Is it possible that instead of comparing today's tax burden with that of the next ten years when the individual income tax cuts will be in effect, this graph is actually comparing the difference between 2026 and 2027 when those tax cuts will expire (under the assumption that no follow-up plan will be passed by future Congress)?
If so, that's pretty meaningless (and dishonest).
I didn't find a fact check of this particular graph with a quick Google search, but the WaPo Fact Checker has this:
On the flipside of course there are potential commercial advantages to those countries/ companies which successfully implement 'green' energy & tech and can then export those methods elsewhere.
Your key word here is "successfully." It can be a lot of pain and costs for citizens as the Region attempts to figure out a successful way to replace an already cheap and abundant energy source. Just ask anyone in Ontario how their Hydro rate is after 15 years of this crap. And that is a region who already used green energy in hydroelectric dams.
And unlike traditional energy sources, you can't import excess sunshine or wind or water current to a place that lacks it. The green technology designed in the Nevada desert wouldnt work in Florida and vis versa.
Is it possible that instead of comparing today's tax burden with that of the next ten years when the individual income tax cuts will be in effect, this graph is actually comparing the difference between 2026 and 2027 when those tax cuts will expire (under the assumption that no follow-up plan will be passed by future Congress)?
If so, that's pretty meaningless (and dishonest).
I didn't find a fact check of this particular graph with a quick Google search, but the WaPo Fact Checker has this:
It's not remotely dishonest. The GOP bill is purposefully phasing out individual cuts over the next decade, while permanently cutting corporare rates and those for the very wealthy. It's being done over time since by the time it's all in effect, no one will remember who to blame. They can't sit around claiming their plan is a massive, all-encompassing overhaul (which they are) and then just decide you aren't going to take responsibility for parts that expire. They are LETTING them expire. Republicans are choosing to phase out lower and middle-class tax cuts. Since they are in TOTAL control of the federal government, of course it's on them if it happens. There isn't single tangible difference between letting a cut expire or writing a law specifically eliminating it when you have control of the legislative and executive branches.
On the flipside of course there are potential commercial advantages to those countries/ companies which successfully implement 'green' energy & tech and can then export those methods elsewhere.
Your key word here is "successfully." It can be a lot of pain and costs for citizens as the Region attempts to figure out a successful way to replace an already cheap and abundant energy source. Just ask anyone in Ontario how their Hydro rate is after 15 years of this crap. And that is a region who already used green energy in hydroelectric dams.
And unlike traditional energy sources, you can't import excess sunshine or wind or water current to a place that lacks it. The green technology designed in the Nevada desert wouldnt work in Florida and vis versa.
I don't want to speak for @Mantis37, but I think he/she means places that develop the IP and manufacture the products. China's doing very well manufacturing solar panels, for example, and controls most of the world's market. This was a missed opportunity for the US, since it was developing the technologies long before anyone else.
He does indeed @CamDawg. On the topic of solar panels I seem to remember recently hearing that US solar companies were requesting some sort of tariff against imported solar products in order that they could have a chance to get their businesses going - as farmers are protected for example. This split green groups a little, and also raises the question of how important a sector renewable energy will be in the future, as part of countries' energy security strategies.
Here's an article I just googled that notes how problems like these can intersect with issues like North Korea:
I've heard the individual tax cuts expire after 10 years because that's the only way Republicans can pass this tax cut for the rich along party lines using Reconciliation which only requires a simple majority.
So they are kicking the can down the road and possibly hope that they will be able to pass an extension of the individual tax cuts later. Or they can let them expire and have the middle class pay for the deficit explosion caused by the tax cuts for the rich and corporations.
Either way, these tax cuts will explode the deficit and give tax cuts to people who don't need it. Something like 80% of the benefits are going to the top 1% and while regular people are losing state and local tax deduction they are adding a private jet deduction. Even fox News had a graphic that showed that the average family might get a $600 tax cut while the top 1% would be handed over $100,000 each. That does not even count Families like the Trumps and Kochs that will be saving billions on the estate tax repeal.
Gary Cohen one of Trumps tax pseudo scientists was giving a speech to ceos and asked ok who is going to to create more jobs with the tax savings? Nobody raised their hands. The money will go to stock options and executive compensation.
