950.
I'll agree our military patrolling the world is for our own self interest and is stated as much by the government - not a secret. I would prefer we pulled back and let the rest of the world take care of itself. See how long that would last before China and Russia would jump right in to fill the void and stated as much.
BTW, what is the "New Deal"? You lost me there.
I’ve been making my way through Ian Bremmer’s book, Superpower. He makes the case that there are three distinct paths for the US to take; be the global policeman, project power for selfish reasons, or be isolationist. He doesn’t posit on which direction is best but does state that the worst course is in not deciding or committing to a particular course.
Quote:
I’ve been making my way through Ian Bremmer’s book, Superpower. He makes the case that there are three distinct paths for the US to take; be the global policeman, project power for selfish reasons, or be isolationist. He doesn’t posit on which direction is best but does state that the worst course is in not deciding or committing to a particular course.
Seems we are a combo of the 1st two and have not veered too far from that position. #1 and #2 are closely aligned, no?
I have been a closet isolationist since I was young.
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
A) You would allow NK to dictate the terms of security in the Asian Pacific by halting military exercises? I’m sure SK, Japan, and the rest of our allies would be thrilled....not to mention our own economic interests. Are you part of the Chinese politburo?
B) Even if the US did agree to the concessions you list, why would that deter Kim? Do you think he trusts the US to keep its word knowing full well that our leadership turns over within each decade? Nope. Kim wants the ability to tactically strike the US mainland with nukes because, in his opinion, is is a much more enduring guarentee of his livelihood
C) Your tax comments are cute. Even the CBO, which has historically stumbled when projecting impacts of tax cuts (they severely underestimated the tax revenues and growth projections of the Bush cuts), estimates that those earning $100k-$200k enjoy the largest benefits from the proposed reforms. The narrative that the poor would suffer are spurious as the standard deduction doubles and the individual mandate disproportionately affects lower income individuals. I won’t dig much deeper into this because it gets too political but you can read the CBO report yourself.
On A and B I said nothing of the sort.
On the tax side, first and most importantly I respect your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.
What you wrote about the tax plan, however, is such a deviation from reality, that I will not discuss it further, except to say, every analysis of it overwhelmingly shows that it benefits virtually soley the top 1 percent.
The CBO report, and all other outside analysis quite convincingly show it will crumble the poor. In fact, republicans in support of the bill have been quite blunt about it.
"The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate GOP tax plan shows it would hurt Americans earning less than $30,000, The Washington Post reports, and it would hurt them more than originally thought"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/26/senate-gop-tax-bill-hurts-the-poor-more-than-originally-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.eaa7b016065b
Maybe we live in alternate realities?
The CBO underreported the growth from Bush Tax cuts? That statement highlights your partisan and not really worth discussing with until your willing to look at it in a clear lens.
Releasing the individ mandate ill drive health care prices as much as 46% on everyone.
Repealing the estate tax only helps the richest 5000 families.
As the debt rises more cuts will be coming to medicare and medicaid.
- If you dont think this is about a transfer of wealth to the rich you are kidding yourself. In fact, the theory behind the tax cuts producing growth is based on that premise.
Partisanship isn’t driving my understanding or discussion regarding tax cuts or reform, my professional capacity is.
- The WaPo article that you cite leads with a sensationalized headline but when you dig into it, just as you would when you dig into the data, you notice that all is not as it appears. The issue revolves around the individual mandate- forcing Americans to purchase insurance or suffer a penalty- and this disproportionately affects the poor. The WaPo notes, “the CBO and JCT analyses make it seem as if a family is actually getting money taken away from them, but in reality, most of these families making under $30,000 don’t pay any income tax. The credits and subsidies they received to help them buy health insurance were typically sent directly from the government to the insurance company. So these families are unlikely to see and changes to their tax bills.” No tax increase, here. In fact, the lowest tax brackets are reduced, the standard deduction is doubled, and the child tax credit is increased. You simply have less government money funneled to the insurance companies through credits for people that were induced under the threat of penalty to purchase insurance that they didn’t want or need.
- 27% of the Estate Tax burden falls on the top 0.1%, 61% on the top 1%, and 88% on the top 10%.....we’re hardly talking about just the uber wealthy. In fact, the ultra wealthy would simply create a foundation or non-profit and obfuscate wealth transfer taxes.
- The CBO tax forecast for 2003-2008 pre-cuts was $13.24t....they estimated post-tax cut the revenues brought in would drop to $12.92t. Ultimately, actual tax revenues collected were $13.31, exceeding both pre & post-Bush tax cut CBO forecasts.
Appreciate your info. If you could give me some links I am happy to read them to challenge my views.
Up till now, I have read hundreds of articles across the spectrum on this issue and none of them seem to add up to what you are saying. No doubt I have read of many more professionals who disagree with your view.
If you have a moment, can you send me some links to read to reinforce your view? It would be appreciated.
Anyways, cool discussion and I at a minimum learned something.
It may come down to what type or level of action we can go to without involving the Chinese.
Not sure I buy that it's all or nothing.
For example. Once a missle leaves it's launch pad, if even only by a few feet, is that intervention or simply defence? It's not a certitude that Kim would go full artillery just over that.
Best thing from the pure point if view might be massive bombing the artillery / rockets near Seoul suddenly by first strike.
If the chinese knew that they were part of the end game that helps.
But technically we did invade North Korea since the leader we backed in south Korea for 30 plus years was a dictator and thus didn't have consent of the governed. So in some sense we invaded.
The US has been surrounding Korea for 50 years as part of the Cold war. The recent events regarding their nukes is not why we initially surrounded their country. We surround borders of the entire world to maintain the post-WW 2 order. One can argue thats imperialism and one can argue its the only way for the world to stay stable. Either way, it is for our self-interest and not for the reasons you mentioned.
Again, while we focus on Korea, the New Deal is about to be destroyed.
It seems you are a bit to passionate here and thus likely blinding yourself to some of whats going on.
None of what you posted was correct and I am blinded by my passion? It is not passion, it is history.
We backed a dictator so that is how we invaded? You got me there! But we did not invade the North until they attacked the South, so what does a dictator in South Korea have to do with North Korea invading the south in 1950.
I'll agree our military patrolling the world is for our own self interest and is stated as much by the government - not a secret. I would prefer we pulled back and let the rest of the world take care of itself. See how long that would last before China and Russia would jump right in to fill the void and stated as much.
BTW, what is the "New Deal"? You lost me there.
I lost you cause I wrote like a child. Not your fault, mine.
Let me reiterate my view:
North Korea, is 95 percent to blame for this. They are run by the worst dictator on earth. However, I do beleive even the worst dictators can have legit security concerns.
Imagine Russia were conducting military exercises in Mexico. We would be rightly alarmed.
To solve the crisis I think a fair proposal is the one I cited proposed by China. A freeze on their nukes in exchange for a freeze on CERTAIN types of military exercises we conduct that threaten them.
I see no issue with that. My dictator point was only that if a country allows us into our borders, but is run by a dictator, it is arguably an invasion being as it doesn't have the consent of the governed.
Personally, I value a North Korean life as much as an American and i just want all citizens of both countries to be safe.
Especially that of our soldiers who I am just tired seeing suffer. I really am tired of it.
- The CBO tax forecast for 2003-2008 pre-cuts was $13.24t....they estimated post-tax cut the revenues brought in would drop to $12.92t. Ultimately, actual tax revenues collected were $13.31, exceeding both pre & post-Bush tax cut CBO forecasts.
To save space, I deleted most of your post. I agree with your sentiment.
The Chinese are looking out for their own self interest, as we are. The Chinese (like the Russians did with the Eastern Block and Iron Curtain) are using NK as a physical buffer between the "West" and themselves.
The Chinese like North Korea poking a finger in our eye as a means to keep us off balance. But I do not think they like us hanging around with 3 carrier groups in their backyard. The Chinese have stated that they will be building a Navy like ours to roam the world for influence.
In the end, money will dictate how this ends. We still hold most of the cards. Removing China from favored nation status is one of them. Symbolic mostly, as their economy is right with ours, but they are more reliant on us, then we need them. How long would it take reduced imports from China before they really hurt? What would happen if we built factories in Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia to compete with their manufacturing.
I still think China wants us to backoff their South China Sea expedition..
- The CBO tax forecast for 2003-2008 pre-cuts was $13.24t....they estimated post-tax cut the revenues brought in would drop to $12.92t. Ultimately, actual tax revenues collected were $13.31, exceeding both pre & post-Bush tax cut CBO forecasts.
