Ukraine & Crimea

GW Johnson · 2014-05-13 08:30:37

When the Soviet Union broke up, some of its nuke weapons were in Ukraine. The west and Ukraine agreed that Ukraine was incapable of securing those weapons from theft and sale to terrorist groups, or proxy armies for states like Iran. So everybody, including Russia, helped eliminate those weapons in Ukraine. That disarmament is the genesis of the UN resolution to "defend Ukraine", that has recently proven so worthless.

I rather doubt all this could have been prevented by leaving the weapons in Ukraine. They'd have been stolen and sold off, as were some of the weapons in Russia itself. Breakups create a lot of chaos, and many evil things take place in times of chaos. It is inevitable, because there are evil people. There always have been.

So why do you think Iran has finally been willing to slow its in-house first-generation weapons program? Because they got some 3rd or 4th generation warheads off the black market. Weapons stolen and sold off from Russia itself several years back. Most of them 5 MT weapons from the 5-weapon MIRV cluster on the SS-18.

It takes time to build up a sufficient inventory for a war like that. But once you do, you are free to act. And they (Iran) have. And they will. Iran plans to threaten or attack all its neighbors, not just Israel, to create a new incarnation of the old Persian empire. The ruling clique has said so, publicly. Mullahs plus a private army, with zero separation of church and state. See where that has lead, and where it is leading?

As for Putin, he is riding a wave of popularity in Russia. If that popularity fades, Russia itself will rein him in. If not, or not soon enough, his aspirations to reassemble the old Soviet Union superpower will lead to war. The same as Hitler's ambitions did (just one historical example among many).

Not a very nice prospect, is it?

GW

Void · 2014-05-13 10:20:28

GW Johnson what you have said and this link;

http://www.1913intel.com/2014/05/12/why … rest-blog/

suggest that "WE" do not have as much clout as "WE" wish we did. I think we were in the leadership say 20 years ago (Culturally), but I am not sure that we can persuade the whole world to see reality from our viewpoint to that degree anymore.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-13 13:53:44

GW Johnson wrote:

When the Soviet Union broke up, some of its nuke weapons were in Ukraine. The west and Ukraine agreed that Ukraine was incapable of securing those weapons from theft and sale to terrorist groups, or proxy armies for states like Iran. So everybody, including Russia, helped eliminate those weapons in Ukraine. That disarmament is the genesis of the UN resolution to "defend Ukraine", that has recently proven so worthless.
I rather doubt all this could have been prevented by leaving the weapons in Ukraine.

That doesn't follow from the previous statement you made. Either we give nuclear weapons to Ukraine or we move US troops into Ukraine with nuclear weapons to defend Ukraine's current borders, so which do you suggest we do? We did the later with Germany, so if we follow that Model we put a bunch of US bases in Ukraine to contain the Russians, but of course if the Russians do invade that means instant war between the US and Russia, so Russia won't do that. If we stay out of Ukraine, we are basically telling the Russians, "Here you can have it!" So are you suggesting that the US lying to people is a good thing. We have got to save whatever honor we've got left by securing what remains of Ukraine against Russian Aggression, nothing less will do if our word is to have any value. Obama has done tremendous damage by not honoring our commitments to Ukraine. the best thing Ukraine should have done was kept its nuclear weapons, because the alternative was being reabsorbed by Russia, and the next time a situation like this arises, they won't be so willing to hand over their nuclear weapons the way Ukraine did!

They'd have been stolen and sold off, as were some of the weapons in Russia itself. Breakups create a lot of chaos, and many evil things take place in times of chaos. It is inevitable, because there are evil people. There always have been.

Your saying the Russians are evil? Okay, so if the Russians are evil, wouldn't the breakup of their empire be a good thing, just as for instance the break up of the Third Reich was? The Third Reich was the Germans' Evil Empire and the Soviet Union was Russia's. I think our biggest mistake during the Cold War was to view the Russian People as largely victims of their own Communist Government, we had the example of all those Russian Immigrants that were escaping Oppression in their own countries, so we tended to look upon the average Russian as similar to those that fled.

So why do you think Iran has finally been willing to slow its in-house first-generation weapons program? Because they got some 3rd or 4th generation warheads off the black market. Weapons stolen and sold off from Russia itself several years back. Most of them 5 MT weapons from the 5-weapon MIRV cluster on the SS-18.

I'd say, "Congrats Iran! You now get to die in a nuclear war, you don't have many nuclear weapons, so if you use any on us, we will invade your country and seek retribution on your people without pity! In fact we may even invade sooner to prevent you from getting more nukes later, and either you can use your nukes to stop us, which means we will destroy you without pity in revenge or you surrender without using them in which case you are more like occupied Germany after World War II, so which is it going to be Iran?"

