Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Stoker]

11 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So you’re for cutting wasteful spending for our children, but all for spending 100 Billion (and I’m assuming more if needed?) for Ukraine?  That’s one of the first place we should be cutting spending.  That’s why I don’t believe you’re for cutting waste.  

As for raising taxes—by how much?  And I’m sure that won’t also affect economic growth.

The money we're spending in Ukraine is some of the most cost-effective spending we've had in decades... We've spent trillions over the past eighty years with the goal of denying Russian domination of Europe - it has been at the core of US strategy since May 1945. If that hundred billion is a waste, then the overwhelming majority of our defense spending is a waste (I'll be the first to agree that a lot of it is, but probably not 90% of it). It's like being worried about burglars, so you hire 24/7 armed guards and build a moat, but you don't buy a door lock from Home Depot.

As for raising taxes, we need to get the brackets up. We've got too many people for whom government is just a thing other people pay for that gives them money. It's corrosive to democracy. Even where I sit, with two high income earners in the household, only paid 17% of my net income in federal taxes. Do I want to fork over more? No. But I want to let our Republic careen drunkenly into the abyss even less.

Edited May 31, 2024 by Stoker

[O Face]

28 minutes ago, Stoker said:

The money we're spending in Ukraine is some of the most cost-effective spending we've had in decades... We've spent trillions over the past eighty years with the goal of denying Russian domination of Europe - it has been at the core of US strategy since May 1945. If that hundred billion is a waste, then the overwhelming majority of our defense spending is a waste (I'll be the first to agree that a lot of it is, but probably not 90% of it). It's like being worried about burglars, so you hire 24/7 armed guards and build a moat, but you don't buy a door lock from Home Depot.

As for raising taxes, we need to get the brackets up. We've got too many people for whom government is just a thing other people pay for that gives them money. It's corrosive to democracy. Even where I sit, with two high income earners in the household, only paid 17% of my net income in federal taxes. Do I want to fork over more? No. But I want to let our Republic careen drunkenly into the abyss even less.

Since we’re in the Russia/Ukraine thread, I’m not going to debate taxes here with you. However, if you feel the answer to helping the crack addict to get off crack is to buy him more crack then we don’t have much to debate anyway. Certainly more need to pay their fair share, certainly more need to quit dodging the law and most certainly people need to quit taking advantage of others and contribute instead of leach off the system. But to increase the burden on law abiding, rule following citizens isn’t the answer. Lastly, I’m glad you feel you paid too little in taxes last year. Once again the fed, will be happy to take whatever you’d like to donate. I personally paid double your rate. That seems like plenty, wouldn’t you agree?

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Something snapped in you a while back dude, DON'T make it personal.

There is not a ratified agreement to defend Ukraine, I previously shared the SIGNED agreement.  You shared an internal memo of a conversation, which others dispute... 

Your memo also overlooks the fact that Putin Invaded Ukraine and took the Crimea in 2014.

What also happened in 2014?

[ClearedHot]

14 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

What also happened in 2014?

I thought you knew...Putin wanted the Crimea so he would have access their deep water port to the Black Sea in order to move grain for export.  When Ukraine’s Kremlin-friendly president was ousted in 2014 by mass protests that Moscow called a U.S.-instigated coup, Putin responded by sending troops to overrun Crimea and calling a plebiscite on joining Russia, which the West dismissed as illegal.  Then President Obama then capitulated when Putin threatened and gestured about nuclear weapons.

[brabus]

2 hours ago, Stoker said:

Even where I sit, with two high income earners in the household, only paid 17% of my net income in federal taxes

Either you don’t know the definition of high income earner or you’ve got some serious write offs / offshore banking going on. If it’s the latter, please share how you’re both making $200K+ each year and only paying 17% fed. We’d all like to know!

[BashiChuni]

48 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

I thought you knew...Putin wanted the Crimea so he would have access their deep water port to the Black Sea in order to move grain for export.  When Ukraine’s Kremlin-friendly president was ousted in 2014 by mass protests that Moscow called a U.S.-instigated coup, Putin responded by sending troops to overrun Crimea and calling a plebiscite on joining Russia, which the West dismissed as illegal.  Then President Obama then capitulated when Putin threatened and gestured about nuclear weapons.

oh ousted? not western backed CIA coup overthrow? interesting

[Lawman]

Hey who had “Color Revolution Theory” on their IA Campaign Bingo card?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion"

[Majestik Møøse]

3 hours ago, brabus said:

Either you don’t know the definition of high income earner or you’ve got some serious write offs / offshore banking going on. If it’s the latter, please share how you’re both making $200K+ each year and only paying 17% fed. We’d all like to know!

