Patong2021

Absolute rubbish. Canada is a nation and is far more cohesive than you assert. There are far fewer ethnic ghettos in Canada than in the USA or Russia. There are most certainly common goals and aspirations and this has been demonstrated by the ability of Canada to maintain peace and good government during the Covid crisis. Provinces and territories were helping each other sharing resources and pooling funds for purchases, while some US states were busy outbidding other states for medical supplies and others went without because they had no money. The economy is not in free fall. And no Canada is not worst in terms of productivity per capita. because Canada is a resource driven economy, the productivity will be lower as more people are needed to do mining, lumber collection etc. than are needed for other types of activity. Canada's weakness is that it allowed too many foreigners to buy up its industries. If it was smart, it would start nationalizing key industries and send bloodsuckers home.

The USA was not being bombarded daily. The USA did not have 20%+ of its nation occupied. The USA only became actively involved in the war in late 1942. The US election in November 1944 took place when the Axis was on the verge of defeat. There was no existential threat to the USA as the Axis were incapable of doing damage to the continental USA by that time. Ukrainian legislation directly prohibits holding elections under martial law. Even if it did allow them, dozens of unsolvable practical and security issues would render it literally impossible to ensure a fair electoral process in the circumstances of a total war. - 700,000+ Ukrainians are deployed in the war zone. How would they vote? - 8 million+ or 20% of the population has left Ukraine to love elsewhere temporarily. How would they vote? - Would Ukrainians in occupied Ukraine be able to participate in the election? Please get some new talking points from MAGA/Kremlin.

Please note that Social Security as of 2020 has been paying out more than it has collected from deductions and other revenue . The difference is taken from the trust funds that are intended to support the program in the future. In effect, eating into the assets that were to support future payments. Prior to 2020, there were 11 years in which benefits paid out exceeded income and so the assets of the Trust Funds had to be spent to make up the difference. This cashing-in of the Trust Fund bonds amounted to about $26 billion in those 11 years. As long as the current payments are not being paid for by the initial investments and their income generated, and the deficiency is addressed by cashing trust funds paid by other contributors (through their payroll taxes and mandatory deductions) then it can be said that the taxpayers are supporting social security. This is because the money that is intended to support those contributors future payments is being directed to pay current obligations. Note too that the he Social Security trust funds are limited by law to investing their reserves in U.S. government debt. The debt is guaranteed by the US taxpayer. The US government and the population access are ready made pool of money at a competitive interest rate. Sweet deal for the USA. Not so sweet for many SS contributors who earn a lower rate of return through this investment requirement than had the money been invested in a conventional manner.

The majority of Canadians wanted a much tougher position on the small group of protestors who terrorized residential neighborhoods. They were a collection of uneducated, ignorant bigoted bullies who were handled with kid gloves. Angus Reid Institute survey, 69% of respondents said they opposed the protesters themselves – their approach and behavior – versus just 27% who said they were supportive of the protesters. In addition, 72% said the protesters have made their point and should “go home now,” while 22% said the protesters should “stay in Ottawa and other protest sites until their demands are met.” 44% said the protests had actually made them more supportive of these vaccination requirements, while 32% the protests had no real effect. In a Leger survey in collaboration with The Canadian Press news agency, 62% of respondents said they opposed the protests’ message of no vaccine mandates and fewer public health measures versus 32% who supported that message. Sixty-five percent of respondents agreed with the following statement: “The convoy is a small minority of Canadians who are selfishly thinking only about themselves and not the thousands of Canadians who are suffering through delayed surgeries and postponed treatments because of the ongoing pandemic.”

Not yet. He will resign once the governing party elects a new leader.

Trump is forcing Zelenskyy to remain in office. If Ukrainians are given a choice of endorsing Zelenshkyy or being bullied by Trump, they will hold their noses and support Zelenskyy. Ukraine can't hold an election because a large part of the country is occupied by Russia and/or at risk of being bombed should an election be held. Russia would also attempt to sabotage the election.