It takes time to build up a sufficient inventory for a war like that. But once you do, you are free to act. And they (Iran) have. And they will. Iran plans to threaten or attack all its neighbors, not just Israel, to create a new incarnation of the old Persian empire. The ruling clique has said so, publicly. Mullahs plus a private army, with zero separation of church and state. See where that has lead, and where it is leading?

Or they may instead simply destroy civilization in the Middle East with no empire left because it got nuked in retaliation for Iranian uses of such weapons. Are Iranians willing to die in the attempt to reestablish the Persian Empire? How badly do they need that Empire, does the average citizen in Iran want his life and that of his family to be put in jeopardy while the nation's leader seeks to make himself emperor of a renewed Persian Empire or everyone in Iran dies in his attempt. Would the average Iranian be better off in an enlarged empire than he would in the smaller state of Iran? if not then why should he tolerate his leader risking all their lives in one Imperialist gamble that all citizens would lose their lives in if it doesn't pay off and only their leader would gain if it were to prove successful? Everyone will die sometime, its just a matter of time. A nuclear war just means that everyone dies at once and ther children with them instead of most of them dying when they reach old age.

As for Putin, he is riding a wave of popularity in Russia. If that popularity fades, Russia itself will rein him in. If not, or not soon enough, his aspirations to reassemble the old Soviet Union superpower will lead to war. The same as Hitler's ambitions did (just one historical example among many).

What is that popularity based on? Would the US President be very popular if he ordered US troops to invade Mexico? The United States could invade Mexico right now, and just like Ukraine, Mexico has no nuclear weapons to retaliate with. If starting a war made people popular, why doesn't the US president do the to get reelected? Also do the Russians really want a second Cold War with the West, do they want their sons and daughters to get drafted into the Army and be made to do push ups and to do dangerous things like Strafe US aircraft carriers, where someone may shoot them down?

Not a very nice prospect, is it?
GW

its all in Russia' hands, if they want a second Cold War, all they have to do is keep on doing what their doing, then Russian citizens may relearn the fine art o "Duck and Cover". Russians are stupid if they allow this to happen.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-13 13:57:12

Void wrote:

GW Johnson what you have said and this link;
http://www.1913intel.com/2014/05/12/why … rest-blog/
suggest that "WE" do not have as much clout as "WE" wish we did. I think we were in the leadership say 20 years ago (Culturally), but I am not sure that we can persuade the whole world to see reality from our viewpoint to that degree anymore.

Oh really? Do you see the Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians, Germans thinking how much they would love to be Russian citizens under Putin? Are they so willing to Defy the US that they will allow themselves to be conquered by Russia? That is what your asking. If France doesn't care whether Ukraine is invaded by Russia, then maybe France shouldn't be a NATO member, and thus shouldn't be a part of NATO decision making. As for Merkle, does she want to be an "East German Citizen" once more? Just asking.

Void · 2014-05-13 21:23:04

if you're traveling in a spaceship , do you want your instrumentation to warn you of trouble ,or to assure you that everything is fine even if it isn't ? If. WWW.atimes.com "spengler". . Enjoy.

Last edited by Void (2014-05-13 21:38:48)

Void · 2014-05-13 21:55:48

I sense that you're bored . so I entertain you . just don't blow the main pump . what is going on it's not a normal change . I believe this is a 500 year change . arrogant thinking will not help. actually we are more blessed than you can ever imagine . but you're going to have to adapt to a changing world .

Last edited by Void (2014-05-13 22:07:04)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-14 05:04:39

So you are willing to be part of the Russian Imperium and to adapt to the end of Democracy? America's problems begin and end with Barack Obama, we just have to get rid of him and his party, and the USA can recover just like it did from the Great Depression! You don't believe in the USA apparently, you think this is just the end and we should all adapt to an undemocratic world. I disagree. It is only the end if we stop fighting or are all dead!

Void · 2014-05-14 05:57:24

Actually you don't know what I think. I mostly supplied you with additional readings on the state of reality. But they are other peoples words in screen type, so actually even that can be held as not assured truth.

Democracy? When was that? We are a representive republic. We are allowed to vote for a hand picked selection. Hand picked by the rulers. It never was anything else but that. Am I complaining? Not much. In general the elected excutors of the ruling will don't deviate too far from what the public will tollerate. That reduces the chances of a cultural misunderstanding between the rulers and the ruled. which means we don't seem to have major bloody uprisings that destroy accumated wealth and trust. So, it's a good system for managing large numbers of humans which were actually tuned by nature to live in the stone age.