Those estimates seem pretty close to me.
Yeah same.
My understanding is the cuts:
Cut nearly a trillion from medicaid and 400 Billion from Medicare over the next decade. Cut programs for nutrition, education and limit the ability of states to even difray much of these costs.
They also do not touch the money currently being stashed overseas by corporations, in like the Cayman Islands, that are currently untaxed, and thus forcing middle class taxpayers to cover the bill.
Though everyone gets an initial cut, as time goes on the corporate cuts remain and the lower income groups, 75K or less see a drop.
Further, as the deficit rises, and it will, more cuts will come to slash programs for the middle class and the poor. There are no requirements forcing companies to hire workers here and repatriate their offshore revenue. Slashing the estate tax alone is a huge giveaway to the ultra rich. It also includes provisions like allowing artic drilling, forcing grad students to pay taxes on loan income. The inevitable rise in health care costs due to surreptitiously basically killing the ACA will obvious burden middle class families and the poor more. Currently popular support for the tax bill is like 16%. This is in a country where income inequality is already off the charts and approaching depression proportions.
It seems to me the goal is to permanently undermine FDRS new deal. Corps and the stock market are currently doing well so I dont see the need to jumpstart anything. I just dont get it.
it sometimes seems like people have an incorrect idea when they hear the word "corporations":
(Compile.com)
"
Overall, the US has 29.5M employers. That’s a large number when you consider the US population is 312M, nearly 1 employer for every 10 people. .............."
" In sheer numbers, smaller firms dominate"
" Small firms, companies with less than 10 employees or under $1M in annual revenue, constitute the bulk of the businesses."
" Over 96 percent of companies (in the USA) are SMBs - with less than 50 employees; of these most of the companies are small SMBs, with less than 10 employees. "
96% !
(not sure about pass-through and corporations in these numbers, guess that they will adjust this)
Not the 'big, rich, "bad guys" ' that some think of when they think about corporate taxes.
From a federal revenue centric view, ok, the big ones are a greater percentage....
But from a point of view of 'directly effecting numbers of citizens and what they in turn spend', the small corps look like the real story.
is that right now those corporations with offshore holdings are not paying any tax on that offshore money. You are right, nothing says they will come running home once the new rate goes into effect. But if they do, that is a whole lot more tax revenue than being collected now.
But, the US has the lowest paid high skill workers in the world. That is why BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda (etc) are building plants here and exporting those products around the world from here. What happens when the 35% tax rate drops to 20%? Do smaller MFGs come here to exploit the same workers when the corporate rate is equal to or close to what is paid in their current place of business. No guarantees, to be sure, but if I could get more production and pay less corporate
I can tell you that my son is being screwed by the mandate for ACA. $3600+ per year premiums for a $7000 deductible plan is unconscionable. While I believe covering the poor and those with huge medical bills is necessary, there has to be a better way than living off the backs of the poor/middle class to cover this program. He was working 3 jobs, took on a 4th to make a little more and got hit with a tax penalty because his income increased a few thousand. Nice, work harder and lose your subsidy on a plan you have no choice but to buy.
and guess that he means that since we used nukes on Japan, the north believes we wouldn't hesitate to use them on North Korea.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
And as far as brainwashing goes, it's not a heavy lift. I imagine a large percentage of every living North Korean has had an ancestor who was killed, injured, or related to someone who was killed or injured by the US Army.
is that right now those corporations with offshore holdings are not paying any tax on that offshore money. You are right, nothing says they will come running home once the new rate goes into effect. But if they do, that is a whole lot more tax revenue than being collected now.
But, the US has the lowest paid high skill workers in the world. That is why BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda (etc) are building plants here and exporting those products around the world from here. What happens when the 35% tax rate drops to 20%? Do smaller MFGs come here to exploit the same workers when the corporate rate is equal to or close to what is paid in their current place of business. No guarantees, to be sure, but if I could get more production and pay less corporate
I can tell you that my son is being screwed by the mandate for ACA. $3600+ per year premiums for a $7000 deductible plan is unconscionable. While I believe covering the poor and those with huge medical bills is necessary, there has to be a better way than living off the backs of the poor/middle class to cover this program. He was working 3 jobs, took on a 4th to make a little more and got hit with a tax penalty because his income increased a few thousand. Nice, work harder and lose your subsidy on a plan you have no choice but to buy.
and guess that he means that since we used nukes on Japan, the north believes we wouldn't hesitate to use them on North Korea.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
And as far as brainwashing goes, it's not a heavy lift. I imagine a large percentage of every living North Korean has had an ancestor who was killed, injured, or related to someone who was killed or injured by the US Army.
There was not a lot of bombing of civilian and industrial targets in North Korea during the "police action" so I think that's an exaggeration.
However, every South Korean could probably say the same thing about North Korea and China.
and guess that he means that since we used nukes on Japan, the north believes we wouldn't hesitate to use them on North Korea.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
And as far as brainwashing goes, it's not a heavy lift. I imagine a large percentage of every living North Korean has had an ancestor who was killed, injured, or related to someone who was killed or injured by the US Army.
Would that be the same with the South Koreans killed by the North?
and guess that he means that since we used nukes on Japan, the north believes we wouldn't hesitate to use them on North Korea.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
And as far as brainwashing goes, it's not a heavy lift. I imagine a large percentage of every living North Korean has had an ancestor who was killed, injured, or related to someone who was killed or injured by the US Army.
There was not a lot of bombing of civilian and industrial targets in North Korea during the "police action" so I think that's an exaggeration.
However, every South Korean could probably say the same thing about North Korea and China.
Curtis Lemay himself estimated they lost 20% of their population. Now, he delivered the remark in a somewhat casual manner so he might not have been authoritatively stating a firm statistic as much as he was speaking anecdotally. But his words still should have enough weight to make it clear that yeah, lots of people died percentage-wise.
and guess that he means that since we used nukes on Japan, the north believes we wouldn't hesitate to use them on North Korea.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
And as far as brainwashing goes, it's not a heavy lift. I imagine a large percentage of every living North Korean has had an ancestor who was killed, injured, or related to someone who was killed or injured by the US Army.
Would that be the same with the South Koreans killed by the North?
Probably, but that's not what we're talking about... unless you're bringing that up to argue that any North attempts to brainwash their population is met with a counter argument of: "But surely Dear Leader, our country killed a lot of South Koreans too."
Quote:
Probably, but that's not what we're talking about... unless you're bringing that up to argue that any North attempts to brainwash their population is met with a counter argument of: "But surely Dear Leader, our country killed a lot of South Koreans too."
True. The South Koreans know what happened, the North doesn't.
That last statement - "Dear Leader" - gets you fed to the dogs.
- The CBO tax forecast for 2003-2008 pre-cuts was $13.24t....they estimated post-tax cut the revenues brought in would drop to $12.92t. Ultimately, actual tax revenues collected were $13.31, exceeding both pre & post-Bush tax cut CBO forecasts.
Those estimates seem pretty close to me.
Yeah same.
My understanding is the cuts:
Cut nearly a trillion from medicaid and 400 Billion from Medicare over the next decade. Cut programs for nutrition, education and limit the ability of states to even difray much of these costs.
They also do not touch the money currently being stashed overseas by corporations, in like the Cayman Islands, that are currently untaxed, and thus forcing middle class taxpayers to cover the bill.
Though everyone gets an initial cut, as time goes on the corporate cuts remain and the lower income groups, 75K or less see a drop.
Further, as the deficit rises, and it will, more cuts will come to slash programs for the middle class and the poor. There are no requirements forcing companies to hire workers here and repatriate their offshore revenue. Slashing the estate tax alone is a huge giveaway to the ultra rich. It also includes provisions like allowing artic drilling, forcing grad students to pay taxes on loan income. The inevitable rise in health care costs due to surreptitiously basically killing the ACA will obvious burden middle class families and the poor more. Currently popular support for the tax bill is like 16%. This is in a country where income inequality is already off the charts and approaching depression proportions.
It seems to me the goal is to permanently undermine FDRS new deal. Corps and the stock market are currently doing well so I dont see the need to jumpstart anything. I just dont get it.
A few points...