Not same guy, but for $400k married filing jointly with standard deduction and max trad 401k AGI deduction would be about a 18% effective fed tax rate. Maybe other tax reduction vehicles.

[Stoker]

5 hours ago, O Face said:

Since we’re in the Russia/Ukraine thread, I’m not going to debate taxes here with you. However, if you feel the answer to helping the crack addict to get off crack is to buy him more crack then we don’t have much to debate anyway. Certainly more need to pay their fair share, certainly more need to quit dodging the law and most certainly people need to quit taking advantage of others and contribute instead of leach off the system. But to increase the burden on law abiding, rule following citizens isn’t the answer. Lastly, I’m glad you feel you paid too little in taxes last year. Once again the fed, will be happy to take whatever you’d like to donate. I personally paid double your rate. That seems like plenty, wouldn’t you agree?

To pay double my total tax rate (not marginal rate, that's different), you'd need to be clearing north of $800,000 household income filing jointly. At that rate, yes, you can afford to pay more to help avert fiscal doom. I'm totally with you that I'd love for Congress to magically all agree that the spending is crazy and we should revert to a limited government - but I've grown up enough to know that it isn't going to happen. If your only solution is "my team gets its way, 100%, for five or six election cycles, until we remake America to our vision," well... keep dreaming. The whole "they'll be happy to take what you want to donate" is an asinine argument that stupid people think sounds smart, but what it isn't is a solution to a problem that will see your children remarkably worse off than you are.

3 hours ago, brabus said:

Either you don’t know the definition of high income earner or you’ve got some serious write offs / offshore banking going on. If it’s the latter, please share how you’re both making $200K+ each year and only paying 17% fed. We’d all like to know!

I guess we don't quite crack the top 10% of US incomes, but we're both darned close.

43 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Not same guy, but for $400k married filing jointly with standard deduction and max trad 401k AGI deduction would be about a 18% effective fed tax rate. Maybe other tax reduction vehicles.

Bingo.

[BashiChuni]

stoker here's the problem of your logic...you think throwing more money at DC will solve the problem. wrong.

these jokers will happily take more of your tax dollars and light them on fire.

maybe these entitlement programs need to die a very painful death.

also stop derailing my thread i'm currently torching CH and lawman and you are stealing my spotlight

Edited May 31, 2024 by BashiChuni

[tac airlifter]

23 hours ago, Stoker said:

we need to tax more as well. We're about to be strangled by entitlement spending in the next 20 years and if you think the solution is as simple as cutting those programs, you don't really have a very good view of how the US electoral and political process works.... You gotta give a little to get a little.

Well I'm definitely not voting for you.  We absolutely do NOT need to raise taxes on working individuals (i'm open to the discussion of raising or restructuring capital gains tax).  
 

you're not wrong that entitlement spending, although problematic, is also a sacred cow and politicians are unlikely to be elected if they cut entitlement spending.

but how about we cut some government agencies in half or completely before we discuss raising my already 30% taxes even higher?  We really need a new headquarters for the FBI after they've proven themselves totally feckless? Does the ATF need to exist? How about the NEA?  What about the park service, could we just cut the entire thing?  Or here's an idea germane to this thread, what if we stopped funding unaffordable foreign wars that only make the world worse?  

until we start trimming some of the excessive government fat raising taxes should be off the table.

Edited May 31, 2024 by tac airlifter

[O Face]

1 hour ago, Stoker said:

To pay double my total tax rate (not marginal rate, that's different), you'd need to be clearing north of $800,000 household income filing jointly. At that rate, yes, you can afford to pay more to help avert fiscal doom. I'm totally with you that I'd love for Congress to magically all agree that the spending is crazy and we should revert to a limited government - but I've grown up enough to know that it isn't going to happen. If your only solution is "my team gets its way, 100%, for five or six election cycles, until we remake America to our vision," well... keep dreaming. The whole "they'll be happy to take what you want to donate" is an asinine argument that stupid people think sounds smart, but what it isn't is a solution to a problem that will see your children remarkably worse off than you are.

I guess we don't quite crack the top 10% of US incomes, but we're both darned close.

Bingo.

