heybruce

Wrong. Australia and Chile are the top two exporters of lithium. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-top-lithium-producing-countries-in-the-world.html China exports 25% of the world's rare earth metals, but other countries are getting into the game. https://www.statista.com/statistics/702689/global-rare-earth-metal-export-share-by-country/ Solar panels and wind turbine components are manufactured around the world, I could not find a credible source stating which country manufactures the most. Can you? Now that I've corrected/answered your reply, will you answer my question? How is the Green New Deal killing the economy? How are electric vehicles playing into China/CCP's hands?

I'll bite: How is the Green New Deal killing the economy? How are electric vehicles playing into China/CCP's hands?

If you think a President who stands up to Putin is weak, you must have thought Trump a jellyfish.

Pandemic relief (which Republican politicians objected to when it passed but now happily take credit for the money sent to their states) booming economy and wage increases (which cause inflation), infrastructure bill (how many weeks were "infrastructure week" under the last administration?), etc. Democrats do need to get rid of many of the Trump tariffs, which are one of the causes of inflation. There used to be a free-trade party in the US, I wonder what happened to it.

Low unemployment and lack of workers means we need more of these border crossings. I'd prefer they be legal crossings, but rational laws are difficult to pass during election years.

I was thinking net assets, which you define as net worth. I didn't want to bog the post down with excessive details. If you want to maintain that determining net worth is too difficult, I have a simple solution. Again, I didn't include it for the sake of brevity.

We're discussing a society, not a shop. However if you insist on commercial analogies, think of society as a rental property. The taxes you pay are rent for being allowed to live and do business in a comfortable society. The more you use of societies resources for your own enrichment, the more rent you must pay. If you think the rent is too high you have the option of moving to another society with rent and amenities more to your liking. However, judging from the popularity of the US (people from unskilled laborers to billionaires have chosen the US as the society that provides best value for the rent) I don't think too many people will choose to leave.

There is a variation on your two methods that may be practical and would be much fairer--Have people pay taxes in proportion to their net worth. It's simple. Determine the total financial needs of the government and the total private net wealth/assets of the people in the country. Then make everyone pay in proportion to their net worth. Using the numbers of $7 trillion for the federal budget and $100 trillion for net assets (approximately correct), everyone would pay 7% of their net wealth in taxes. A person with $1 million in assets would pay $70,000, a person with $1 billion would pay $70 million, and a person with $100 billion would pay $7 billion. Poor people with no assets would pay nothing. Since assets require the use of government resources in some form or another (regulations and enforcement for financial assets, utilities for manufacturing, distribution means for retail services, etc.) and assets benefit from rule of law and defense spending in proportion to the magnitude of the assets, people will be paying their fair share. I'm sure you like this variation on your idea.

Using your second example, Elon Musk's space business should pay a proportionate share of the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money invested in the development of the aerospace industry. I agree. Elon Musk should pay much more in taxes, possibly more than he's worth.

Could Elon Mush have ever accomplished what he did without DARPA? My guess is not in a million years! How many coffee shops succeed without government provide utilities, roads, security, etc? None than I know of. The coffee shop owner deserves credit and profit for putting taxpayer funded resources to productive use, but also has an obligation to pay a fair share of taxes. Elon Musk has benefited in a hugely disproportionate manner from the human, physical, and technological infrastructure paid for by taxpayers. People who have benefited disproportionately from the taxpayer provided environment they operate in should pay disproportionately to maintain that environment; at the very least they should pay the same percentage as others. Would Elon Musk have done as well if he were born into a poor agrarian society? Probably not, he probably would have been another struggling subsistence farmer. Would Elon Musk have done as well without the developments of DARPA, the enormous sums of research and development in aerospace paid for by taxpayers, without the roads paid for by taxpayers for his cars (a huge subsidy for the car industry in general), without the educated workforce provided by taxpayer funded schools, etc? No, of course not. Elon Musk and others are fabulously rich because of the environment that taxpayers have provided for them to operate in. At the very least they should be paying the same percentage in taxes as others in society.

A deal may require allowing both Russia and Ukraine to sell their wheat and other foods, along with an international naval escort to ensure Ukraine's exports safely cross the Black Sea and reach the Mediterranean. That would be a bitter pill to swallow, but if the alternative is malnutrition and starvation around the globe, it needs to be done.