The system which already disproportionately gives money to the ultra wealthy over the average worker will become even more imbalanced. And the deficit will explode so to balance that republicans will look to cut services to the middle class.
These tax cuts will trigger automatic cuts to Medicare. What's next? They won't be increasing their wealthy donors taxes or cutting the military industrial complex. You will be paying for these tax cuts to the rich. Basically if you make less than $400k a year you will be taxed more.
@Grond0 I personally tactics as leverage, so those using asymetrical engagements can create conditions in which they are more powerful. I don't think that disproves my point, since to be successful the 'weaker' will really be the 'stronger' in that discrete engagement. Regarding South Africa, the whites were very much out numbered, and things changed in large part because maintaining apartheid was becoming impossible. I actually think South Africa could be a useful guide too for Israel, but Germany might be even better, as it was more successful at reintegrating economically.
I think you are probably right that there is an element of the Paledtinian resistance that welcomes casualties to create bad press. Its a dirty strategy, and its not 'legal', but neither is simply killing those shields.
Now, regarding renewable energy, the leading developer of it was China last I checked. The West imho is too invested in the old model, and thus resists green energy. Afaik the oil companies in the US have spent significant amounts of money to sabotage alternatives, I have no clue why people think the next energy revolution will have anything to do with the West.
@deltago you can totally export renewable energy in the form of electricity. Canada sells hydro to the US last I checked. You do need a reliable grid, but oil/natural gas certainly requires infrastructure too. This might be a major contributor to wealth for the larger gulf states after oil becomes scarce (we might stop using oil for energy, but its also really useful for chemistry!), as they have tons of sunshine, wind and even wide daily temperature differences, all potential sources of renewable energy. Saudi Arabia is interested in this.
deltago you can totally export renewable energy in the form of electricity. Canada sells hydro to the US last I checked. You do need a reliable grid, but oil/natural gas certainly requires infrastructure too. This might be a major contributor to wealth for the larger gulf states after oil becomes scarce (we might stop using oil for energy, but its also really useful for chemistry!), as they have tons of sunshine, wind and even wide daily temperature differences, all potential sources of renewable energy. Saudi Arabia is interested in this.
What I mean is that you can't load sunshine on a boat and ship it to Asia like you can traditional energy products like coal and oil. I guess you could charge up batteries with solar or hydro and ship those, but that'd be counter productive.
And yes, Canada sells energy to the U.S. We sell our "green" energy to them as well below cost (costing tax payers roughly $200 million in one month) thanks in part to idiotic politicians and their desire to go green (even though a majority of our power was already being produced by hydroelectric). $200 million in the hole isn't really successful in my books.
That story is from 2015, but not much has changed except Ontario's hydro bills going through the roof that the government is putting a "freeze" on them increasing (right before an election mind you) for a couple of years. Once those couple of years are over though, it's back to skyrocketed prices with interest of not having to pay the total cost for the last 5 years.
The website mentioned in the article though, http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/, still updates about the negative impacts "green energy" produces such as noise pollution and contaminating drinking water.
I'm going to go where no one wants to go. This is the feel over here.
Israel - Palestine.
No participates in this conflict ever mention Jordan, as if it's not part of the conflict, or even exists on its own. The Kingdom of Jordan was partitioned by the British mandate from Palestine and given to Palestinians. 70% of its citizens are Palestinians yet there is an apartheid against them. They are forbidden from holding citizenship, university education, be employees to dozen of professions, or having a driving licence. Some of them were born in Jordan, have grandparents born in Jordan, and official papers up to 7 generations of being born in this land, yet today they can not apply for citizenship.
All the focus goes to the "disputed territory", zooming in on Samaria (West bank) with those arguments:
Return to 1967 borders - But there wasn't peace in 1966. (There wasn't peace in 1947 either).
Form a Palestinian State - But there is a state in Jordan, Gaza has political independence and so does Ramallah, those are 3 self governed states already, poorly or not.