- There will be a forced repatriation and tax on corporate cash held overseas. His will raise government coffers by a few hundred billion and *should* promote some level of capital investment, hiring, or wage growth. Will it be dollar for dollar? Absolutely not. You’ve probably heard the opposition talking points that all of this money will go to shareholders or be paid out in bonuses. Gary Cohn’s anecdote has been propped up as silly evidence to this narrative. The truth is somewhere in the middle, IMO. The average age of American physical capital stock is at the highest level it’s been since the 60s. Wages have been held low to prop up margins. There is pent up desire to invest into America.
- Moving to a territorial tax system removes the incentive for companies to domecile elsewhere or book expenses in the US to offset profits earned elsewhere.
- There is bipartisan agreement that the corporate tax code needs to be reformed, it’s simply that the stars aligned for R’s before the could for the D’s. Believe me, everyone wants a piece of the repatriation pie along with credit for any additional economic growth. The issue is that it’s politically unsavory to give tax breaks to corporations while not offering anything to individual citizens. Thus, R’s are including individual tax reform which is chock full of special interests and thorns every which way you turn. Good luck trying to structure tax reform that doesn’t appear to benefit the wealthy when the overwhelming majority of taxes are paid by that group. Hell, we all bitch about special interests but then are up in arms when the deductibility of mortgage interest or SALT is under fire. Reform sounds great until you find out that you’re in the crosshairs.
- Corporate America is doing well but don’t let the trees distract you from the forrest, US companies are at a global disadvantage even from an effective rate standpoint. European and emerging market profit growth has also been strong.
- Extraordinarily easy monetary conditions have contributed to the growth story but that train is coming to a halt with the Fed normalizing policy. When rates rise and conditions tighten further it will be increasingly difficult to generate growth. Investors have been looking to fiscal policy to take the baton from monetary policy in order to stave off a slowdown. The time to boost consumers and corporations isn’t when a slowdown occurs, rather it’s better to preempt it.
Once they can hit the USA mainland with nuclear weapons, North Korea will invade South Korea.
Our choice will be to either allow South Korea to be overrun; or fight for South Korea and have American cities annihilated by North Korean nuclear missiles.
If those (great plurality?) very small, less than $1m annual gross, corporations, may act more like individuals in an economic perspective than we realise?
Honest not rhetorical questions.
Thinking that the effects of lowering the burden on -those- is an area for discussion that may be more fruitful (than is a discussion about the much fewer but much larger corporations).
Because use of proceeds for the very small corps will be more like use of proceeds for individuals, and act more like or more broadly on consumer demand?
Also be less likely to cause unsettling asset bubbles because very small corporations will invest in very almost infintely varied ways?
And act more diversely in job creation than some of the more singular or very specific deductions?
mention that the Chinese were telling the North Koreans behind closed doors that they should hold out but just don't be so obnoxious and eventually the U.S. will cave on exercises in South Korea and supporting the South Koreans in general. If this is true the Chinese are playing a double game. TO them they have long standing issues with Korea as a people, in that people speak Korean on both sides of the Yalu river. TO me this dovetails with their actions in the South China Sea and the new silk road. Eventually there's a very good chance the U.S. and South Korea could come to blows with North Korea and China then can decide how they want to play it. When North Korea is destroyed rebuilding Korea as a whole will take a lot of time and settling the score with China will be way down on the Korean priority list and plus we'll also get a few nicks and cuts. If there is a war the Chinese can feign allegence to the North before but cut their losses if the cost gets too high. It's in the Chinese interest to keep the pot boiling. IMHO
But we can make it in their interest to let us take the little bastard out.
If we can convince them (China) and the S.K.'s to let China 'have' N.K. I.e occupy and economically integrate/colonize them. US. Japanese and S.K. air and Chinese boots.
Seems like that would greatly benefit the average North Koreans and maybe the South Koreans and everybody else.
If they won't go for it they have to sign off on the degrading the hardware thing.
But we can make it in their interest to let us take the little bastard out.
If we can convince them (China) and the S.K.'s to let China 'have' N.K. I.e occupy and economically integrate/colonize them. US. Japanese and S.K. air and Chinese boots.
Seems like that would greatly benefit the average North Koreans and maybe the South Koreans and everybody else.
If they won't go for it they have to sign off on the degrading the hardware thing.
This, I think, might double the Chinese Problem but with the new half being a land which has for all intents and purposes has received no development for 67 odd years, the people are a mess, just might be the next nuclear wasteland, and they'd still have the South Koreans now focused on getting back their ancestral lands that were stolen by the Japanese and the Chinese.
Our ALLIES the South Koreans wouldn't want this either and neither should we. The Koreans have been loyal to us and the western cause in general and have been trying get back the entire Korean nation for a long time. For those people left in what was the North they would almost certainly want to be with fellow Koreans.
To occupy. Fuck that. Let the frigging Chinese do it.
They can treaty with S.K.
We would not be occupying the South Korean's would, to use a more appropriate word, be liberating a part of their country that has been separated for a long time. I think once the fighting is done that we would agree to maintain our troops south of the 38th parallel and guarantee that we would not participate in any adventures that the Koreans could think of north of the Yalu but remain committed to the defense of Korea should it be attacked.
And probably won't happen is that the Chinese don't approve.
So you have to give them a buy in of some kind.
It's all well and good to cite the company line. But the n.k
Has made hay every three months for so many years...status quo a major fail.
The Chinese would get a solution to a long term problem which is the worry about the Korean border. The reason the Chinese have to worry about there Korean border is that if there ever is a reconciliation between the present Korea's they will start looking at their Chinese border and the territories that they lost to the Chinese when the Japanese took the rest of what we now know as Korea. If we help the South Korean's get back the north and we and the Korean's say we agree to keep demands to that line the Chinese no longer have an excuse to support the Kim's ostensibly unless the Chinese real target is the USA.
The reason the Chinese have to worry about there Korean border is that if there ever is a reconciliation between the present Korea's they will start looking at their Chinese border and the territories that they lost to the Chinese when the Japanese took the rest of what we now know as Korea.
But I'm pretty sure a unified Korea would be perfectly okay with keeping the Yalu River as its northern border. Doubt they'd want any further headaches.
To accept a true, free and stable democracy right on their border. It's a double game and also a buffer state.
Whereas, the South Koreans could benefit greatly from having Chinese satellite state on theirs when compared to status quo.
Regarding unifying Korea. Millions of North Koreans are suffering with torture, starvation and mind controll while they wait for that ideal.
I love South Koreans, but they have been able to see it as an increasingly asbtract ideal or even a pretense while the Northerners really suffer terribly for so long.
Regarding status quo since (53? My dad was in the US Navy around then Pacific side). We now have a direct threat to the U.S. mainland.
So. The USA has long been dedicated to the freedom of South Korea . but now our own cities are directly threatened with nukes. So...something must change now. This is not acceptable.
The US and ROK are running huge joint air force drills and without naming names, we've got an American politician saying further military deployments should be "unaccompanied tours," that military dependents should start coming home and US administration higher-ups saying we are inching closer to war.
The bellicose rhetoric is at an all-time high. On both sides.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
He suggested dropping thousand of iPhones with internet all over the country. Maybe people will want to get away from all the lies.
Will anyone start a shooting war? Doubtful. Both sides know what the outcome would be and it's not good for anyone.
Kim is not going to give up. He'll make his brainwashed citizens eat dirt before he gives up his nuclear program.
All you have to do is look at the parasites found in the digestive system of the DPRK Army defector. If the army isn't well-fed, think about the state of the population outside of Pyongyang.
Where does this go? Beats me. I don't see the ROK and the USA giving up the military exercises and Kim won't stop.
If the shit does hit the fan, so long, guys.
He suggested dropping thousand of iPhones with internet all over the country. Maybe people will want to get away from all the lies.
Forcing thousands of North Koreans to deal with Verizon's customer service will surely start a hot war.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
A) You would allow NK to dictate the terms of security in the Asian Pacific by halting military exercises? I’m sure SK, Japan, and the rest of our allies would be thrilled....not to mention our own economic interests. Are you part of the Chinese politburo?
B) Even if the US did agree to the concessions you list, why would that deter Kim? Do you think he trusts the US to keep its word knowing full well that our leadership turns over within each decade? Nope. Kim wants the ability to tactically strike the US mainland with nukes because, in his opinion, is is a much more enduring guarentee of his livelihood
C) Your tax comments are cute. Even the CBO, which has historically stumbled when projecting impacts of tax cuts (they severely underestimated the tax revenues and growth projections of the Bush cuts), estimates that those earning $100k-$200k enjoy the largest benefits from the proposed reforms. The narrative that the poor would suffer are spurious as the standard deduction doubles and the individual mandate disproportionately affects lower income individuals. I won’t dig much deeper into this because it gets too political but you can read the CBO report yourself.