On the other hand.... Elon Musk made his fortune via the internet (the result of a taxpayer funded Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency project), electric cars built using computer and batter technology funded by taxpayers, and aerospace technology also funded by taxpayers. All of Elon Musk's wealth has come using technology funded by taxpayers, and he's only paying a small fraction of his wealth in taxes. Understandably, some people have a problem with that.

Note that the job description doesn't say anything about censoring Twitter posts, or even viewing them.

The source is Project Veritas. That says it all. "Project Veritas is an American far-right[16]activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010.[20] The group produces deceptively edited videos[15] of its undercover operations,[7] which use secret recordings[7] in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups.[21][22] Project Veritas also uses entrapment[14] to generate bad publicity for its targets,[4] and has propagated disinformation[3] and conspiracy theories[30] in its videos and operations. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas

She is free to choose what she does with her body. Her boyfriend is not free to choose what he does with her body. Lock him up.

Georgia 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War Moldova 1992 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria_War The Baltic states joined NATO in 2004 to because they feared Russia would someday try to occupy them. And, as noted, warnings about Russia's intention to invade Ukraine started months before the actual invasion. I don't know if there was any time in the history of Russia when surrounding states didn't fear an invasion. Remember, before the USSR it was the Russian Empire.

That is why mobile artillery is preferred by both sides. There is a good article on this in the Economist: https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/05/02/artillery-is-playing-a-vital-role-in-ukraine Some key points are: Ukraine has had the advantage in artillery counter-fire (using artillery to wipe out the enemies artillery) because it had better intelligence regarding Russian positions and because the Russians have left a great deal of its men and equipment bunched up on roads and river crossings. The new NATO artillery is more powerful, more mobile, easier to repair, and superior in other ways. As of May 2 the US had delivered 70 large howitzers and trained 200 Ukraine soldiers on their use. As more guns are delivered and fielded, more soldiers trained and gain experience, and if the supply of shells and other support is maintained (logistics is essential) it will make a big difference.

That would make the missile launch sites in Russia legitimate military targets, and Ukraine will have the weapons that can reach them.

Russia can't survive the military losses and economic sanctions for years. If the war continues past this year it will probably be a a much lower level, akin to the fighting in east Ukraine before Russia's invasion.

On December 7, 1941 Americans learned that wars that are happening on the other side of the world can definitely affect the US. That is truer now than then. As to the rest, I'll simply cut and paste my reply to the question "Why should US government give more than other countries." on another thread. Because that's what a world leader does. Because the US has the largest military budget, stockpile of weapons, and capacity to produce more weapons. Because NATO allies and other countries are ramping up military budgets but won't be in a position to provide significant military aid for some time. Because European countries are contributing by taking in millions of Ukrainian refugees. Because Europe is diversifying its energy sources at great cost which will do the most to hamstring Russia in the long term. Finally, because some leaders know history well enough to know that it was lack of push back when Nazi Germany annexed Austria, occupied the Sudetenland and invaded Czechoslavakia that led Hitler to believe Europe was weak and would let him get away with anything. These leaders don't want to let that ugly bit of history to repeat itself. Arming Ukraine makes sense if you give a damn.

"Why should US government give more than other countries." Because that's what a world leader does. Because the US has the largest military budget, stockpile of weapons, and capacity to produce more weapons. Because NATO allies and other countries are ramping up military budgets but won't be in a position to provide significant military aid for some time. Because European countries are contributing by taking in millions of Ukrainian refugees. Because Europe is diversifying its energy sources at great cost which will do the most to hamstring Russia in the long term. Finally, because some leaders know history well enough to know that it was lack of push back when Nazi Germany annexed Austria, occupied the Sudetenland and invaded Czechoslavakia that led Hitler to believe Europe was weak and would let him get away with anything. These leaders don't want to let that ugly bit of history to repeat itself. Arming Ukraine makes sense if you give a damn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

If that is a concern of Russian soldiers they should be hiding from all civilians.

The reports I've read state that Russia attempted a quick seizure of Kyiv and failed. Russia then attempted to encircle Kyiv and failed. Then Russia decided to focus on capturing as much of the east and south of Ukraine as possible but is making slow to non-existent progress. How are these reports in error? What sources of information do you recommend? Oh, and let's not forget that Putin's strategic goal of rolling back NATO expansion has failed spectacularly.

Extract the defenders (possibly losing more people in the high risk extraction than are saved) and surrender Mariupol to Russia, allowing it to use the Russian forces currently tied up in the city to fight elsewhere. I assume this option has already been considered and rejected.