As for Russia and Germany. Yes we have a pretty good feedback internally, but I am afraid internationally our chickens are comming home to roost. It was an impossible task anyway, to make the whole world function well. However, I might have hoped that the executors of our national will on the international stage would have taken the seriousness of the situation to heart, and have spent less time trying to impose our P.C. notions on our nation and on the international community. That sapped much of the soft power we had.

But given patience, I do not believe that in the long term our interests will be permanently harmed. Rather helped.

Did you know that duing the Civil War of the USA, Russian stationed it navy in out ports? The reason was they were afraid that their navy would get bottled up in it's ports, and the nice so called "Western Europeans" would be tempted to enter the civil war against the north so as to break the union and end our Representative Republic and re-establish autocratic rule?

The French were in Mexico, and of course the Brittish having Canada might have made a decision against us as well.

Last edited by Void (2014-05-14 06:14:30)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-14 07:00:59

Void wrote:

Actually you don't know what I think. I mostly supplied you with additional readings on the state of reality. But they are other peoples words in screen type, so actually even that can be held as not assured truth.
Democracy? When was that? We are a representive republic. We are allowed to vote for a hand picked selection. Hand picked by the rulers. It never was anything else but that. Am I complaining? Not much. In general the elected excutors of the ruling will don't deviate too far from what the public will tollerate. That reduces the chances of a cultural misunderstanding between the rulers and the ruled. which means we don't seem to have major bloody uprisings that destroy accumated wealth and trust. So, it's a good system for managing large numbers of humans which were actually tuned by nature to live in the stone age.

Well I vote in the Republican Primaries, so I have a hand in picking those candidates. I voted for Newt Gingrich in the 2012 Republican Primaries, but I got outvoted by people voting for Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney ultimately lost to Barack Obama because he was unwilling to attack Obama in his role in covering up the true nature of the Benghazi attack. Romney should have hit him harder on that subject and I believe Newt Gingrich would have, too bad, not my fault, I voted for Newt, not Mitt, and I voted for Mitt instead of Barack, but unfortunately that was not enough to save him! Apparently the Republican establishment wanted a moderate who pulled his punches and that's what it got. They said Mitt was more "Electable" than Newt, but there is no way to prove that since Mitt lost.

As for Russia and Germany. Yes we have a pretty good feedback internally, but I am afraid internationally our chickens are comming home to roost. It was an impossible task anyway, to make the whole world function well. However, I might have hoped that the executors of our national will on the international stage would have taken the seriousness of the situation to heart, and have spent less time trying to impose our P.C. notions on our nation and on the international community. That sapped much of the soft power we had.

The main problem with Barack Obama was that he was just soft internationally and uncompromising with Congress internally. Obama wears two masks, one is his wimpy mask when he is dealing with international leaders, and he wears a take no prisoners mask when ramming through legislation. You see I see our problems as having to do with our poorly chose leader, not ourselves. After all I can't stop the Federal Government from Deficit spending, I don't like a lot of things this President is doing, whom I did not elect. As for left-wingers in other countries criticizing my own, I direct them to the President running this whole mess, but they don't want to take about him, they'd rather blame me for what this country is doing wrong, I don't know how it could be my fault, since I have not gotten the president I wanted since 2004.

But given patience, I do not believe that in the long term our interests will be permanently harmed. Rather helped.

It would be helped if European leaders would learn to face up to leaders like Putin without always waiting for the United States to do something. I do think we need another Superpower, but not a superpower like Russia or China, I'd rather have Germany or Japan, or Poland, or the EU for that matter. I'd rather have another superpower that helps us rather than opposes us! Some people seem to think that the role of the other superpower should always be to oppose the United States, I don't see that.

Did you know that duing the Civil War of the USA, Russian stationed it navy in out ports? The reason was they were afraid that their navy would get bottled up in it's ports, and the nice so called "Western Europeans" would be tempted to enter the civil war against the north so as to break the union and end our Representative Republic and re-establish autocratic rule?

You mean as in the Southern Victory Series by Harry Turtledove?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory_Series

The French were in Mexico, and of course the Brittish having Canada might have made a decision against us as well.

As the Southern Victory series shows, the Canadians came to regret that in the early 20th century.

martienne · 2014-05-14 09:13:36

Void wrote:

I sense that you're bored . so I entertain you . j

Yes he's very bored obviously.
And really wants his clichés and stereotypes, liberally sprinkled with cold war nostalgia.
So here you go, Tom.

Такого как Путин 2014: Спасибо майдану (и США) за Криму! Old techno hit "A man like Putin" (2014 version: Thanks Euromaidan and USA for Crimea!)

HD Russian Army Parade Victory Day, 2014 Парад Победы

(instead of bringing its weapons to locations across the world and killing people, like the USA does, Russia displays them in an annual parade instead, for a national holiday of rememberence of 27 million dead in WW2, and party to celebrate victory in the evening.) С днем победы!
-Very evil [white]Russian.