I wouldn’t say that many hands have dealt with this situation in a skilled manner in quite some time, and that’s across party lines. I believe a former politician recently made a plea for China and the US to ease up on NK, because that’s worked swimmingly in the past.
Quote:
We're in good hands.
I wouldn’t say that many hands have dealt with this situation in a skilled manner in quite some time, and that’s across party lines. I believe a former politician recently made a plea for China and the US to ease up on NK, because that’s worked swimmingly in the past.
Wrong. Sad!
What does this mean?
Doesn't matter whose terms a shooting war is on. The outcome will be the same: the DPRK will cease to exist and the ROK will pay a heavy price.
lol - some truth to that ...
Quote:
that a hot war with North Korea is inevitable. Only question is, will it be on Kim's terms, or ours?
What does this mean?
Doesn't matter whose terms a shooting war is on. The outcome will be the same: the DPRK will cease to exist and the ROK will pay a heavy price.
It's almost certainly wishful thinking to assume the risk and amount of collateral damage will be the same, no matter how long we wait to engage the DPRK.
The DPRK will be annihilated and the ROK will be decimated.
Neither is good.
And those are just the military personnel. There are over 150,000 American civilians and over 1,000,000 Chinese civilians.
You know for a fact they're in the ROK.
Quote:
We have 30+K of own there
And those are just the military personnel. There are over 150,000 American civilians and over 1,000,000 Chinese civilians.
Was just going to make the same point. Plus plenty of expats from our allies (UK, Australia). South Korea is of course also a great ally of ours, and I hate to see innocent people from any country die en masse.
Yeah, Mike from SI's casualty estimate of 100,000 South Korean lives is way low. "millions" might be high. Let's just say a lot of us (and I'm 35 miles from the DMZ) are going to die.
Mark C: your posts are not lost on me. I fully understand the DPRK's position. I'm not saying I agree with it, however.
I don't think your posts are grounds for deletion.
{:-)
Quote:
Based on their census there are 25 million people in the greater metro Seoul area. That's right in range of artillery fire from NK...you would lose millions in a day, assuming we don't do some sort of evacuation, which is as good as saying, "we're coming". This would be a catastrophe of the highest magnitude.
Yeah, Mike from SI's casualty estimate of 100,000 South Korean lives is way low. "millions" might be high. Let's just say a lot of us (and I'm 35 miles from the DMZ) are going to die.
Mark C: your posts are not lost on me. I fully understand the DPRK's position. I'm not saying I agree with it, however.
I don't think your posts are grounds for deletion.
My bad. I was trying to avoid hyperbole but apparently went too far the other way. In any event, stay safe. I pray for Mattis and McMaster sometimes.
The 2018 Winter Olympics are being held in South Korea. It's scary to think how close athletes from all over the world will be to North Korea & this crazy man!
Do you think if the US took out Kim and replaced him, there would be condemnation from the world?
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
Dont take this the wrong way but you're a fucking idiot...
Regardless, any military conflict means mass civilian casualties. I wonder what coup potential we have there, to install a more moderate person capable of greater liberalization. No easy answers.
LOL.
Great Post - wrong in every point.
1.) We invaded their country? When did that happen? Did you forget the part where NK had the ROK and US Armies surrounded in a pocket around Busan? They invaded ROK.
2.)The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 80 k each and saved at least 2-5 million civilians from our final invasion had Hirohito not ended the war. Estimates for US casualties range between 250-500k dead an 500 k to 1 million wounded had we invaded the Home Islands. We "only" had 480,000 killed in all of WW2 in both theaters. So more would have died in the battle of Japan than in the rest of the war...
3.) We "surround" their borders because they have been testing nukes and missiles in violation of the UN. They have also splashed their missiles in Japanese EEZ waters and fired them over Japanese Islands - technically an act of war when you fire ballistic missiles into somebody else's territory.
4.) Kim Jong Un threaten to shoot missiles at Guam or Hawaii or did you miss that, too.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
Given the tenor of the post I think it was another cheap shot that we are the only country to have used them. We did. It ended a war.
But I agree with the brainwashing part. But does Kim Jong Un believe it? Seems the only people brainwashed would be the ordinary citizen to keep them quiet. I think he is afraid of being overthrown, so he threatens everyone with a nuke to keep him in power.
My personal opinion is that President Xi wants the U.S. to back off fighting against the Chinese expansion in the South China Sea. They are using NK as a bargaining chip to get our "backing" on the "sea grab."
Quote:
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
A) You would allow NK to dictate the terms of security in the Asian Pacific by halting military exercises? I’m sure SK, Japan, and the rest of our allies would be thrilled....not to mention our own economic interests. Are you part of the Chinese politburo?
B) Even if the US did agree to the concessions you list, why would that deter Kim? Do you think he trusts the US to keep its word knowing full well that our leadership turns over within each decade? Nope. Kim wants the ability to tactically strike the US mainland with nukes because, in his opinion, is is a much more enduring guarentee of his livelihood
C) Your tax comments are cute. Even the CBO, which has historically stumbled when projecting impacts of tax cuts (they severely underestimated the tax revenues and growth projections of the Bush cuts), estimates that those earning $100k-$200k enjoy the largest benefits from the proposed reforms. The narrative that the poor would suffer are spurious as the standard deduction doubles and the individual mandate disproportionately affects lower income individuals. I won’t dig much deeper into this because it gets too political but you can read the CBO report yourself.
On A and B I said nothing of the sort.
On the tax side, first and most importantly I respect your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.
What you wrote about the tax plan, however, is such a deviation from reality, that I will not discuss it further, except to say, every analysis of it overwhelmingly shows that it benefits virtually soley the top 1 percent.
The CBO report, and all other outside analysis quite convincingly show it will crumble the poor. In fact, republicans in support of the bill have been quite blunt about it.
"The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate GOP tax plan shows it would hurt Americans earning less than $30,000, The Washington Post reports, and it would hurt them more than originally thought"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/26/senate-gop-tax-bill-hurts-the-poor-more-than-originally-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.eaa7b016065b
Maybe we live in alternate realities?
The CBO underreported the growth from Bush Tax cuts? That statement highlights your partisan and not really worth discussing with until your willing to look at it in a clear lens.
Releasing the individ mandate ill drive health care prices as much as 46% on everyone.
Repealing the estate tax only helps the richest 5000 families.
As the debt rises more cuts will be coming to medicare and medicaid.
If you dont think this is about a transfer of wealth to the rich you are kidding yourself. In fact, the theory behind the tax cuts producing growth is based on that premise.
There’s been chatter that the Chinese are fearful that they have less leverage these days than they had in the past but they still control petrol inflows and account for 90% of known trade. In fact, the NK economy had enjoyed quite a boom last year, largely via trade.....unfortunate for us.
Quote:
is it not found ironic that we invaded their country, killed a couple million of their people, used nuclear weapons against their neighbor Japan (killing another half million, and counting), and currently surround their borders with state-of-the-art nukes, but now we insist that they're the threat, they're the rogue state and the global menace that must be contained. No, we just skip that part...
Great Post - wrong in every point.
1.) We invaded their country? When did that happen? Did you forget the part where NK had the ROK and US Armies surrounded in a pocket around Busan? They invaded ROK.
2.)The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 80 k each and saved at least 2-5 million civilians from our final invasion had Hirohito not ended the war. Estimates for US casualties range between 250-500k dead an 500 k to 1 million wounded had we invaded the Home Islands. We "only" had 480,000 killed in all of WW2 in both theaters. So more would have died in the battle of Japan than in the rest of the war...
3.) We "surround" their borders because they have been testing nukes and missiles in violation of the UN. They have also splashed their missiles in Japanese EEZ waters and fired them over Japanese Islands - technically an act of war when you fire ballistic missiles into somebody else's territory.
4.) Kim Jong Un threaten to shoot missiles at Guam or Hawaii or did you miss that, too.
But technically we did invade North Korea since the leader we backed in south Korea for 30 plus years was a dictator and thus didn't have consent of the governed. So in some sense we invaded.