Return the refugees - This subject is huge, controversial and rife with misinformation, it includes 3rd generation refugees which are patented to Palestinians, including paid refugee welfare which no one is intent on losing is keeping them in suspended refugee state, but why? There's a misconception on counting the refugees, Arab sources claim there are 5 million while Israeli sources claim there are 2 million with extras that never lived in partitioned Israel but immigrated through unsupervised open borders (details from 2015). In a soldier's point of view, if there are 5 million Jews in Israel, you would require at least 5 million non-Jews to over take them to a majority.
Palestinian Identity - Yasser Arafat was the architect of the identity, and he based it in his speeches where he overtook the crowds with his charisma. The crowds were charmed by the new identity of the Palestinian that is based on conflict against the Jews, the Crusaders that took their land, and when Arafat demanded every couple would have 12 children, 2 to replace the parents and 10 for Jihad they all cheered for him. Before the forming of the PLO in 1964 local Arabs still identified as belonging to the Great Syria. They had no other formal history, no books, no holidays, no one celebrated the Nakba even until 20 years ago. Meanwhile in Gaza 60 years later, non elected Fatah and Hamas are fighting among each other for rule over the population, keeping it dependable and rather miserable. Building artificial hierarchy based solely on loyalty to the organizations. If you are opposed to the conflict you will live in suspended poverty. If you are for it, you will be honored, and get paid in up to millions for participation in terrorist acts.
In conclusion, (Info from 2015) currently 1.7 million Arabs live at Israeli citizens with full rights and only a minority is interested in conflict, they work, serve the defense forces and the police, they are politicians, businesspersons and intellectuals. 2.5 million Arabs live in Palestinian controlled areas Gaza, Ramallah, Beit Lehem, Hevron, Jericho and so on, which are totalitarians. In a sociologist point of view those communities are tribal, don't accept the law of the state (In any citizen dispute no one calls the police or the courts, or they will considered traitors to the tribe, they will take their dispute to the Ja'haa, councils of elders), don't intermarry with other tribes (unless the women are sold). 2.7 millions live in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria in refugee camps and under rule of apartheid.
The one conclusion that isn't subject to debate is this: This situation has been engineered to be permanent. There is no peace to attain without the removal of Israel (And even if so, will there be peace?). There is no Palestinian identity without the conflict with Israel. Anyone that chose to live a normal life have already found a way to do so, anything else is victimhood politics.
This week in fake news, Huffington Post tried to say Al Franken was "set up" by Trump supporters and offers a self-contradictory non-defense of him based on character assassination of the accuser because she is a Playboy girl and right wing, but mostly cause of Playboy. Then deleted it. But archive is a thing!
And the private jet deduction mentioned earlier...that deduction was originally introduced by a Democrat and has bipartisan support in that state, but it's also not really a private jet deduction.
This week in fake news, Huffington Post tried to say Al Franken was "set up" by Trump supporters and offers a self-contradictory non-defense of him based on character assassination of the accuser because she is a Playboy girl and right wing, but mostly cause of Playboy. Then deleted it. But archive is a thing!
Huffington Post has dozens if not hundreds of opinion writers. Most of them don't even get paid. Beyond that, there isn't anyone claiming Huff Post is anything but a click-bait news aggregate site. No one is mistaking it for journalism. If I spent time posting every crazy conservative op-ed from Breitbart or World Net Daily, it would be a 40 hr a week job. But we can start with the Columbus Day video posted on Ben Shapiro's website a few weeks ago.
The private jet exemption amendment was NOT introduced by Sherrod Brown (and I knew it couldn't have been because there is no way they would be letting Democrats introduce them). It closely mirrors something he proposed in a different context. It was the Republican Rob Portman who wrote it into the current bill. And I guarantee you Sherrod Brown is not going to be a yes vote on the Senate tax bill and that Rob Portman will be. It's impossible to say Brown "backs" the current provision (as the WSJ article states) when he is 100% guaranteed to vote against it when it comes to a vote.
One of the things that galls me the most is how the GOP claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility, and (when they get around to it) their first instinct when they control both Legislative and executive branches is to start spending like a drunken sailor.
Meanwhile, in 1993, Democrats passed a bill raising taxes and cut spending and they lost both houses the next year. Yet that led to the balanced budget and budget surpluses before Clinton's term ended.