Look what you made me do, I said I wasn’t going to argue here, but maybe us stupid people just need a leader to show us the way.  Put your money where your mouth is. Pay more taxes, who knows maybe some folks will join you. It’s kind of hypocritical for you to be preaching that we all need to be taxed more, but you’re unwilling to do that out of your own benevolence, wouldn’t you say?  And as for asinine arguments, you stated the at you’ve grown up enough to know Uncle Sam won’t make any sound financial decisions, so we better just keep giving him more $. I’m looking for a better word, nope…asinine works just fine. 

[SocialD]

7 hours ago, brabus said:

Either you don’t know the definition of high income earner or you’ve got some serious write offs / offshore banking going on. If it’s the latter, please share how you’re both making $200K+ each year and only paying 17% fed. We’d all like to know!

 

 

Real estate professional.  Check that box and your deductions add up fast.  A buddy is a 320 Captain with 30+ properties...his effective tax rate is eye watering.  

[tac airlifter]

45 minutes ago, O Face said:

Look what you made me do, I said I wasn’t going to argue here, but maybe us stupid people just need a leader to show us the way.  Put your money where your mouth is. Pay more taxes, who knows maybe some folks will join you. It’s kind of hypocritical for you to be preaching that we all need to be taxed more, but you’re unwilling to do that out of your own benevolence, wouldn’t you say?  And as for asinine arguments, you stated the at you’ve grown up enough to know Uncle Sam won’t make any sound financial decisions, so we better just keep giving him more $. I’m looking for a better word, nope…asinine works just fine. 

People who think we should pay more taxes, nothing is stopping them from paying more right now. Go ahead and pony up guys, the government will take your extra money!

[ViperMan]

5 hours ago, Stoker said:

At that rate, yes, you can afford to pay more to help avert fiscal doom.

Here's the thing though: It doesn't matter at what level they tax you - they will always spend more than that.

They're spending addicts. They need to put down the money pipe.

Until they strip ALL of the waste out of the budget, raising taxes is a non-starter for much of the population.

[HeloDude]

And to tie this all with the Ukraine stuff, if someone believes that our country’s financial situation is a greater threat to our country than Ukraine being able to have more weapons to fight Russia (I for one believe it is), then you can’t be all for giving Ukraine hundreds of billions of dollars without at least massive cuts to other spending areas.  And if politicians believe that all this spending is necessary, then sure, vote to raise to taxes…it won’t end well though as we have a spending problem and not a tax problem.

At some point we need to wise up with our massively bloated defense and “security” spending for other countries and say enough is enough.  Or, we get further in debt, and the monetary system continues to use inflation to fight it and the people (especially the middle and lower class) will continue to have to make harder decisions on what they can afford.

[brabus]

6 hours ago, SocialD said:

 

 

Real estate professional.  Check that box and your deductions add up fast.  A buddy is a 320 Captain with 30+ properties...his effective tax rate is eye watering.  

Slumlord it is! Better late than never.

[Stoker]

16 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

until we start trimming some of the excessive government fat raising taxes should be off the table.

Yes, that's been my whole argument. The only path forward is to do both. Saying "no raising taxes until we balance the budget" is functionally equivalent to saying "let it burn, I don't care." You need to meet the other side halfway ("I'll take a 5% tax increase if you agree to raise social security and medicare ages by five years", etc.).

A couple folks in this thread seem to think it's as simple as cutting the budget. Well, it is, but the most simple things are very hard. I'd rather make a compromise that achieves the goal of righting our ship, than dig my heels in and watch the water wash further and further up the deck.

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, Stoker said:

Yes, that's been my whole argument. The only path forward is to do both. Saying "no raising taxes until we balance the budget" is functionally equivalent to saying "let it burn, I don't care." You need to meet the other side halfway ("I'll take a 5% tax increase if you agree to raise social security and medicare ages by five years", etc.).

A couple folks in this thread seem to think it's as simple as cutting the budget. Well, it is, but the most simple things are very hard. I'd rather make a compromise that achieves the goal of righting our ship, than dig my heels in and watch the water wash further and further up the deck.

No, we need to see cuts before anything else.  Too much scar tissue from decades of unaccountable runaway federal spending; compromise is impossible unless faith is restored.  Let me see actual big ticket cuts, agencies dissolved, etc. before asking for another penny in taxes.  Or say “we have to raise taxes to afford funding the UKR war” and let people vote on it.  

[BashiChuni]

does anyone with half a brain really think F-16s are gonna make a dent in this war?