The US has been surrounding Korea for 50 years as part of the COld war. The recent events regarding their nukes is not why we initially surrounded their country. We surround borders of the entire world to maintain the post-WW 2 order. One can argue thats imperialism and one can argue its the only way for the world to stay stable. Either way, it is for our self-interest and not for the reasons you mentioned.
Again, while we focus on Korea, the New Deal is about to be destroyed.
Kim's a fuck. But not suicidal. Well be fine.
Lets also be clear on this, neither leader is acting sane.
It seems you are a bit to passionate here and thus likely blinding yourself to some of whats going on.
Quote:
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
Dont take this the wrong way but you're a fucking idiot...
He's a November 2017. Only question is dupe or troll?
Quote:
is it not found ironic that we invaded their country, killed a couple million of their people, used nuclear weapons against their neighbor Japan (killing another half million, and counting), and currently surround their borders with state-of-the-art nukes, but now we insist that they're the threat, they're the rogue state and the global menace that must be contained. No, we just skip that part...
Great Post - wrong in every point.
1.) We invaded their country? When did that happen? Did you forget the part where NK had the ROK and US Armies surrounded in a pocket around Busan? They invaded ROK.
2.)The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 80 k each and saved at least 2-5 million civilians from our final invasion had Hirohito not ended the war. Estimates for US casualties range between 250-500k dead an 500 k to 1 million wounded had we invaded the Home Islands. We "only" had 480,000 killed in all of WW2 in both theaters. So more would have died in the battle of Japan than in the rest of the war...
3.) We "surround" their borders because they have been testing nukes and missiles in violation of the UN. They have also splashed their missiles in Japanese EEZ waters and fired them over Japanese Islands - technically an act of war when you fire ballistic missiles into somebody else's territory.
4.) Kim Jong Un threaten to shoot missiles at Guam or Hawaii or did you miss that, too.
All true. And add the fact that South Korea is nuke free and we are in the area due to treaties with allies who surround their borders. But when you're dealing with the brainwashed it's of little use.
There may well be a Chinese faction that is perfectly happy to play good cop to North Koreas bad cop.
The get to 'let' North Korea scare the crap out if us and it gives them the chinese more wiggle room than the would have without North Korea.
Rather than pressure it's possible that they are sending technology. The NK have ramped things up very very quickly.
Media said yesterday that we agreed to no first strike. Which is very stupid if true.
Better strategy might be to invite the Chinese to join in as sole ground force.
Lesser of two evils.
Quote:
somebody said, the Chinese are the key. They have been reluctant to act because NK is a trading partner. They are also afraid of millions of NK refugees pouring over their common border. But they have been getting tougher lately. Any war would cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
My personal opinion is that President Xi wants the U.S. to back off fighting against the Chinese expansion in the South China Sea. They are using NK as a bargaining chip to get our "backing" on the "sea grab."
Agreed.
Quote:
In comment 13713555 Jimmy Legz said:
Quote:
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
Dont take this the wrong way but you're a fucking idiot...
He's a November 2017. Only question is dupe or troll?
The chinese and british agree with me: "The proposal that Beijing has been pushing is known as “freeze for freeze”. The idea is that North Korea will freeze its nuclear programme, in return for the US freezing military exercises that the North Koreans find threatening."
https://www.ft.com/content/9f7e3acc-c473-11e7-a1d2-6786f39ef675
Seems fair to me.
He suggested dropping thousand of iPhones with internet all over the country. Maybe people will want to get away from all the lies.
Where will they get Internet access? There is a non-profit group that smuggles in USB drives, since, apparently, most NK devices have them.
Drop 25M functional, ready to use iPhones all over NK and place satellites over there with free WiFi.
And then introduce them introduce them to the rest of the mostly free world...
Quote:
In comment 13713756 Mark C said:
Quote:
is it not found ironic that we invaded their country, killed a couple million of their people, used nuclear weapons against their neighbor Japan (killing another half million, and counting), and currently surround their borders with state-of-the-art nukes, but now we insist that they're the threat, they're the rogue state and the global menace that must be contained. No, we just skip that part...
Great Post - wrong in every point.
1.) We invaded their country? When did that happen? Did you forget the part where NK had the ROK and US Armies surrounded in a pocket around Busan? They invaded ROK.
2.)The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 80 k each and saved at least 2-5 million civilians from our final invasion had Hirohito not ended the war. Estimates for US casualties range between 250-500k dead an 500 k to 1 million wounded had we invaded the Home Islands. We "only" had 480,000 killed in all of WW2 in both theaters. So more would have died in the battle of Japan than in the rest of the war...
3.) We "surround" their borders because they have been testing nukes and missiles in violation of the UN. They have also splashed their missiles in Japanese EEZ waters and fired them over Japanese Islands - technically an act of war when you fire ballistic missiles into somebody else's territory.
4.) Kim Jong Un threaten to shoot missiles at Guam or Hawaii or did you miss that, too.
All true. And add the fact that South Korea is nuke free and we are in the area due to treaties with allies who surround their borders. But when you're dealing with the brainwashed it's of little use.
The USA has been threatening them with Nuclear weapons for decades. The US has been there long before the North even broached arming and the treaties were made with dictators of South Korea.
Majorities of Koreans favor a diplomatic solution, and that their country be front and center in diplomacy and think the US is exaggerating the situation.
Quote:
In comment 13713555 Jimmy Legz said:
Quote:
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
A) You would allow NK to dictate the terms of security in the Asian Pacific by halting military exercises? I’m sure SK, Japan, and the rest of our allies would be thrilled....not to mention our own economic interests. Are you part of the Chinese politburo?
B) Even if the US did agree to the concessions you list, why would that deter Kim? Do you think he trusts the US to keep its word knowing full well that our leadership turns over within each decade? Nope. Kim wants the ability to tactically strike the US mainland with nukes because, in his opinion, is is a much more enduring guarentee of his livelihood
C) Your tax comments are cute. Even the CBO, which has historically stumbled when projecting impacts of tax cuts (they severely underestimated the tax revenues and growth projections of the Bush cuts), estimates that those earning $100k-$200k enjoy the largest benefits from the proposed reforms. The narrative that the poor would suffer are spurious as the standard deduction doubles and the individual mandate disproportionately affects lower income individuals. I won’t dig much deeper into this because it gets too political but you can read the CBO report yourself.
On A and B I said nothing of the sort.
On the tax side, first and most importantly I respect your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.
What you wrote about the tax plan, however, is such a deviation from reality, that I will not discuss it further, except to say, every analysis of it overwhelmingly shows that it benefits virtually soley the top 1 percent.
The CBO report, and all other outside analysis quite convincingly show it will crumble the poor. In fact, republicans in support of the bill have been quite blunt about it.
"The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate GOP tax plan shows it would hurt Americans earning less than $30,000, The Washington Post reports, and it would hurt them more than originally thought"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/26/senate-gop-tax-bill-hurts-the-poor-more-than-originally-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.eaa7b016065b
Maybe we live in alternate realities?
The CBO underreported the growth from Bush Tax cuts? That statement highlights your partisan and not really worth discussing with until your willing to look at it in a clear lens.
Releasing the individ mandate ill drive health care prices as much as 46% on everyone.
Repealing the estate tax only helps the richest 5000 families.
As the debt rises more cuts will be coming to medicare and medicaid.
- If you dont think this is about a transfer of wealth to the rich you are kidding yourself. In fact, the theory behind the tax cuts producing growth is based on that premise.
- The WaPo article that you cite leads with a sensationalized headline but when you dig into it, just as you would when you dig into the data, you notice that all is not as it appears. The issue revolves around the individual mandate- forcing Americans to purchase insurance or suffer a penalty- and this disproportionately affects the poor. The WaPo notes, “the CBO and JCT analyses make it seem as if a family is actually getting money taken away from them, but in reality, most of these families making under $30,000 don’t pay any income tax. The credits and subsidies they received to help them buy health insurance were typically sent directly from the government to the insurance company. So these families are unlikely to see and changes to their tax bills.” No tax increase, here. In fact, the lowest tax brackets are reduced, the standard deduction is doubled, and the child tax credit is increased. You simply have less government money funneled to the insurance companies through credits for people that were induced under the threat of penalty to purchase insurance that they didn’t want or need.
- 27% of the Estate Tax burden falls on the top 0.1%, 61% on the top 1%, and 88% on the top 10%.....we’re hardly talking about just the uber wealthy. In fact, the ultra wealthy would simply create a foundation or non-profit and obfuscate wealth transfer taxes.