Robert Mugabe is losing control of Zimbabwe. Normally I'd consider that good news, since Mugabe's performance has been subpar compared to Mandela's work in nearby South Africa, but it looks like Mugabe's replacement is poised to be yet another strongman leader, Emmerson Mnangagwa, the former vice president of Zimbabwe.
HR McMaster, the top national security official, referred to President Trump variously as an “idiot” and a “dope” with the intelligence of a “kindergartner,” at a private dinner.
I was listening to a news segment on the Panama Papers and I found myself asking a question: if incorporating a shell company in the Bahamas (picked at random) is legal and funneling money from corporation A to corporation B is legal, then why is "offshoring money in a tax shelter" illegal? Yes, technically "noncompliance" is "illegal" but does avoiding paying taxes actually hurt anyone? Remember--governments who issue currency these days do not *need* tax revenue to pay for programs; instead, they issue currency, declare it to have its stated value, pay for the programs, then use tax revenue to shrink the money supply as a hedge against inflation and currency devaluation.
Of course, many of the corporations mentioned in the document dump have committed fraud, money laundering, and outright tax evasion over the years, but the people involved are the 1% of the 1%--even if you are able to get them into a court you will have a hard time convicting them of anything. Even if you convict them, in most cases the punishments will be only fines which they can afford. Both Obama and Clinton were (at least publicly) shocked by how much activity detailed in the dump was legal albeit shady.
*************
Whitefish is stopping its work in Puerto Rico because PREPA has missed payments (the contract was set to be canceled, if you recall). Whitefish is now claiming that it is owed $83 million for the work it has already done.
*************
NASA and many other astronomical researchers have recently been taking a lot of pictures of Oumuamua, the first object from interstellar space to enter the Solar System (they were able to rule out any other point of origin based on its trajectory). It is moving away from us but they are studying it as much as they can for now.
*************
Charles Manson is finally dead. Other people have committed crimes just as heinous as his since his time but he got a lot of press because he had high-profile victims.
I was listening to a news segment on the Panama Papers and I found myself asking a question: if incorporating a shell company in the Bahamas (picked at random) is legal and funneling money from corporation A to corporation B is legal, then why is "offshoring money in a tax shelter" illegal? Yes, technically "noncompliance" is "illegal" but does avoiding paying taxes actually hurt anyone? Remember--governments who issue currency these days do not *need* tax revenue to pay for programs; instead, they issue currency, declare it to have its stated value, pay for the programs, then use tax revenue to shrink the money supply as a hedge against inflation and currency devaluation.
Well, it hurts the people whose wages do not keep up with inflation and currency devaluation. The less tax revenue that comes in, the more people are effected by this and it starts at the bottom.
The long-term trend of inflation is still somewhere between 3% and 4% so if you didn't get a 4% raise at some point this year you are making less than you did last year (on average). I got a very decent raise last year but this year...nothing. We all received our performance reviews, signed them, handed them back to our boss back in August and that is the last we heard about them.
I'm disturbed by the FCC's proposal to repeal net neutrality. Net neutrality forbids internet service providers from charging more for access to certain content. Without it, Verizon or AT&T would be able to jack up prices based on what websites you go to--or whether you're patronizing companies they're competing with.
Verizon could use the repeal of net neutrality to damage its competitors. It's exactly the opposite of how free market capitalism is supposed to work: companies working on an even playing field and consumers having equal access to all of them. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Republican head of the FCC, Ajit Pai, has worked for Verizon in the past. It's a clear conflict of interest.
There is no reason for an internet service provider to be able to punish you for which websites you choose to visit and which companies you choose to patronize.
Agreed repealing net neutrality is awful for Americans.
Prepare for your Netflix to be throttled mercilessly. ComcastOStream will be given the fast lane.
Also, it looks like Trump' Jeff Sessions' department of justice is going after Harvard for their supposedly discriminatory to asians admissions policies. Who cares right? Wrong, this is an attack on affirmative action. Racist Jefferson Sessions is going to do away with affirmative action.
I'm disturbed by the FCC's proposal to repeal net neutrality. Net neutrality forbids internet service providers from charging more for access to certain content. Without it, Verizon or AT&T would be able to jack up prices based on what websites you go to--or whether you're patronizing companies they're competing with.