[Magnum]

10 hours ago, Springer said:

Kyiv is demanding F-16s and 2 Ukrainian pilots just proved they can master the jet 4 times faster than the Pentagon thought possible: report

Erin Snodgrass

Updated 18 May 2023·3-min read

Scroll back up to restore default view.

• Ukrainian pilots can master F-16 jets in four months, per an Air Force document obtained by Yahoo News.

• That's more than four times faster than Pentagon officials were forecasting earlier this year.

• The internal assessment is likely to ratchet up pressure on Biden to send Ukraine the planes.

Two Ukrainian pilots proved they can master the American-made F-16 fighter jets in just four months — more than four times faster than the Pentagon previously predicted — in a performance that is likely to ratchet up the growing pressure on the Biden Administration to send the lightweight warplanes to Ukraine.

Yahoo News on Thursday obtained and published an internal US Air Force assessment that detailed the F-16 training two Ukrainian pilots underwent at Morris Air National Guard Base in Tucson, Arizona, in late February and early March. Over the course of eleven and a half total hours in nine separate simulations, the Ukrainian airmen outperformed US expectations in their quick ability to learn the ins and outs of the aircraft, according to the document.

An Air Force official confirmed to Insider that the Ukrainian Air Force Baseline Pilot Assessment Report is an authentic document to determine baseline abilities.

Four experienced US air force instructors assessed the Ukrainian pilots and determined the pilots could perform several "relatively technical" maneuvers, including landing after losing an engine and withstanding mock attacks, Yahoo News reported, citing the assessment.

The Ukrainian airmen received no official training on the F-16 flight simulator beyond a brief introduction to the aircraft before their training, the document said. The two men were already qualified to operate a MiG-29 and Su-27 respectively, both Soviet-era fighter jets that comprise the majority of Ukraine's remaining air force, according to the outlet.

In a February Congressional hearing, Colin Kahl, the outgoing US undersecretary of defense for policy said training Ukrainian soldiers on F-16s would take approximately 18 months — the same amount of time it would require to export the warplanes to Ukraine.

The long projected training time was one of the reasons the Pentagon has frequently cited as cause for not giving Ukraine the much-desired planes, for which they have been jockeying for months. Ukrainian defense leaders say the F-16s are necessary to shoot down Russian strike fighters that are dropping bombs.

But the report published by Yahoo on Thursday deduces that four months is a "realistic training timeline" for Ukrainian pilots to undergo training on the aircraft.

The internal document was also shared with several NATO allies who deal in the warplanes, the outlet reported.

Meanwhile, European leaders this week, including top officials in the UK and Germany, continued to pressure the Biden administration to make a decision on sending the F-16s.

On Thursday, the Biden administration suggested it would not stop other NATO allies from exporting the American-made aircraft to Ukraine, CNN reported.

05/23/2023: The story has been updated to include comment from the US Air Force. 

Read the original article on Business Insider

That article is over a year old...  Fake news.

[Smokin]

On 6/1/2024 at 11:17 AM, tac airlifter said:

No, we need to see cuts before anything else.  Too much scar tissue from decades of unaccountable runaway federal spending; compromise is impossible unless faith is restored.  Let me see actual big ticket cuts, agencies dissolved, etc. before asking for another penny in taxes.  Or say “we have to raise taxes to afford funding the UKR war” and let people vote on it.  

This.  We cannot tax our way out of this mess.  Our current debt is approaching $267,000 per taxpayer.  Or about 30% more than last year's GDP.  You'd have to have a 100% federal tax rate on absolutely everything, not just those who currently pay taxes, for an entire year and we still would be in debt.  To say it another way, the entire US population would have to give all their income for an entire year to the Feds.  And state, county, and local governments would have to also work for free for the year.  And that would still only pay off 69% of our debt.

[Springer]

15 hours ago, Magnum said:

That article is over a year old...  Fake news.

Missed the date but 4 mths ago sold patio furniture to a former TUS ANG F-16 instructor and said they were underway with the Ukraine students making the transition. 

First Ukrainian Pilots Graduate US F-16 Training (airandspaceforces.com)

[nunya]

1 hour ago, Springer said:

Missed the date but 4 mths ago sold patio furniture to a former TUS ANG F-16 instructor and said they were underway with the Ukraine students making the transition. 

First Ukrainian Pilots Graduate US F-16 Training (airandspaceforces.com)

At least that'll be less wasteful than the Afghan C-130 crews we trained.