- The CBO tax forecast for 2003-2008 pre-cuts was $13.24t....they estimated post-tax cut the revenues brought in would drop to $12.92t. Ultimately, actual tax revenues collected were $13.31, exceeding both pre & post-Bush tax cut CBO forecasts.
Quote:
I agree with some of this.
But technically we did invade North Korea since the leader we backed in south Korea for 30 plus years was a dictator and thus didn't have consent of the governed. So in some sense we invaded.
The US has been surrounding Korea for 50 years as part of the Cold war. The recent events regarding their nukes is not why we initially surrounded their country. We surround borders of the entire world to maintain the post-WW 2 order. One can argue thats imperialism and one can argue its the only way for the world to stay stable. Either way, it is for our self-interest and not for the reasons you mentioned.
Again, while we focus on Korea, the New Deal is about to be destroyed.
It seems you are a bit to passionate here and thus likely blinding yourself to some of whats going on.
None of what you posted was correct and I am blinded by my passion? It is not passion, it is history.
We backed a dictator so that is how we invaded? You got me there! But we did not invade the North until they attacked the South, so what does a dictator in South Korea have to do with North Korea invading the south in 1950.
I'll agree our military patrolling the world is for our own self interest and is stated as much by the government - not a secret. I would prefer we pulled back and let the rest of the world take care of itself. See how long that would last before China and Russia would jump right in to fill the void and stated as much.
BTW, what is the "New Deal"? You lost me there.
Quote:
In comment 13713819 section125 said:
Quote:
I agree with some of this.
But technically we did invade North Korea since the leader we backed in south Korea for 30 plus years was a dictator and thus didn't have consent of the governed. So in some sense we invaded.
The US has been surrounding Korea for 50 years as part of the Cold war. The recent events regarding their nukes is not why we initially surrounded their country. We surround borders of the entire world to maintain the post-WW 2 order. One can argue thats imperialism and one can argue its the only way for the world to stay stable. Either way, it is for our self-interest and not for the reasons you mentioned.
Again, while we focus on Korea, the New Deal is about to be destroyed.
It seems you are a bit to passionate here and thus likely blinding yourself to some of whats going on.
None of what you posted was correct and I am blinded by my passion? It is not passion, it is history.
We backed a dictator so that is how we invaded? You got me there! But we did not invade the North until they attacked the South, so what does a dictator in South Korea have to do with North Korea invading the south in 1950.
I'll agree our military patrolling the world is for our own self interest and is stated as much by the government - not a secret. I would prefer we pulled back and let the rest of the world take care of itself. See how long that would last before China and Russia would jump right in to fill the void and stated as much.
BTW, what is the "New Deal"? You lost me there.
Quote:
I’ve been making my way through Ian Bremmer’s book, Superpower. He makes the case that there are three distinct paths for the US to take; be the global policeman, project power for selfish reasons, or be isolationist. He doesn’t posit on which direction is best but does state that the worst course is in not deciding or committing to a particular course.
Seems we are a combo of the 1st two and have not veered too far from that position. #1 and #2 are closely aligned, no?
I have been a closet isolationist since I was young.
Quote:
In comment 13713651 BurberryManning said:
Quote:
In comment 13713555 Jimmy Legz said:
Quote:
dont think so. There are simple diplomatic solutions available. For example, recognizing North Korea and agreeing to stop military excercises in exchange for allowing the UN to dismantle the program.
Both sides use this crisis to divert domestic attention from robbing their populations. Kim Jung blatant robbery and In Trumps case tax cuts for the rich funded by the poor and middle class.
Kim Jung is animal but he just wants to know him and his cronies can rob his people perpetually. A nuke achieves that protection.
Easy solutions if either leader wanted it.
A) You would allow NK to dictate the terms of security in the Asian Pacific by halting military exercises? I’m sure SK, Japan, and the rest of our allies would be thrilled....not to mention our own economic interests. Are you part of the Chinese politburo?
B) Even if the US did agree to the concessions you list, why would that deter Kim? Do you think he trusts the US to keep its word knowing full well that our leadership turns over within each decade? Nope. Kim wants the ability to tactically strike the US mainland with nukes because, in his opinion, is is a much more enduring guarentee of his livelihood
C) Your tax comments are cute. Even the CBO, which has historically stumbled when projecting impacts of tax cuts (they severely underestimated the tax revenues and growth projections of the Bush cuts), estimates that those earning $100k-$200k enjoy the largest benefits from the proposed reforms. The narrative that the poor would suffer are spurious as the standard deduction doubles and the individual mandate disproportionately affects lower income individuals. I won’t dig much deeper into this because it gets too political but you can read the CBO report yourself.
On A and B I said nothing of the sort.
On the tax side, first and most importantly I respect your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.
What you wrote about the tax plan, however, is such a deviation from reality, that I will not discuss it further, except to say, every analysis of it overwhelmingly shows that it benefits virtually soley the top 1 percent.
The CBO report, and all other outside analysis quite convincingly show it will crumble the poor. In fact, republicans in support of the bill have been quite blunt about it.
"The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate GOP tax plan shows it would hurt Americans earning less than $30,000, The Washington Post reports, and it would hurt them more than originally thought"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/26/senate-gop-tax-bill-hurts-the-poor-more-than-originally-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.eaa7b016065b
Maybe we live in alternate realities?
The CBO underreported the growth from Bush Tax cuts? That statement highlights your partisan and not really worth discussing with until your willing to look at it in a clear lens.
Releasing the individ mandate ill drive health care prices as much as 46% on everyone.
Repealing the estate tax only helps the richest 5000 families.
As the debt rises more cuts will be coming to medicare and medicaid.
- If you dont think this is about a transfer of wealth to the rich you are kidding yourself. In fact, the theory behind the tax cuts producing growth is based on that premise.
Partisanship isn’t driving my understanding or discussion regarding tax cuts or reform, my professional capacity is.
- The WaPo article that you cite leads with a sensationalized headline but when you dig into it, just as you would when you dig into the data, you notice that all is not as it appears. The issue revolves around the individual mandate- forcing Americans to purchase insurance or suffer a penalty- and this disproportionately affects the poor. The WaPo notes, “the CBO and JCT analyses make it seem as if a family is actually getting money taken away from them, but in reality, most of these families making under $30,000 don’t pay any income tax. The credits and subsidies they received to help them buy health insurance were typically sent directly from the government to the insurance company. So these families are unlikely to see and changes to their tax bills.” No tax increase, here. In fact, the lowest tax brackets are reduced, the standard deduction is doubled, and the child tax credit is increased. You simply have less government money funneled to the insurance companies through credits for people that were induced under the threat of penalty to purchase insurance that they didn’t want or need.
- 27% of the Estate Tax burden falls on the top 0.1%, 61% on the top 1%, and 88% on the top 10%.....we’re hardly talking about just the uber wealthy. In fact, the ultra wealthy would simply create a foundation or non-profit and obfuscate wealth transfer taxes.
- The CBO tax forecast for 2003-2008 pre-cuts was $13.24t....they estimated post-tax cut the revenues brought in would drop to $12.92t. Ultimately, actual tax revenues collected were $13.31, exceeding both pre & post-Bush tax cut CBO forecasts.
Appreciate your info. If you could give me some links I am happy to read them to challenge my views.
Up till now, I have read hundreds of articles across the spectrum on this issue and none of them seem to add up to what you are saying. No doubt I have read of many more professionals who disagree with your view.
If you have a moment, can you send me some links to read to reinforce your view? It would be appreciated.
Anyways, cool discussion and I at a minimum learned something.
Have a good day!
It may come down to what type or level of action we can go to without involving the Chinese.
Not sure I buy that it's all or nothing.
For example. Once a missle leaves it's launch pad, if even only by a few feet, is that intervention or simply defence? It's not a certitude that Kim would go full artillery just over that.
Best thing from the pure point if view might be massive bombing the artillery / rockets near Seoul suddenly by first strike.
If the chinese knew that they were part of the end game that helps.
Short of that we may be fucked.
Quote:
In comment 13713819 section125 said:
Quote:
I agree with some of this.
But technically we did invade North Korea since the leader we backed in south Korea for 30 plus years was a dictator and thus didn't have consent of the governed. So in some sense we invaded.
