Jump to content

'America is back,' Biden says, as he dumps Trump's foreign policy approach


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, yellowboat said:

Why weren't the Russians stopped?  It was illegal.  

 

Yes all the people.   Trump got 7 million more votes this election than the last election, many coming from minorities.     Biden may get a pass from the media, but others will be watching him very closely when it comes to current US wars,  Hong Kong/Taiwan/China and the economy. 

 

I was referring to the Mueller report.   This is still a bitter memory. 

The Mueller investigation was into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible connections to the Trump campaign.  If found both.

 

Regarding who got the most votes in the elections, you should stick with the policy of the rest of Trump's base of insisting that is irrelevant.  Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin in 2016 and a bigger margin in 2020.

Edited by heybruce
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, heybruce said:

You want Israel to wipe out Chinese made islands on the other side of Asia?  You are seriously detached from reality.

That way the US stays out of it and the extra bonus is it would be a sneak attack since nobody would be expecting it.  I am sure Israel has the weapons and the skills to do it.  That is the beauty of the whole idea.

  • Haha 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Those figures include ownership of all stocks including mutual funds, pension funds, and 401K's.

And you still haven't come up with any proof to back up your assertion that the deficit would have been worse if corporations didn't get their taxes reduced. 

Nor did you address any of the problems associated with stock buybacks.

Care to try once?

 

 

From Gallup which is a lot more reputable source than your dodgy source:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With the stock market experiencing record volatility since the nationwide outbreak of COVID-19 in the U.S., it is fair to ask what percentage of Americans are personally exposed to the market's financial risks and windfalls.

Thus far in 2020, Gallup finds 55% of Americans reporting that they own stock, based on polls conducted in March and April. This is identical to the average 55% recorded in 2019 and similar to the average of 54% Gallup has measured since 2010.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Showtime said:

 

 

From Gallup which is a lot more reputable source than your dodgy source:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With the stock market experiencing record volatility since the nationwide outbreak of COVID-19 in the U.S., it is fair to ask what percentage of Americans are personally exposed to the market's financial risks and windfalls.

Thus far in 2020, Gallup finds 55% of Americans reporting that they own stock, based on polls conducted in March and April. This is identical to the average 55% recorded in 2019 and similar to the average of 54% Gallup has measured since 2010.

That says nothing about the total percentage owned by the lower 90%. Absolutely nothing. This is your idea of a rebuttal. It is to laugh.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Showtime said:

That way the US stays out of it and the extra bonus is it would be a sneak attack since nobody would be expecting it.  I am sure Israel has the weapons and the skills to do it.  That is the beauty of the whole idea.

Do you think Israel has long-range bombers?  The ability to refuel over central Asia or the Indian Ocean?  Or do you want Israel to build or buy an aircraft carrier and the support fleet that accompanies it and sail over to east Asia?

 

Even if Israel had the capability to launch a major assault over that distance (they don't) and were crazy enough to start a war with China (they aren't) there is no way anyone would believe that the US wasn't complicit.

Edited by heybruce
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

That says nothing about the total percentage owned by the lower 90%. Absolutely nothing. This is your idea of a rebuttal. It is to laugh.


By that statement, somehow none of the 55% of Americans are in the lower 90%. 

 

If we assume all of the top 10% own stocks doesn't that mean half of the lower 90% own stock.  

 

Here is some Pew Research data for our genius.

 

FT_20.03.23_StocksImportance.png?w=482

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Showtime said:


By that statement, somehow none of the 55% of Americans are in the lower 90%. 

 

If we assume all of the top 10% own stocks doesn't that mean half of the lower 90% own stock.  

 

Here is some Pew Research data for our genius.

 

FT_20.03.23_StocksImportance.png?w=482

How exactly does claim that 84% of stock is owned by the top 10% signify that the bottom 90% own nothing? There's still 16% left.

  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First off, including tiny countries and and underdeveloped and poor countries is ridiculous.

Do you see lots of corporations moving to Vanatau?

And these are nominal tax rates. Not actual effective tax rates.

US corporations use all sorts of tricks to escape taxation.

What was Amazon's effective tax rate?

"In 2018, Amazon posted income of more than $11 billion, but the company paid $0 in federal taxes. In fact, thanks to tax credits and deductions, Amazon actually received a federal tax refund of $129 million. That was a year after Amazon received a $137 million refund from the federal government for 2017"

Big Tech Companies Used Legal Loopholes to Avoid Over $100 Billion in Taxes. How Does That Affect the Industry's Future? | Fortune

 

A New Report Claims Big Tech Companies Used Legal Loopholes to Avoid Over $100 Billion in Taxes. What Does That Mean for the Industry’s Future?

 

Try looking at the European average.