The "rich" as you call them have already paid their taxes. Overpayment of taxes should go pack to those who were overcharged. The poor citizens as you term them are already collecting far more than they contribute. I again remind you that the tax burden in "progressive" countries is carried by a relatively small number of citizens. If you wish to increase the amount of tax that certain people pay, then change the tax law and increase their tax rate. it is an issue separate and distinct from returning mney that taxpayers paid in good faith. In any case, all comments are moot. Trump intends to offset the revenues lost from proposed tax cuts by cutting government expenditures.

Russia would have committed to an all out war had that occurred.

To a certain extent it did. Russia consumed large amounts of German resources. It was a war of attrition.

After the near defeat of Israel in the Yom Kippur war, Israel said it would never be surprised again.

Because they have not contributed. The money should go to the people who paid that money. When you have a refund for overcharging, it is the person who paid who gets the refund, not willie the wino who will use the money to buy another bottle of ripple.

Sure. DIY Japanese Pizza Done on a Teppanyaki Hot Plate Okonomiyaki Dohtonbori Fuji Yoshida 4-11-16 Shinnishihara, Fujiyoshida 403-0017, Yamanashi In the event you wish to order pizza at a Teppanyaki restaurant. I doubt very much anyone would walk into a Thai restaurant, on the outskirts of Pattaya of all places and expect to find a kosher option.

Only some citizens would get the refund. Surely, no one expects that someone on welfare who has not paid taxes will receive a big payment??? 😄

I have not stated that anyone should not get what was agreed to. What we see today is that some beneficiaries are receiving far more than was intended under the program, and in excess of what their contributions and their accrued interest can support. The program has been expanded well beyond its intent. As of 2020, Social Security now pays out more in benefits than it collects in contributions and other income, combined. This is not sustainable. So, yes, your comment that some people are drawing more than they contributed is valid. Despite that current funding shortfall, it is an important benefits program and must continue. Social Security has dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly. Today, an estimated one-third of seniors rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their retirement income. Without access to the benefits, they would obviously be destitute. It is a critical component of the US economy. My comment is in respect to a small number of beneficiaries who collect more than their contribution was worth. Medicare coverage and Social Security benefits are two separate programs with their own individual rules and are funded differently. Medicare premiums already take into account the restrictive conditions. The burden of supporting social security has fallen on the shoulders of the young workers of the USA, and it is an unfair burden, The baby boomers had everything handed to them with their social services, subsidized lifestyles and low cost resources. In return, they left their country in a financial mess. Now these selfish people continue to suck the life out of their country demanding that others finance their retirements. Young people have had enough and want it to stop.

I am suggesting that people who are receiving benefits in excess of what their contributions are worth, should either not qualify for the excess benefits or should be taxed at a higher rate than if they were US residents. I am not suggesting that anyone be denied access to the benefits that they have paid for. It is theirs to do with as they wish. Nor am I suggesting that people who winter in Thailand for 2-3 or even 4 months be penalized. I suggest that you consider how such procedures are applied in other countries. Some countries restrict supplemental old age benefits for non resident retirees through the tax treatment of social benefits income. As I understand the complaints of Australian retirees, the old age pension is taxable income, Non Resident Australians lose their qualification for the tax free threshold and are therefore subject to tax on the full payment. Canada will not pay the supplemental Old Age Security guaranteed income to non residents. Some countries already freeze the benefits a person receives as soon as they become non residents. There are easy ways to manage the issue. The 180 day rule is used for other tax treatments. Why do you believe that the taxpayers should support non residents who are not contributing to the economic well being of their nation? My suggestion of limitation applies only to the amounts in excess of what the beneficiaries contributions are worth. To do otherwise is to exploit the US taxpayers. There are many affordable places in the USA. It's just that some people would rather be in an exotic locale playing golf or drinking beer in front of the 7-11 rather than Backwash, MS. The issue of affordability is moot. If the logic was followed through, these people could live on a pittance in the Congo or Bolivia, but the reality is that they choose to live in a delightful exotic locale like Thailand.