Alan Zweibel

God knows what you're talking about when it comes to land distribution. Marx also wrote this: "Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money[...] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question I guess Marx wasn't a Marxist either. Or maybe you are referring to Groucho Marx? After all, your comment is laughable.

Even Rasmussen has Trump down. https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating

I want anyone looking at the conversation RayC and I are having to note that so far I have not accused RayC of being a marxist or a socialist or a minion of George Soros. Nor has Ray accused me of being a supporter of Donald Trump or an acolyte of Elon Musk or a minion of George Soros. It hasn't been easy for me to resist the urge, but I will continue to battle against it. Trump in 2028!!!...oops!

"Chinese interest rates are low due to low domestic growth and almost non-existent inflation. Raising interest rates would further depress domestic demand and increase savings." While that may currently be the case, even before the real estate collapse, China was practicing what is called "financial repression" From Gemini AI: "Yes, China’s pre-2021 economic model is often cited as a textbook example of financial repression. This wasn't just a side effect of policy; it was a deliberate strategy used for decades to fuel China’s rapid industrialization and infrastructure boom. By controlling interest rates and the flow of capital, the state essentially extracted wealth from household savers to provide cheap credit to state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local governments." "I largely agree but any suppression of domestic demand for consumer goods because of a need for Chinese citizens to prioritise health spending/ retirement savings would be a by-product. I doubt that it was a policy decision by the Chinese government to reduce domestic demand for consumer goods in this way." Whether it was their intent or not, that was the result. And when it comes to these policies, the "Chinese government is effectively Xi. Xi has repeatedly demonstrated that he has a defective understanding of the economy and finance. As for the how controlling the Yuan hurts Chinese consumers, once again I'm going to cede the floor to Dr. Gemini. How does China's control of the exchange rate for the yuan hurt chinese citizens China’s control of the yuan (renminbi) exchange rate is a central pillar of its economic strategy, but it acts as a massive "hidden tax" on its own citizens. While a managed exchange rate helps keep Chinese exports cheap for the rest of the world, it comes at a direct cost to the wealth and living standards of Chinese households. Here is how that control hurts the average citizen: 1. Drastic Loss of Global Purchasing Power By deliberately keeping the yuan undervalued (or preventing it from appreciating as much as market forces would dictate), the government makes every Chinese citizen "poorer" in global terms. Expensive Imports: A weaker yuan makes everything from iPhones and German cars to Brazilian soybeans and Australian iron ore more expensive for Chinese consumers. Travel and Education: For the millions of Chinese families sending children to universities in the US, UK, or Australia, or for those traveling abroad, the exchange rate control acts as a direct surcharge on their costs. 2. The "Forced Saving" Subsidy To keep the yuan from rising, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) must constantly buy up foreign currency (mostly USD) that flows into the country from exports. To pay for these dollars, the PBOC prints more yuan. The Inflation Risk: Printing all that yuan could cause massive inflation. To prevent this, the government uses "sterilization"—they force domestic banks to hold more reserves and keep interest rates on deposits artificially low. Wealth Transfer: This effectively transfers wealth from households (who earn almost 0% on their savings) to state-owned exporters (who benefit from the cheap currency) and the government (which gets cheap loans from the banks). 3. Entrapment in Domestic Asset Bubbles Because of Capital Controls (the "walls" that keep the exchange rate stable), Chinese citizens are largely forbidden from investing their money outside of China. Lack of Choice: If you cannot easily buy US stocks or Japanese real estate, you are forced to invest in the few options available in China: the volatile domestic stock market or real estate. The Crash Connection: This "captive capital" is exactly what pumped up the massive real estate bubble. Citizens weren't buying multiple apartments because they loved property; they were buying them because the government’s exchange and capital controls left them with no other way to protect their savings from inflation. 4. The "Renminbi Trap" in 2026 As of early 2026, this policy has created a new kind of pain. With the Chinese economy facing deflationary pressure, a weaker yuan should help exports, but the government is hesitant to let it drop too far because it might trigger "capital flight"—where everyone tries to move their money out at once to avoid losing more value. Citizens are stuck: They are watching the value of their homes drop while their bank deposits pay almost nothing, and they are legally restricted from moving their money into stronger global currencies that might preserve their wealth.