The US has been surrounding Korea for 50 years as part of the Cold war. The recent events regarding their nukes is not why we initially surrounded their country. We surround borders of the entire world to maintain the post-WW 2 order. One can argue thats imperialism and one can argue its the only way for the world to stay stable. Either way, it is for our self-interest and not for the reasons you mentioned.
Again, while we focus on Korea, the New Deal is about to be destroyed.
It seems you are a bit to passionate here and thus likely blinding yourself to some of whats going on.
None of what you posted was correct and I am blinded by my passion? It is not passion, it is history.
We backed a dictator so that is how we invaded? You got me there! But we did not invade the North until they attacked the South, so what does a dictator in South Korea have to do with North Korea invading the south in 1950.
I'll agree our military patrolling the world is for our own self interest and is stated as much by the government - not a secret. I would prefer we pulled back and let the rest of the world take care of itself. See how long that would last before China and Russia would jump right in to fill the void and stated as much.
BTW, what is the "New Deal"? You lost me there.
I lost you cause I wrote like a child. Not your fault, mine.
Let me reiterate my view:
North Korea, is 95 percent to blame for this. They are run by the worst dictator on earth. However, I do beleive even the worst dictators can have legit security concerns.
Imagine Russia were conducting military exercises in Mexico. We would be rightly alarmed.
To solve the crisis I think a fair proposal is the one I cited proposed by China. A freeze on their nukes in exchange for a freeze on CERTAIN types of military exercises we conduct that threaten them.
I see no issue with that. My dictator point was only that if a country allows us into our borders, but is run by a dictator, it is arguably an invasion being as it doesn't have the consent of the governed.
Personally, I value a North Korean life as much as an American and i just want all citizens of both countries to be safe.
Especially that of our soldiers who I am just tired seeing suffer. I really am tired of it.
Those estimates seem pretty close to me.
To save space, I deleted most of your post. I agree with your sentiment.
The Chinese are looking out for their own self interest, as we are. The Chinese (like the Russians did with the Eastern Block and Iron Curtain) are using NK as a physical buffer between the "West" and themselves.
The Chinese like North Korea poking a finger in our eye as a means to keep us off balance. But I do not think they like us hanging around with 3 carrier groups in their backyard. The Chinese have stated that they will be building a Navy like ours to roam the world for influence.
In the end, money will dictate how this ends. We still hold most of the cards. Removing China from favored nation status is one of them. Symbolic mostly, as their economy is right with ours, but they are more reliant on us, then we need them. How long would it take reduced imports from China before they really hurt? What would happen if we built factories in Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia to compete with their manufacturing.
I still think China wants us to backoff their South China Sea expedition..
Quote:
- The CBO tax forecast for 2003-2008 pre-cuts was $13.24t....they estimated post-tax cut the revenues brought in would drop to $12.92t. Ultimately, actual tax revenues collected were $13.31, exceeding both pre & post-Bush tax cut CBO forecasts.
Those estimates seem pretty close to me.
Yeah same.
My understanding is the cuts:
Cut nearly a trillion from medicaid and 400 Billion from Medicare over the next decade. Cut programs for nutrition, education and limit the ability of states to even difray much of these costs.
They also do not touch the money currently being stashed overseas by corporations, in like the Cayman Islands, that are currently untaxed, and thus forcing middle class taxpayers to cover the bill.
Though everyone gets an initial cut, as time goes on the corporate cuts remain and the lower income groups, 75K or less see a drop.
Further, as the deficit rises, and it will, more cuts will come to slash programs for the middle class and the poor. There are no requirements forcing companies to hire workers here and repatriate their offshore revenue. Slashing the estate tax alone is a huge giveaway to the ultra rich. It also includes provisions like allowing artic drilling, forcing grad students to pay taxes on loan income. The inevitable rise in health care costs due to surreptitiously basically killing the ACA will obvious burden middle class families and the poor more. Currently popular support for the tax bill is like 16%. This is in a country where income inequality is already off the charts and approaching depression proportions.
It seems to me the goal is to permanently undermine FDRS new deal. Corps and the stock market are currently doing well so I dont see the need to jumpstart anything. I just dont get it.
(Compile.com)
"
Overall, the US has 29.5M employers. That’s a large number when you consider the US population is 312M, nearly 1 employer for every 10 people. .............."
" In sheer numbers, smaller firms dominate"
" Small firms, companies with less than 10 employees or under $1M in annual revenue, constitute the bulk of the businesses."
" Over 96 percent of companies (in the USA) are SMBs - with less than 50 employees; of these most of the companies are small SMBs, with less than 10 employees. "
96% !
(not sure about pass-through and corporations in these numbers, guess that they will adjust this)
Not the 'big, rich, "bad guys" ' that some think of when they think about corporate taxes.
From a federal revenue centric view, ok, the big ones are a greater percentage....
But from a point of view of 'directly effecting numbers of citizens and what they in turn spend', the small corps look like the real story.
But, the US has the lowest paid high skill workers in the world. That is why BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda (etc) are building plants here and exporting those products around the world from here. What happens when the 35% tax rate drops to 20%? Do smaller MFGs come here to exploit the same workers when the corporate rate is equal to or close to what is paid in their current place of business. No guarantees, to be sure, but if I could get more production and pay less corporate
I can tell you that my son is being screwed by the mandate for ACA. $3600+ per year premiums for a $7000 deductible plan is unconscionable. While I believe covering the poor and those with huge medical bills is necessary, there has to be a better way than living off the backs of the poor/middle class to cover this program. He was working 3 jobs, took on a 4th to make a little more and got hit with a tax penalty because his income increased a few thousand. Nice, work harder and lose your subsidy on a plan you have no choice but to buy.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
And as far as brainwashing goes, it's not a heavy lift. I imagine a large percentage of every living North Korean has had an ancestor who was killed, injured, or related to someone who was killed or injured by the US Army.
But, the US has the lowest paid high skill workers in the world. That is why BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda (etc) are building plants here and exporting those products around the world from here. What happens when the 35% tax rate drops to 20%? Do smaller MFGs come here to exploit the same workers when the corporate rate is equal to or close to what is paid in their current place of business. No guarantees, to be sure, but if I could get more production and pay less corporate
I can tell you that my son is being screwed by the mandate for ACA. $3600+ per year premiums for a $7000 deductible plan is unconscionable. While I believe covering the poor and those with huge medical bills is necessary, there has to be a better way than living off the backs of the poor/middle class to cover this program. He was working 3 jobs, took on a 4th to make a little more and got hit with a tax penalty because his income increased a few thousand. Nice, work harder and lose your subsidy on a plan you have no choice but to buy.
There is a better way. Single payer.
Quote:
and guess that he means that since we used nukes on Japan, the north believes we wouldn't hesitate to use them on North Korea.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
And as far as brainwashing goes, it's not a heavy lift. I imagine a large percentage of every living North Korean has had an ancestor who was killed, injured, or related to someone who was killed or injured by the US Army.
There was not a lot of bombing of civilian and industrial targets in North Korea during the "police action" so I think that's an exaggeration.
However, every South Korean could probably say the same thing about North Korea and China.
Quote:
and guess that he means that since we used nukes on Japan, the north believes we wouldn't hesitate to use them on North Korea.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
And as far as brainwashing goes, it's not a heavy lift. I imagine a large percentage of every living North Korean has had an ancestor who was killed, injured, or related to someone who was killed or injured by the US Army.
Would that be the same with the South Koreans killed by the North?
Quote:
In comment 13713839 Giants_ROK said:
Quote:
and guess that he means that since we used nukes on Japan, the north believes we wouldn't hesitate to use them on North Korea.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
And as far as brainwashing goes, it's not a heavy lift. I imagine a large percentage of every living North Korean has had an ancestor who was killed, injured, or related to someone who was killed or injured by the US Army.
There was not a lot of bombing of civilian and industrial targets in North Korea during the "police action" so I think that's an exaggeration.
However, every South Korean could probably say the same thing about North Korea and China.
Curtis Lemay himself estimated they lost 20% of their population. Now, he delivered the remark in a somewhat casual manner so he might not have been authoritatively stating a firm statistic as much as he was speaking anecdotally. But his words still should have enough weight to make it clear that yeah, lots of people died percentage-wise.
Quote:
In comment 13713839 Giants_ROK said:
Quote:
and guess that he means that since we used nukes on Japan, the north believes we wouldn't hesitate to use them on North Korea.
We need to remember that this hermit kingdom has been brainwashing its citizens with these ideas for over 60 years.