 

Following the tax code is not a trick.  If you don't like how the tax code is written then change it.  Anyway, this debate was over the tax rate, not the effective tax rate or deductions corporations take.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Showtime said:

 

Try looking at the European average.

 

Following the tax code is not a trick.  If you don't like how the tax code is written then change it.  Anyway, this debate was over the tax rate, not the effective tax rate or deductions corporations take.

Try looking at US GDP per capita vs. European GDP per capita

And as for your ridiculous comment about the debate being over "the tax rate, not the effective tax rate or deductions corporations take." Really? What have you got against reality?

Posted
2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Try looking at US GDP per capita vs. European GDP per capita

And as for your ridiculous comment about the debate being over "the tax rate, not the effective tax rate or deductions corporations take." Really? What have you got against reality?

My original comment was Trump lowered the tax rates for corporations and I supported that, but if you want to talk effective tax rates then we can as soon as you post some data about effective tax rates across multiple countries.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Showtime said:

Where exactly did the 84% come from?  What is being smoked in someone's house at the moment?  I think there is a reading comprehension problem there too.

According to Goldman Sachs, it's even worse: the top 10% own 88% of stocks

"As of September 2019, the bottom 90 per cent owned US$4.6 trillion of equities, or 12 per cent of the total, the analysts noted."

 

And what about the top 1%?

"Three decades ago, ownership was also lopsided, but the top percentage point of Americans by wealth only controlled 46 per cent of all U.S. equities held by households. By the end of September 2019, that proportion had hit a record 56 per cent"

 

https://financialpost.com/investing/how-americas-1-came-to-dominate-stock-ownership

  • Thanks 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Showtime said:

My original comment was Trump lowered the tax rates for corporations and I supported that, but if you want to talk effective tax rates then we can as soon as you post some data about effective tax rates across multiple countries.

I'll look for it. But I notice that you still have not supplied any data to support your contention that lowered tax rates on corporations somehow actually increased tax revenues.

Also, even if it turns out that US effective tax rates are higher, that means little if US GDP growth is greater than in comparable economically developed nations. Which i believe it mostly has been predating Trump's tax cuts.

Posted
2 hours ago, candide said:

According to Goldman Sachs, it's even worse: the top 10% own 88% of stocks

"As of September 2019, the bottom 90 per cent owned US$4.6 trillion of equities, or 12 per cent of the total, the analysts noted."

 

And what about the top 1%?

"Three decades ago, ownership was also lopsided, but the top percentage point of Americans by wealth only controlled 46 per cent of all U.S. equities held by households. By the end of September 2019, that proportion had hit a record 56 per cent"

 

https://financialpost.com/investing/how-americas-1-came-to-dominate-stock-ownership

 

That is a pretty obvious conclusion.  The wealthy by definition have more money to invest.  It is no different than how much of the wealth in the US is held by the wealthy.  No surprise.  Still people from all income levels benefitted from the corporate tax cut.

Posted
17 hours ago, Isaan sailor said:

Can’t wait for the Green New Deal.  Will we have solar powered airliners?

They are being worked now but are still in the experimental stage.

 

Perhaps in the 2030s depending on how much effort and money is applied.

  • Like 2
Posted
On 11/25/2020 at 9:48 AM, GinBoy2 said:

 

China is a real threat to all democracies, and if I were Biden that would be my #1 foreign policy issue , rather than the buckshot approach of the Trump administration.

 

If this pandemic had taught me anything is that Western-style democracy is the stupidest system ever.

Over here in Malaysia, back in February, our Covid-19 numbers were very low. The first wave was nothing. And then some federal government MPs decided to jump to another party and that party pulled out of the ruling coalition, and so the ruling government fell. During that political crisis, politicians got distracted. A huge religious gathering in the capital was nonchalantly approved which caused a massive spike in the number of cases. The new prime minister took some time to form a new cabinet but later took drastic measures to lock down and numbers went down to very few local cases.

In July, when we thought everything was under control, opposition politicians in the state of Sabah managed to pull some of the ruling government's assemblymen to their side. Not willing to lose his post, the chief minister got the assembly dissolved and a new state election was called. During election campaigning and on voting day, social distancing rules were largely ignored. And so a huge spike in the number of cases in Sabah happened. Because of the huge rise in infected cases, the sensible thing should be to avoid travelling to Sabah and to impose a quarantine after returning. But because many politicians from the Peninsula wanted to help out in the campaigning in Sabah, they didn't want to be quarantined upon returning to Kuala Lumpur, so no quarantine rule was imposed. And now we have 4-digit infections every day nationwide.

What's the point of voting every few years if elected representatives could anytime jump to another party, or a party to another coalition? China may be a threat to democratic countries not because it is seeking to change the political system of other countries but because this pandemic had shown that the political systems of most countries in the world were really lousy.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...