Verizon could use the repeal of net neutrality to damage its competitors. It's exactly the opposite of how free market capitalism is supposed to work: companies working on an even playing field and consumers having equal access to all of them. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Republican head of the FCC, Ajit Pai, has worked for Verizon in the past. It's a clear conflict of interest.
There is no reason for an internet service provider to be able to punish you for which websites you choose to visit and which companies you choose to patronize.
Elections have consequences. This was a 100% guarantee the moment Trump got elected.
Yup. Appointed by Trump and approved by a GOP-led Senate.
Of course, the core argument over net neutrality is whether high-speed internet access is to be recognized as a public utility like telephones. I would argue that in 2017, internet access is MORE important than telephones (and in many cases they are interchangeable). Enjoy the next few years of the current system. Thanks to the Trump Administration, within 5-10 years, there will be paywalls in place to access your favorite websites, not to mention telecoms down-throttling speed and access to sites who don't play ball with them. A disaster in the making.
I get that people have been conditioned to instinctively hate government regulation. This whole country is going to find out very shortly what happens when you hand the keys to the henhouse over to the foxes. There is only one party to blame here. While it is true that Obama's FCC Director had to be lobbied pretty hard in regards to Net Neutrality, in the end they did the right thing based on enourmous public pressure. Do you like your cable company?? I doubt it. And this ruling stands to make things 10x worse.
Take me for an example. I have no less than 4 devices in my apartment that are essentially useless without high-speed internet: my phone, my laptop, my PS4, and my Switch. I pay $120 dollars a month for a cable and internet package. I'm not complaining. But I sure as shit will start to complain when that bill goes up to $220 simply because of the whore for the telcom companies Trump put in charge of the FCC. And so will tens of millions of others.
The long-term trend of inflation is still somewhere between 3% and 4% so if you didn't get a 4% raise at some point this year you are making less than you did last year (on average). I got a very decent raise last year but this year...nothing. We all received our performance reviews, signed them, handed them back to our boss back in August and that is the last we heard about them.
That's interesting, because when I got my raise earlier in the year, my boss said something about only being able to get the 3% despite wanting to do more. However, a few weeks ago I received another 3% out of the blue. I had no idea he was referring to inflation.
Many places there are few (or only one) choices for your ISP. Some places actually have regulations that enforce this lack of competition. Allowing these monopolies to further control what you see is a terrible idea.
Corporate interests already have a chokehold on our lives. Trump is giving them permanent tax cuts and rolling away protections that prevent them from preying on us. He is allowing them to squeeze us even more and he is shifting the burden of the cost of society on to us.
President Trump also recently signed an executive order allowing forced arbitration in another blow to consumer rights. Forced arbitration is a scam that allows credit card companies, lenders, and others to rip you off. Your only resort is arbitration with an arbiter who is appointed by the agencies you should be suing. Unsurprisingly forced arbitration rules against people in favor of corporations over 90% of the time.
He's allowing the FCC to control the information we get. The FCC repealed 40 year old rules preventing a monopolies of local news. They did this to ease hardcore conservative Sinclair media consolidation efforts to merge and reach 75% of American households and flavor local news across the nation.
Now, the DOJ is attacking affirmative action through the Harvard case.
Elections have consequences and they include gutting protections for American citizens in favor of corporations. And the loss of a free press and an independent judiciary. Trump literally appointed a 36 year old conservative blogger who has been on ghost hunting expeditions and never has tried a case for a lifetime position as a federal judge. Republicans in the Senate are rubber stamping these extremists. They are attacking an independent judiciary these guys are being appointed to defend corporations first and white conservative Christian interests second and everyone else can get lost.
Hard to overstate just how bad the end of Net Neutrality is going to be if it happens. Simply imagine telcom companies acting like mob protection rackets. "Nice streaming service you have there, be a shame if something happened to it". Say Amazon ponies up their protection money and Netflix doesn't. Streaming a movie on Netflix becomes a slide-show based on the service provider. Amazon Video gets instantaneous blazing speed. You can apply the same equation to ANY competing websites. Imagine if this applied to, say, highways. That whoever paid the most money got exclusive use of the best roads, and everyone else had to drive on minimum maintenance dirt roads with no pavement. If only certain company's trucks were allowed to enter the interstate. That is what we are looking at.