And as far as brainwashing goes, it's not a heavy lift. I imagine a large percentage of every living North Korean has had an ancestor who was killed, injured, or related to someone who was killed or injured by the US Army.
Would that be the same with the South Koreans killed by the North?
Probably, but that's not what we're talking about... unless you're bringing that up to argue that any North attempts to brainwash their population is met with a counter argument of: "But surely Dear Leader, our country killed a lot of South Koreans too."
Quote:
Probably, but that's not what we're talking about... unless you're bringing that up to argue that any North attempts to brainwash their population is met with a counter argument of: "But surely Dear Leader, our country killed a lot of South Koreans too."
True. The South Koreans know what happened, the North doesn't.
That last statement - "Dear Leader" - gets you fed to the dogs.
- Both to avoid hitting civilians generally and to protect ourselves literally.
And let's pray the U.S.A. has a heck of a lot more tech.. that we don't even know about. Pray for that right now please.
Good luck standing on the D.M.Z. and saying 'but,but,but, we're also bad..this and that happened way back when....'
That's not going to save you or anyone else.
Quote:
Quote:
- The CBO tax forecast for 2003-2008 pre-cuts was $13.24t....they estimated post-tax cut the revenues brought in would drop to $12.92t. Ultimately, actual tax revenues collected were $13.31, exceeding both pre & post-Bush tax cut CBO forecasts.
Those estimates seem pretty close to me.
Yeah same.
My understanding is the cuts:
Cut nearly a trillion from medicaid and 400 Billion from Medicare over the next decade. Cut programs for nutrition, education and limit the ability of states to even difray much of these costs.
They also do not touch the money currently being stashed overseas by corporations, in like the Cayman Islands, that are currently untaxed, and thus forcing middle class taxpayers to cover the bill.
Though everyone gets an initial cut, as time goes on the corporate cuts remain and the lower income groups, 75K or less see a drop.
Further, as the deficit rises, and it will, more cuts will come to slash programs for the middle class and the poor. There are no requirements forcing companies to hire workers here and repatriate their offshore revenue. Slashing the estate tax alone is a huge giveaway to the ultra rich. It also includes provisions like allowing artic drilling, forcing grad students to pay taxes on loan income. The inevitable rise in health care costs due to surreptitiously basically killing the ACA will obvious burden middle class families and the poor more. Currently popular support for the tax bill is like 16%. This is in a country where income inequality is already off the charts and approaching depression proportions.
It seems to me the goal is to permanently undermine FDRS new deal. Corps and the stock market are currently doing well so I dont see the need to jumpstart anything. I just dont get it.
A few points...
- There will be a forced repatriation and tax on corporate cash held overseas. His will raise government coffers by a few hundred billion and *should* promote some level of capital investment, hiring, or wage growth. Will it be dollar for dollar? Absolutely not. You’ve probably heard the opposition talking points that all of this money will go to shareholders or be paid out in bonuses. Gary Cohn’s anecdote has been propped up as silly evidence to this narrative. The truth is somewhere in the middle, IMO. The average age of American physical capital stock is at the highest level it’s been since the 60s. Wages have been held low to prop up margins. There is pent up desire to invest into America.
- Moving to a territorial tax system removes the incentive for companies to domecile elsewhere or book expenses in the US to offset profits earned elsewhere.
- There is bipartisan agreement that the corporate tax code needs to be reformed, it’s simply that the stars aligned for R’s before the could for the D’s. Believe me, everyone wants a piece of the repatriation pie along with credit for any additional economic growth. The issue is that it’s politically unsavory to give tax breaks to corporations while not offering anything to individual citizens. Thus, R’s are including individual tax reform which is chock full of special interests and thorns every which way you turn. Good luck trying to structure tax reform that doesn’t appear to benefit the wealthy when the overwhelming majority of taxes are paid by that group. Hell, we all bitch about special interests but then are up in arms when the deductibility of mortgage interest or SALT is under fire. Reform sounds great until you find out that you’re in the crosshairs.
- Corporate America is doing well but don’t let the trees distract you from the forrest, US companies are at a global disadvantage even from an effective rate standpoint. European and emerging market profit growth has also been strong.
- Extraordinarily easy monetary conditions have contributed to the growth story but that train is coming to a halt with the Fed normalizing policy. When rates rise and conditions tighten further it will be increasingly difficult to generate growth. Investors have been looking to fiscal policy to take the baton from monetary policy in order to stave off a slowdown. The time to boost consumers and corporations isn’t when a slowdown occurs, rather it’s better to preempt it.
Our choice will be to either allow South Korea to be overrun; or fight for South Korea and have American cities annihilated by North Korean nuclear missiles.
Honest not rhetorical questions.
Thinking that the effects of lowering the burden on -those- is an area for discussion that may be more fruitful (than is a discussion about the much fewer but much larger corporations).
Because use of proceeds for the very small corps will be more like use of proceeds for individuals, and act more like or more broadly on consumer demand?
Also be less likely to cause unsettling asset bubbles because very small corporations will invest in very almost infintely varied ways?
And act more diversely in job creation than some of the more singular or very specific deductions?
But in mobility and armor they probably loose that war. Also. If the NK invaded the south the Chinese might stay out.
So local air could mess the norks up big time. They would be fucked if they tried that.
It's gotta be more about protecting the core of JungUns coterie for posterity and acting on behest of China as a space creator and wild card.
If we can convince them (China) and the S.K.'s to let China 'have' N.K. I.e occupy and economically integrate/colonize them. US. Japanese and S.K. air and Chinese boots.
Seems like that would greatly benefit the average North Koreans and maybe the South Koreans and everybody else.
If they won't go for it they have to sign off on the degrading the hardware thing.
If we can convince them (China) and the S.K.'s to let China 'have' N.K. I.e occupy and economically integrate/colonize them. US. Japanese and S.K. air and Chinese boots.
Seems like that would greatly benefit the average North Koreans and maybe the South Koreans and everybody else.
If they won't go for it they have to sign off on the degrading the hardware thing.
This, I think, might double the Chinese Problem but with the new half being a land which has for all intents and purposes has received no development for 67 odd years, the people are a mess, just might be the next nuclear wasteland, and they'd still have the South Koreans now focused on getting back their ancestral lands that were stolen by the Japanese and the Chinese.
Our ALLIES the South Koreans wouldn't want this either and neither should we. The Koreans have been loyal to us and the western cause in general and have been trying get back the entire Korean nation for a long time. For those people left in what was the North they would almost certainly want to be with fellow Koreans.
So. Throw status quo out now.
And, all other points taken, China is a worlds better place than North Korea. N.K. is an unimaginable nightmare of hell.
They can treaty with S.K.
They can treaty with S.K.
We would not be occupying the South Korean's would, to use a more appropriate word, be liberating a part of their country that has been separated for a long time. I think once the fighting is done that we would agree to maintain our troops south of the 38th parallel and guarantee that we would not participate in any adventures that the Koreans could think of north of the Yalu but remain committed to the defense of Korea should it be attacked.
So you have to give them a buy in of some kind.
It's all well and good to cite the company line. But the n.k
Has made hay every three months for so many years...status quo a major fail.
So you have to give them a buy in of some kind.
It's all well and good to cite the company line. But the n.k
Has made hay every three months for so many years...status quo a major fail.
The Chinese would get a solution to a long term problem which is the worry about the Korean border. The reason the Chinese have to worry about there Korean border is that if there ever is a reconciliation between the present Korea's they will start looking at their Chinese border and the territories that they lost to the Chinese when the Japanese took the rest of what we now know as Korea. If we help the South Korean's get back the north and we and the Korean's say we agree to keep demands to that line the Chinese no longer have an excuse to support the Kim's ostensibly unless the Chinese real target is the USA.
But I'm pretty sure a unified Korea would be perfectly okay with keeping the Yalu River as its northern border. Doubt they'd want any further headaches.
Whereas, the South Koreans could benefit greatly from having Chinese satellite state on theirs when compared to status quo.
Regarding unifying Korea. Millions of North Koreans are suffering with torture, starvation and mind controll while they wait for that ideal.
I love South Koreans, but they have been able to see it as an increasingly asbtract ideal or even a pretense while the Northerners really suffer terribly for so long.
So. The USA has long been dedicated to the freedom of South Korea . but now our own cities are directly threatened with nukes. So...something must change now. This is not acceptable.
The bellicose rhetoric is at an all-time high. On both sides.