Both videos are totally serious ;-) and so am I of course. But what can you do when people want to believe their old prejudice and lap up their propaganda, ignoring the facts + generally drank the cool-aid...?
I guess, make a joke with it.

Last edited by martienne (2014-05-14 09:31:59)

RobertDyck · 2014-05-14 09:54:56

I have participated in the other forum. Talking with one individual in western Ukraine, someone who is actually there. That forum now has 123 pages, just the discussion for Ukraine. And they actually stayed on topic; as unusual there as it is here. This is one of my posts.
------
RT: Russia should ignore Washington's 'new Cold War'

Washington desperately needs a new Cold War with Russia to ensure a healthy Military-Security Complex and to maintain global hegemony, former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts told RT in an interview.
"The best thing the Russian government could do is just ignore [Washington's rhetoric] and go on making its relations with China, India, Brazil, and South America, and go on about its business and leave the dollar system, and simply quit trying to be accepted by Washington," said Roberts, also an economist and columnist on global affairs.
…
PCR: Washington wants a Cold War, they need it. They've been defeated in Afghanistan, they were blocked from attacking Syria and Iran, so they've got to keep the military-security complex funded, because that's where an important part of their campaign contributions comes from.

Not in the text, but in the video:

What this is all about is, Washington had hoped to grab Ukraine, especially the Russian naval base in Crimea, in order to evict Russia from the naval base and thereby cut them off from the warm water port and access to the Mediterranean. Now Washington lost that game, so they're trying to retrieve it by starting a new Cold War. And that's what all this talk is about. Now they're pretending that Russia is going to invade the Baltics, or Eastern Europe. This is an absurdity.

The interview is with a former member of President Regan's administration, but again this is on RT. If RT is the voice of Moscow, then is this the position of Moscow? That would mean Putin intends to end this with Crimea. That he won't take any more of Ukraine. To me that sounds like good news.

And hits on another issue with the United States. They have to balance their budget. In 2008 they found out what happens when then they don’t: their banking system collapsed. I was very concerned; in August 2006 the US per capita federal debt hit double Canada's. That's after taking into account exchange of the dollar, and using population figures for that month from the websites of the US Census Bureau and Statistics Canada. In August 2009 the US per capita federal debt hit triple Canada's. And they haven't stopped, today the US federal debt is $17.5 trillion. TRILLION! If they continue as they are now, the US will have another major financial collapse. I don't know when, and I don't know what it will look like, but at the rate they're running up the debt it won't be long.

When Ronald Regan was president, he started the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), known to the media as Star Wars. It turned out the weapons wouldn't work. One was a proton particle beam satellite that would shoot down re-entry vehicles from Russian ICBMs while in space. They even got a ground test to generate a particle beam, so it looked like it could work. And they added an electron beam to the proton beam to neutralize charge so the beam wouldn't diverge, it would stay together long enough to hit its target. But what they didn't tell the public is a major problem. It would take 100 launches of the Space Shuttle to lift the parts for just one such satellite. And it would have to be in low Earth orbit to be close enough to hit its target. LEO means about 300km range. GeoSynchronous Orbit is where a satellite orbits once per day, so stays over the same spot on Earth. But GSO is 36,000km above the surface. A proton particle beam can't hit anything that far away. At about the same orbit as the International Space Station, it would orbit once every 90 minutes. And would have to be inclined, so it would be over the United States. To ensure one satellite is over the US at all times would require about 24 such satellites. Each would require 100 launches of the Shuttle. We saw the Shuttle could only launch 6 times per year. Attempts to launch more resulted in the Challenger disaster. So that just won't work. Each weapon in Star Wars had a catch like that. But the Soviet Union had been baited into an arms race. So Regan's administration continued, it became a game of chicken: let's see whose economy collapses first. Regan knew the US could not sustain that level of military spending, but he felt the US economy was stronger so could sustain it longer. That worked better than anyone could have hoped. The Soviet Economy collapsed just as Mikhail Gorbachev was introducing perestroika and glasnost. The result was the Soviet Union completely fell apart. The US could consider that a win, but only if the US reduced it's military spending and reduced its debt.