Comments
Is it possible that instead of comparing today's tax burden with that of the next ten years when the individual income tax cuts will be in effect, this graph is actually comparing the difference between 2026 and 2027 when those tax cuts will expire (under the assumption that no follow-up plan will be passed by future Congress)?
If so, that's pretty meaningless (and dishonest).
I didn't find a fact check of this particular graph with a quick Google search, but the WaPo Fact Checker has this:
Senate Democrats falsely claim GOP tax plan will raise taxes for most working-class families (verdict: 4 out of 4 Pinocchios)
And unlike traditional energy sources, you can't import excess sunshine or wind or water current to a place that lacks it. The green technology designed in the Nevada desert wouldnt work in Florida and vis versa.
Here's an article I just googled that notes how problems like these can intersect with issues like North Korea:
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2017/10/03/will-the-u-s-solar-industry-survive-import-tariffs-trump-holds-the-cards/amp/
So they are kicking the can down the road and possibly hope that they will be able to pass an extension of the individual tax cuts later. Or they can let them expire and have the middle class pay for the deficit explosion caused by the tax cuts for the rich and corporations.
Either way, these tax cuts will explode the deficit and give tax cuts to people who don't need it. Something like 80% of the benefits are going to the top 1% and while regular people are losing state and local tax deduction they are adding a private jet deduction. Even fox News had a graphic that showed that the average family might get a $600 tax cut while the top 1% would be handed over $100,000 each. That does not even count Families like the Trumps and Kochs that will be saving billions on the estate tax repeal.
Gary Cohen one of Trumps tax pseudo scientists was giving a speech to ceos and asked ok who is going to to create more jobs with the tax savings? Nobody raised their hands. The money will go to stock options and executive compensation.
The system which already disproportionately gives money to the ultra wealthy over the average worker will become even more imbalanced. And the deficit will explode so to balance that republicans will look to cut services to the middle class.
These tax cuts will trigger automatic cuts to Medicare. What's next? They won't be increasing their wealthy donors taxes or cutting the military industrial complex. You will be paying for these tax cuts to the rich. Basically if you make less than $400k a year you will be taxed more.
I think you are probably right that there is an element of the Paledtinian resistance that welcomes casualties to create bad press. Its a dirty strategy, and its not 'legal', but neither is simply killing those shields.
Now, regarding renewable energy, the leading developer of it was China last I checked. The West imho is too invested in the old model, and thus resists green energy. Afaik the oil companies in the US have spent significant amounts of money to sabotage alternatives, I have no clue why people think the next energy revolution will have anything to do with the West.
@deltago you can totally export renewable energy in the form of electricity. Canada sells hydro to the US last I checked. You do need a reliable grid, but oil/natural gas certainly requires infrastructure too. This might be a major contributor to wealth for the larger gulf states after oil becomes scarce (we might stop using oil for energy, but its also really useful for chemistry!), as they have tons of sunshine, wind and even wide daily temperature differences, all potential sources of renewable energy. Saudi Arabia is interested in this.
And yes, Canada sells energy to the U.S. We sell our "green" energy to them as well below cost (costing tax payers roughly $200 million in one month) thanks in part to idiotic politicians and their desire to go green (even though a majority of our power was already being produced by hydroelectric). $200 million in the hole isn't really successful in my books.
That story is from 2015, but not much has changed except Ontario's hydro bills going through the roof that the government is putting a "freeze" on them increasing (right before an election mind you) for a couple of years. Once those couple of years are over though, it's back to skyrocketed prices with interest of not having to pay the total cost for the last 5 years.
The website mentioned in the article though, http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/, still updates about the negative impacts "green energy" produces such as noise pollution and contaminating drinking water.
Israel - Palestine.
No participates in this conflict ever mention Jordan, as if it's not part of the conflict, or even exists on its own. The Kingdom of Jordan was partitioned by the British mandate from Palestine and given to Palestinians. 70% of its citizens are Palestinians yet there is an apartheid against them. They are forbidden from holding citizenship, university education, be employees to dozen of professions, or having a driving licence. Some of them were born in Jordan, have grandparents born in Jordan, and official papers up to 7 generations of being born in this land, yet today they can not apply for citizenship.
