placeholder

But the extremely wealthy were scheduled to get a bigger percentage cut in their taxes until Truss relented. And the government plans to cut back the dividend tax which was recently raised to pay for health and social services. And cuts in dividend taxes will disproportionately favor the wealthy since a far higher percentage of their earnings comes from stock holdings.

Please share with us the statistics on "layabout scroungers" as a percentage of welfare recipients. I look forward to a very long wait.

It should be laughed out of court. But then, Clarence Thomas should be laughed out of court, too. So who knows? Ultimately, if all the justices get to decide on it, it shouldn't have even the slightest chance of succeeding.

Now be fair. That transfer to the wealthy may not be entirely funded by borrowed money: Truss Hints at UK Benefits Cuts, Courting New Tory Rebellion https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-04/truss-yet-to-decide-on-uk-benefits-as-fresh-row-looms-with-mps#xj4y7vzkg

Personal, uncomfirmable experience. Always so convincing.

You asked Chomper Higgot a question and then answered the question yourself. This was very generous of you. Or very desperate.

These latest revelations should mean that Trump is toast. And not just any toast but the burned-to-a-crisp kind. SURPRISE: TRUMP, A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, REPORTEDLY ASKED HIS LAWYER TO LIE TO THE GOVERNMENT ABOUT HIS CLASSIFIED-DOCUMENTS CACHE "The Washington Post reports that in early 2022, the ex-president asked Alex Cannon, an attorney who’d work for both the Trump Organization and the Trump campaign, to tell the National Archives and Records Administration that all materials requested by the agency had been turned over, despite the fact that he was still in possession of thousands more government documents. According to the Post, Cannon, who had “facilitated the January transfer of 15 boxes of presidential records from Mar-a-Lago to the National Archives, after archives officials agitated for more than a year to get ‘all original presidential records,’” did not feel comfortable making such a claim. He reportedly told people he didn’t know if all the requested material had been returned, and “other Trump advisers also encouraged Cannon not to make such a definitive statement,” according to people familiar with the matter." https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/10/donald-trump-alex-cannon-classified-documents "Complicating matters, the Post’s report added that when it came time to return some materials to the Archives, Trump personally “packed the boxes that were returned in January.” The more the evidence shows the former president had a direct and hands-on role, the less Trump can plausibly blame others in the scandal." https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/mar-lago-case-trump-reportedly-told-lawyer-mislead-archives-rcna50714

I've read that there is speculation the Musk changed his plans because he's getting funding from a foreign source. If so, probably from some country that doesn't wish the USA well.

And given that there's no way of independently confirming your claim, there's no compelling reason to believe it. But given that it was so unpopular that the decidsion got reversed, it seems highly unlikely that a significant number of people from the left would be ok with it. So even if your report is based on fact, it would still be insignificant.

Are you blaming the "poms and yanks" in the forum for the decrease in value of the Australian dollar? You think that the nationality of members making comments is somehow relevant?

Here's how to do sarcasm properly: "I admire your restraint."

There is no compelling reason to believe it. It may be invented, it may not be. It's worthless.

Ya think Russia is getting the lollipop end?

A case in point for my comments immediately preceding these of JohnnyF.

I can think of 2 classes of persons who could make such a statement.

if the subject is, say, how to tile a bathroom floor, then invoking personal experience makes sense. But when it comes to large issues like politics and econoics, making it personal is worse than useless.. Not only are their claims uncomfirmable, but what's the point? What evidentiary value does it have?

Believe it or not, videos aren't the only way to absorb information. In fact, they're not even a good way. Much more difficult to critically examine arguments presented via videos (or podcsts). I don't understand your predilection for them. Here's some written stuff from Jeffrey Sachs with links to the articles. Ukraine Is the Latest Neocon Disaster https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/m6rb2a5tskpcxzesjk8hhzf96zh7w7 Ending the War of Attrition in Ukraine https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/only-negotiation-can-end-ukraine-war-of-attrition-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2022-05?barrier=accesspaylog

Here's a good, brief exposition of what Eurasianism is all about. In the article this is taken from, the author discusses how Putin cited one of its chief proponents, Lev Gumilev, in a major speech some time before Russia invaded Crimea. This kind of bizarre dogma now permeates Putin's thinking. The ideas of the Soviet historian are influencing a new generation of hardliners " In his later years, Gumilev celebrated Eurasianism, a theory developed in the 1920s by Russian exiles. Nostalgia for their homeland and the trauma of the Bolshevik revolution had led them to reject the idea that Russia could ever be western and bourgeois...The Enlightenment, in the form of advanced European social theories, had brought Russia to genocide and ruin, while there was a harmony in the wildness of the Huns, the Turks, the Mongols. https://www.ft.com/content/ede1e5c6-e0c5-11e5-8d9b-e88a2a889797 It's pretty crazy stuff.

You're right, of course. The Tory leaderships claims tax cuts are a panacea. Whatever the economic challenge is, tax cuts will solve the problem. But, at bottom, it's all about giving the wealthy a bigger share of the pie.

Odd. The comment I was replying to should be considered equally off-topic yet mine is the one you critique. Partisan much?

Except, of course, that there's a time tested observation in economics that has resulted in something called Marginal Propensity to Spend. And the gist of it is, the less money you have, if you get some extra, the more likely you are to spend it and the less likely to save it.

Really? NHS service cuts affect everyone equally? The wealthy won't go elsewhere? The thing is the distinction between budget cuts and tax cuts is artificial. For example, if the government had chosen not to cut income taxes or the stamp duty, would it be necessary to curtail services at the NHS at all? Mightn't, in fact, service levels actually be restored to their former level? As for austerity cuts, they also lead to this: Austerity cuts to social care and health caused 57,000 deaths, research suggests The government has refused to apologise for the “appallingly unnecessary” impact of austerity spending cuts, after researchers linked post-2010 reductions in spending on social care and health to more than 57,000 deaths in just four years. The findings of the government-funded research suggest that cuts to social care, health and public health caused 57,550 more deaths in England than would have been expected if spending had continued on pre-2010 trends. The research shows the number of deaths due to austerity was even higher than suggested by previous research, which had linked about 45,000 deaths to health and social care funding cuts between 2010 and 2014. https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/austerity-cuts-to-social-care-and-health-caused-57000-deaths-research-suggests/

Silly argument. For instance, before Truss did her U-turn on income tax rates the percentage was on a percentage basis in favor of the rich. And, of course, it doesn't have to be the case that the percentage favors the wealthy. She could have proposed a five percent tax cut on lower earners and just a 1 percent tax cut for the wealthiest. So it doesn't logically follow that tax cuts will necessarily favor the wealthy.

Here's an encouraging take on recent events. Well, encouraging to some of us. Russian forces poised for ‘major defeat’ in Kherson, says DoD official The Pentagon’s international affairs chief said Monday that Russia’s new losses in the strategic southern Kherson region are about to spiral into a “major defeat” that would give Ukraine a defensive position amid “hot fighting” expected this winter. After news that Ukrainian forces broke through Moscow’s defenses in Kherson, which Moscow saw as the gateway to Odessa, Assistant Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs Celeste Wallander said the Ukrainians were on the verge of pushing back the main Russian bridgehead across the Dnipro River. “That would be a major defeat for Russia because it pushes back even more Russia’s ambition to take Odessa, which was one of the stated objectives earlier this year,” Wallander said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event. https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2022/10/03/russian-forces-poised-for-major-defeat-in-kherson-says-dod-official/

I can only go by what you write, not by what you claim to have meant.