Economists at the time were aghast! The US was left with a $3 trillion debt. Trillion, with a "T"! Today economists would be pleased at a debt that small, but that was the largest debt in US history. It took several presidents to balance the budget. Bill Clinton claimed the US had surpluses the last 3 years of his presidency. However, in 1998 and 1999 he raided the US federal civil servant's pension fund. When you treat that as a loan that has to be repaid, the US was still in deficit. In year 2000, the last year of Clinton, he still raided the pension fund, but the surplus was larger than what he took. After reducing it by that amount, the surplus was so puny it was practically non-existent, but at least the budget was balanced. That was the last year the US had a balanced budget. Military spending that year was $288 billion. But as soon as George W. was elected, he increased military spending. Starting with his missile shield, long before 9/11. Tests showed in only hit its target 1/3 of the time, but of all the weapons from Star Wars, it was the closest to working. In year 2008 total military spending was $700 billion, in 2009 it was $799 billion, and 2010 was the first budget passed by Obama, but military spending that year was $901 billion. This raises the obvious question: "Are they insane!?!?" They were trying to cause the financial melt-down of 2008. And once it happened, they didn't correct the problem, they made it worse.

When you adjust for inflation, the year 2000 military budget would be $395 billion in today's dollars. That's what it should be. They reduced military spending a little; current military budget $647 billion, and so far the 2015 budget is $627 billion. That's reduced a little, and why military contractors hire lobbyists to start a new war. But healthy military spending means cutting by $252 billion to $232 billion (vs 2014 or 2015 budgets). That wouldn't be enough to balance the budget, so all "stimulus spending" would have to end, and probably require further cuts. But we certainly don't need a new war.

But the military lobby doesn't care. They just want more profits in their pocket. And they're willing to fund politician election campaigns to do it. Meanwhile Ukraine is the pawn in this game of geopolitics.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-05-14 09:55:48)

martienne · 2014-05-14 11:56:53

I think you're right this time Robert, about your conclusions and I love your maths.

I am no expert on economy or the United States, but it's in deep, deep trouble. What was once a nice country got hijacked by corporate greed whether oil, pharma, films, weapons or whatever.

Very sad. And now the country is up to its eyeballs in debt, completely unsustainable, while mega corporations are making mega money without taxing much on it, and channeling it offshore. It can only end one way, the question is what the end will be like and what comes after.

And yes, they "got" the USSR, by consciously or unconsciously tricking the USSR into a ridiculous arms race that the USSR could not afford, while caring for its population according to socialist principles. Bear in mind that the USSR was almost totally destroyed during the war, the European parts. And it was never as rich as the US. They were fools to think they could beat the USA at its own game, or compete with US standards of living in a shorter perspective.

I think both nations had the seed of destruction in them.
For the US it's sheer greed. Corporate greed is present in all levels of US society and is destroying it from within. It's behind wars, outsourcing, banking crisis and much more.

For the Soviet Union it was the blessing/curse of socialism. That only works if somebody is forcing everyone to pull their weight. After Stalin there were no serious consequences for just being a slacker. Plus, bureacracy, policy of full employment created a bureacratic process that became an enemy of the state within the state itself. A nightmare. But the ideals were beautiful, they really were. RIP

China has PLANS, they have strategies, and they will not allow corporate greed to pull down the whole nation. They will not allow media to manipulate people in a way that goes against their strategy. They make some sacrifices in the interest of the long term benefits of the country. And it seems impossible to be a slacker in China. All this takin into account, they will prevail, I think.

Modern Russia does something a bit more similar to China, in that there are plans and long term strategies in place now. But Russia suffers from a bit self image and and poor confidence. People love Putin because he makes them feel that there is just a glimmer of hope that Russia could some day live up to its enormous potential.

Last edited by martienne (2014-05-14 12:02:27)

Excelsior · 2014-05-14 13:18:04

Sorry to burst your bubble, but military spending has nothing to do with US fiscal woes.

If the US ever goes bankrupt, it will be caused by the same thing that is bankrupting Europe... entitlements.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-14 13:53:40

martienne wrote:

Void wrote:
I sense that you're bored . so I entertain you . j
Yes he's very bored obviously.
And really wants his clichés and stereotypes, liberally sprinkled with cold war nostalgia.
So here you go, Tom.
Такого как Путин 2014: Спасибо майдану (и США) за Криму! Old techno hit "A man like Putin" (2014 version: Thanks Euromaidan and USA for Crimea!)
HD Russian Army Parade Victory Day, 2014 Парад Победы
(instead of bringing its weapons to locations across the world and killing people, like the USA does, Russia displays them in an annual parade instead, for a national holiday of rememberence of 27 million dead in WW2, and party to celebrate victory in the evening.) С днем победы!
-Very evil [white]Russian.
Both videos are totally serious ;-) and so am I of course. But what can you do when people want to believe their old prejudice and lap up their propaganda, ignoring the facts + generally drank the cool-aid...?
I guess, make a joke with it.

27 million Dead? Well maybe the Soviets should not have invaded Poland then? Maybe without Soviet help Hitler would have gotten bogged down in Poland and would never had gotten a chance to invade the USSR and kill 27 million people!