Key Gulf Allies Say They Won’t Aid U.S. in an Iran Strike, Limiting Trump’s Options Saudi Arabia on Tuesday ruled out the use of its airspace and territory for a potential U.S. attack on Iran, complicating the Trump administration’s options in response to Tehran’s violent crackdown against Iranian protesters. The Saudi move follows a similar statement Monday by the United Arab Emirates’ foreign ministry. The statements from the two Gulf states represent a foreign policy setback for the Trump administration as it seeks to ratchet up pressure on Tehran, which has defied Washington’s demand that it end uranium enrichment and end the suppression of protesters. https://archive.ph/HGFYJ

Because what we're offering here are hypothetical solutions. By your logic I could just as well say why should I support spending cuts if Congress won't pass tax increases?

As I noted before, If Congress's inability to address the situation keeps you from proposing tax increases as part of the solution, why doesn't it keep you from proposing spending cuts as part of the solution? Are you laboring under the belief that you are the president, and the position you're taking here is just a negotiating tactic?

And what does any of this got to do with the fact that you refuse to endorse tax increases as part of the solution? Deflecting much?

Your argument makes no sense at all. Since this is all hypothetical why wouldn't you propose tax cuts along with whatever structural changes you support? So now you're blaming Congress for your refusal to offer tax cuts as part of the solution? And once again you offer a mind reading act. Sad.

And yet you refuse to say whether you support reversal of tax cuts. And it's just plain sad when someone both appoints themselves to be the referee and engages in a mind reading act. You've got less than nothing.

That doesn't explain why you apparently believe it needs to be cut to zero.

Answering a question with a question?.You got nothing.

You got an actual link for that factoid?

From the way you consistently lievel accusations of being communists at those you disagree with, it seems that you grew up in the McCarthy era.

Why do you believe that deficits need to be cut to zero?

In other words, if undoing past tax cuts isn't the entire solution, then it can't be part of the solution? Given that you didn't mention them at all, that does seem to be the position you're taking.

The US president last week stepped away from his drive to seize Greenland, pledging he would not take it by force or impose tariffs on nations opposing him. Faced with a fierce backlash, he also appeared to walk back his swipe at non-US Nato troops. But for radical-right populists – who lead or support governments in a third of the EU’s member states, are vying for power in others, and who saw in Trump a powerful ally for their nation-first, anti-immigration, EU-critical cause – he is increasingly a liability. The divide could jeopardise the goals of his administration’s national security strategy, which set a US policy objective of “cultivating resistance” to Europe’s “current trajectory” by working with “patriotic allies” to avert “civilisational erasure”. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/27/trump-greenland-europe-far-right-analysis

How about undoing Trump's tax cuts. They're not exactly popular. But raising taxes on the rich is very popular.

Thanks for the irony.

I'll believe you're not lying when you produce links to reliable sources that support your claims

And one other huge factor I forgot to mention is that China does not allow the yuan to float freely. It keeps the rate artificially low in order to subsidize exports.

Actually China does depress domestic consumption. Here are the two here are two of the way that it does it. For one thing it keeps Bank interest rates very low for depositors. So this allows Banks to make low interest loans to industry . Second, and here's something right wingers should applaud, it provides a very threadbare social safety net. Which means Chinese citizens have to save much more intensively because they know there won't be adequate government support for their retirement. Or for that matter, medical care, should they need it. So that undermines a consumer propensity to spend. The government's economic mismanagement that led to the housing boom and it's subsequent indifference to the financial phase of those who bought said housing is another way that it has undermined consumers' ability to spend. It was an excellent column by a Chinese economist in the New York Times but about the Chinese government and she in particular, has sacrificed the economic welfare of its citizens, in order to pursue an aggressive and militarized foreign policy. But I'm on a cell phone now and don't want to deal with cutting and pasting.

"I have yet to see one demonstration calling for the USA to stop giving military aid to Israel" I don't know what your viewing habits are, but this claim of yours is just bizarre.

Do you want to try again?

I don't know how you came up with the bizarre notion that I support US funding one faction or another in Sudan. I do notice that your history of US humanitarian aid to Sudan stops short of the 2nd Trump administration's slashing of that aid soon after Trump assumed office. Nor did you acknowledge the Trump administration's and the Trump family business' embrace of the UAE government. It's as though you are trying to give the Trump administration credit for a policy it has never supported.