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-14 13:55:31

Excelsior wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but military spending has nothing to do with US fiscal woes.
http://cdn.stripersonline.com/8/8f/8f43 … 0Chart.png
If the US ever goes bankrupt, it will be caused by the same thing that is bankrupting Europe... entitlements.

Yep, watch Martienne avert her gaze so as not to see that pie chart.

RobertDyck · 2014-05-14 15:33:30

Excelsior wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but military spending has nothing to do with US fiscal woes.
If the US ever goes bankrupt, it will be caused by the same thing that is bankrupting Europe... entitlements.

Investment in keeping people healthy, and investment in business, keeps the economy working. Military is nothing but a drain. A giant sink hole, sucking taxpayers dry.

Automobile manufacturers liked Canada because health insurance that the employer had to pay was so much lower. Government health insurance was a lot cheaper than private health insurance. And if workers aren't healthy, they don't work. So Canada's health insurance system was financially good for automobile manufacturers. Then overseas factories started, with wages lower than minimum wage in Canada or the US.

Want numbers? I worked in a suburb of Richmond, Virginia, for 6 months in 1997. I came from a contract in Calgary, Alberta. My employer in Alberta required all computer contractors to incorporate as single person corporations. That allowed the employer to pay contractors corp-to-corp. That meant they didn't have to pay the employer's portion of Employment Insurance or Canada Pension Plan premiums, or the employer's portion of Alberta Health premiums. Because of that paperwork, I was just outside the Employment Insurance system, but had to pay both the employer and employee portions of both CPP and Health premiums. When I worked in Virginia, Alberta health said they would continue to cover me for up to one year as long as I continued to pay their premiums. The catch is they would only pay American hospitals at the Alberta rate; if the hospital charged anything extra then I would have to pay it. So I did. I paid $102 in Canadian funds per quarter (every 3 months), which included both the employer and employee portions. My American co-workers paid $75 per month. When you work out exchange of the dollar at the time, that means what I paid quarterly is what my American co-workers paid monthly.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-05-14 18:14:01)

RobertDyck · 2014-05-14 15:46:35

Balancing the budget requires several things:
- reduce total military spending, including national security, to what it was in year 2000 (the last year America had a balanced budet) plus inflation
- cancel all stimulus spending
- cancel all tax cuts introduced by George W. Bush (everything since year 2000). However, that must replace the tax increases of 2013.

Do all that first. Then see what's left. Will probably require further cuts to balance the budget, but first do these things.

GW Johnson · 2014-05-14 17:58:38

Policy is more complicated than "balance the budget". Sorry. That political mantra is just as much a lie as the other sides' political mantra. (All politics is essentially lies. 99.99+%.) Austerity works for the good times. In the bad times, it works better if you deficit-spend. History proves it.

That being said, "$17T" or whatever it really is (depends on your accounting system), US debt is about the same debt/GDP ratio the US had coming out of WW2. We came back from that, we can come back from this. Have faith. And lynch your politicians periodically.

On the other hand, the insidious thing about debt is how you "finance" it. There are 2 options: (1) inflate the currency, or (2) borrow.

Option (1) already leads to lynchings of politicians in the US after our experience with it in the late 1970's. Option 2 takes longer to destroy you, but the exponential build-up of interest compounding is also quite lethal, just not as immediate as currency inflation.

The US has relied on borrowing (not currency-inflation) since the bad experience with inflation in the late 1970's, but it has never balanced the budget during good times to build up reserves for bad times (and THAT is the mistake). I quite agree that there is but little time left before this compound-interest disaster happens to the US. It has already happened to some (not all) in the EU.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2014-05-14 18:03:14)

RobertDyck · 2014-05-14 18:41:19

This relates to Ukraine. America used its influence to try to get Ukraine to join NATO and EU. The Ukraine president said no, even though most citizens in western Ukraine wanted that. The Ukraine president declared he would join Russia's new economic union, the Eurasian Economic Union. Then citizens held peaceful protests. Remember this is the country that held the Orange revolution. Their president refused to budge, and warned protestors he was "losing patience". Protestors pointed out he (the politician) is the hired employee of taxpayers/voters. Protestors refused to leave. So the president ordered snipers to open fire. This was on peaceful protestors. They weren't about to stand and be killed, they rushed parlaiment. The Ukraine president fled the country. Once he left the country, parliament ruled that he had abandoned his job, so appointed an interim president. The new parliament then tabled a bill to join NATO and outlaw the Russian language. Both were voted down the same day, but that caused panick! Putin couldn't let NATO control Russia's only warm water navy port. All other ports ice over in winter. So Putin panicked, he annexed Crimea. Again, this wouldn't have happened if America hadn't tried to get Ukraine to join NATO. But it didn't stop there. The bill to outlaw the Russian language died the same day it was proposed, but those who speak Russian did not forgive nor forget. So this started a major back-lash in eastern Ukraine. That was fuel by Putin's rhetoric. Putin only wanted to secure Russia's navy base, but the effects are continuing. Actually, Putin didn't just secure Russia's base. He also captured all Ukrainian military bases in Crimea, including all Ukrainian navy ships, fighter jets, helicopters, tanks, armoured personnel carriers, even all assault riffles and ammunition. Absolutely every military anything. It's all own by Russia now. One hell of a theft!

All because someone in America tried to use covert measures to convince Ukraine to join NATO. Oops!

Excelsior · 2014-05-14 22:45:16

RobertDyck wrote:

Excelsior wrote:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but military spending has nothing to do with US fiscal woes.
If the US ever goes bankrupt, it will be caused by the same thing that is bankrupting Europe... entitlements.
Investment in keeping people healthy, and investment in business, keeps the economy working. Military is nothing but a drain. A giant sink hole, sucking taxpayers dry.

It can, if its done correctly.

But what we have is a system that perverts the traditional market and technological forces that lower cost, and encourages providers to instead compete to use as much of the pot of gold the government creates with our payroll deduction. There is no country on earth with socialized medicine that does not arbitrarily deny care to patients simply because the system scrapes the bottom of that pot of gold before they get to the bottom of the patient list. Why the US would what to join that "elite" club of countries anymore than we already have, or not want to tear up our limited membership, is about as mysterious as why the ancient Israelites would want a king after their previous experience with absolute rulers. It will end the exact same way.

Likewise, we have social security system designed to function with far more contributors than benefactors, and yet that ratio is getting smaller and smaller every day. But since the baby boomers have been promised it since birth, their grandchildren have no choice but to bend over and grab their ankles, and then wonder why they don't have any disposable income to fuel the economy, even to the point of finding themselves out of work. Kinda puts a damper on that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing.

For fifty years, we've been warned of the military-industrial complex, but have paid no heed to the exact same brand of political patronage permeating every other corner of the government. There are things the government can do, and things that it can't. Each of the aforementioned issues, and every other issue the government deals with and that impact society at large (education, agriculture, transportation, ect), is fundamentally a logistical issue. How does one provide the physical necessities of someone beyond the practical age of working outside the home. How do you ensure people have access to medical care when they need it, the one thing they can't provide for themselves no matter how hard they try. You deal with logistical issues with infrastructure, real engineering, that benefits the entire population within a jurisdiction, you know, the general welfare, not and social engineering, other wise known as redistributing the wealth, that is great at getting votes and turning one segment of the population to turn against the other, but shreds ones natural right to property and usurps the eternal law of the harvest.

We would be better served by following the example of the military, the greatest logistical force on the face of the Earth, than anything else. Combined with the fact that recent history has proven the so called "peace dividend" to be a myth, both in the sense that the apparent capitulation of one global threat only invites to rise of others, and that the embarrassing collapse of a once mighty superpower is more likely to cause the rise of a leader hell bent on restoring said superpower than anything else, is it any wonder that the raising of an army and a navy is one of the few things our government does that is actually authorized by the Constitution.

But anyway, I've deviated enough from the tread topic, so I will point out that Putin isn't fooling me if he wants to use the excuse of fulfilling that warm water port fetish. He's been building up the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk for the last decade for this very contingency.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-15 01:46:59

RobertDyck wrote:

Balancing the budget requires several things:
- reduce total military spending, including national security, to what it was in year 2000 (the last year America had a balanced budet) plus inflation
- cancel all stimulus spending
- cancel all tax cuts introduced by George W. Bush (everything since year 2000). However, that must replace the tax increases of 2013.
Do all that first. Then see what's left. Will probably require further cuts to balance the budget, but first do these things.

Canceling the tax cuts would cut revenue over the long term by reducing growth in the economy, besides they already expired under Obama. You see by raising taxe you can only collect up to 100% of income and no more, plus you get no growth. A better way to raise revenue is to cut taxes and promote economic growth, in fact if you could grow the economy faster than the budget deficit, then that alone would eliminate the debt.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-15 01:50:00

RobertDyck wrote:

This relates to Ukraine. America used its influence to try to get Ukraine to join NATO and EU. The Ukraine president said no, even though most citizens in western Ukraine wanted that. The Ukraine president declared he would join Russia's new economic union, the Eurasian Economic Union. Then citizens held peaceful protests. Remember this is the country that held the Orange revolution. Their president refused to budge, and warned protestors he was "losing patience". Protestors pointed out he (the politician) is the hired employee of taxpayers/voters. Protestors refused to leave. So the president ordered snipers to open fire. This was on peaceful protestors. They weren't about to stand and be killed, they rushed parlaiment. The Ukraine president fled the country. Once he left the country, parliament ruled that he had abandoned his job, so appointed an interim president. The new parliament then tabled a bill to join NATO and outlaw the Russian language. Both were voted down the same day, but that caused panick! Putin couldn't let NATO control Russia's only warm water navy port. All other ports ice over in winter. So Putin panicked, he annexed Crimea. Again, this wouldn't have happened if America hadn't tried to get Ukraine to join NATO. But it didn't stop there. The bill to outlaw the Russian language died the same day it was proposed, but those who speak Russian did not forgive nor forget. So this started a major back-lash in eastern Ukraine. That was fuel by Putin's rhetoric. Putin only wanted to secure Russia's navy base, but the effects are continuing. Actually, Putin didn't just secure Russia's base. He also captured all Ukrainian military bases in Crimea, including all Ukrainian navy ships, fighter jets, helicopters, tanks, armoured personnel carriers, even all assault riffles and ammunition. Absolutely every military anything. It's all own by Russia now. One hell of a theft!
All because someone in America tried to use covert measures to convince Ukraine to join NATO. Oops!

How do you know? Also do you think all those protestors that overturned the government were CIA agents? If it didn't have political support among the population, do you think the CIA could have accomplished it? If the CIA could do that, it could also overthrow the government of Russia and make it look like a popular uprising. If the CIA had that capacity, it would waste the effort on Ukraine and it would go for Russia instead!

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-15 01:51:47

RobertDyck wrote:

Excelsior wrote:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but military spending has nothing to do with US fiscal woes.
If the US ever goes bankrupt, it will be caused by the same thing that is bankrupting Europe... entitlements.
Investment in keeping people healthy, and investment in business, keeps the economy working. Military is nothing but a drain. A giant sink hole, sucking taxpayers dry,

By the way, how did the United States get out of the Great Depression? Wasn't it military spending due to World War II? Everything else FDR tried didn't work!

martienne · 2014-05-15 05:05:18

It's amazing to read the lectures on a country none of you have visited.
I have spent many, many months of my life in Ukraine, both in Soviet times as a child, in the cowboy 90s and modern times. Additionally I speak Russian.

Yet many here totally disregard what I have to say and prefer propaganda; letting extremists like Tom Kalfbus who has is own personal version of WW2 history dominate the debate.

I have only visited the US once, very briefly, my knowledge of its history is limited and I recognise that most of what goes on within the borders of the US is none of my business. Although I speak the language I don't really share the culture, other than what I know from TV.
Therefore I refrain from making categorical statements, passing out judgments or imagining that my views are relevant!

I'd say the same applies to most people here in regards to Ukraine!
Get some perspective on yourselves.
Consider what a MASSIVE miscalculation the US state department made when it started meddling in Ukraine and ended up losing what they wanted most in Ukraine, the Crimea! Do you think you are smarter than them and their hordes of advisors? Consider how wrong you were about Syria, Libya, Iraq, all of which are worse off now, than before the US started meddling, and where the US view turned out to be wrong.
Now the same thing is true for Ukraine and everything the US imagined it knew turned out to be false.

Pride cometh before fall.

Terraformer · 2014-05-15 06:29:40

Actually, I tend to skip over Tom's Walls of Text.

I wonder if Russia will turn off the gas to Ukraine if Ukraine refuses to turn on the water to Crimea?

Also, what will the effects on food commodities price be from Ukraine's decision to cause a drought in Crimea? What might the effects be on gas prices in Europe, if tit-for-tat continues through the winter? Will it have a destablising influence on european governments, and if so, how will people respond - by flocking to the socialists, the fascists, or the eurosceptics who may be either, neither, or both?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#351 2014-05-13 08:30:37

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#352 2014-05-13 10:20:28

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#353 2014-05-13 13:53:44

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#354 2014-05-13 13:57:12

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#355 2014-05-13 21:23:04

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#356 2014-05-13 21:55:48

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#357 2014-05-14 05:04:39

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#358 2014-05-14 05:57:24

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#359 2014-05-14 07:00:59

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#360 2014-05-14 09:13:36

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#361 2014-05-14 09:54:56

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#362 2014-05-14 11:56:53

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#363 2014-05-14 13:18:04

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#364 2014-05-14 13:53:40

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#365 2014-05-14 13:55:31

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#366 2014-05-14 15:33:30

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#367 2014-05-14 15:46:35

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#368 2014-05-14 17:58:38

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#369 2014-05-14 18:41:19

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#370 2014-05-14 22:45:16

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#371 2014-05-15 01:46:59

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#372 2014-05-15 01:50:00

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#373 2014-05-15 01:51:47

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#374 2014-05-15 05:05:18

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#375 2014-05-15 06:29:40

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

Board footer