All the focus goes to the "disputed territory", zooming in on Samaria (West bank) with those arguments:
Return to 1967 borders - But there wasn't peace in 1966. (There wasn't peace in 1947 either).
Form a Palestinian State - But there is a state in Jordan, Gaza has political independence and so does Ramallah, those are 3 self governed states already, poorly or not.
Return the refugees - This subject is huge, controversial and rife with misinformation, it includes 3rd generation refugees which are patented to Palestinians, including paid refugee welfare which no one is intent on losing is keeping them in suspended refugee state, but why? There's a misconception on counting the refugees, Arab sources claim there are 5 million while Israeli sources claim there are 2 million with extras that never lived in partitioned Israel but immigrated through unsupervised open borders (details from 2015). In a soldier's point of view, if there are 5 million Jews in Israel, you would require at least 5 million non-Jews to over take them to a majority.
Palestinian Identity - Yasser Arafat was the architect of the identity, and he based it in his speeches where he overtook the crowds with his charisma. The crowds were charmed by the new identity of the Palestinian that is based on conflict against the Jews, the Crusaders that took their land, and when Arafat demanded every couple would have 12 children, 2 to replace the parents and 10 for Jihad they all cheered for him. Before the forming of the PLO in 1964 local Arabs still identified as belonging to the Great Syria. They had no other formal history, no books, no holidays, no one celebrated the Nakba even until 20 years ago. Meanwhile in Gaza 60 years later, non elected Fatah and Hamas are fighting among each other for rule over the population, keeping it dependable and rather miserable. Building artificial hierarchy based solely on loyalty to the organizations. If you are opposed to the conflict you will live in suspended poverty. If you are for it, you will be honored, and get paid in up to millions for participation in terrorist acts.
In conclusion, (Info from 2015) currently 1.7 million Arabs live at Israeli citizens with full rights and only a minority is interested in conflict, they work, serve the defense forces and the police, they are politicians, businesspersons and intellectuals. 2.5 million Arabs live in Palestinian controlled areas Gaza, Ramallah, Beit Lehem, Hevron, Jericho and so on, which are totalitarians. In a sociologist point of view those communities are tribal, don't accept the law of the state (In any citizen dispute no one calls the police or the courts, or they will considered traitors to the tribe, they will take their dispute to the Ja'haa, councils of elders), don't intermarry with other tribes (unless the women are sold). 2.7 millions live in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria in refugee camps and under rule of apartheid.
The one conclusion that isn't subject to debate is this: This situation has been engineered to be permanent. There is no peace to attain without the removal of Israel (And even if so, will there be peace?). There is no Palestinian identity without the conflict with Israel. Anyone that chose to live a normal life have already found a way to do so, anything else is victimhood politics.
I've just found some background to the 'When is a coup not a coup?' question.
https://www.news24.com/Africa/Zimbabwe/zim-coup-one-way-or-another-mugabe-must-go-20171119-2
Which is basically, when everyone (except the person being deposed) knows about it in advance.
The whole thing is violently cringe-inducing.
http://archive.is/zrdg1#selection-2455.0-2452.2
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/tax-bill-2017/card/1510946720
The private jet exemption amendment was NOT introduced by Sherrod Brown (and I knew it couldn't have been because there is no way they would be letting Democrats introduce them). It closely mirrors something he proposed in a different context. It was the Republican Rob Portman who wrote it into the current bill. And I guarantee you Sherrod Brown is not going to be a yes vote on the Senate tax bill and that Rob Portman will be. It's impossible to say Brown "backs" the current provision (as the WSJ article states) when he is 100% guaranteed to vote against it when it comes to a vote.
Meanwhile, in 1993, Democrats passed a bill raising taxes and cut spending and they lost both houses the next year. Yet that led to the balanced budget and budget surpluses before Clinton's term ended.
Maybe these people are on to something.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/sources-mcmaster-mocked-trumps-intelligence-in-a-private?utm_term=.otjGV9wdY#.bkqreAl5o
Of course, many of the corporations mentioned in the document dump have committed fraud, money laundering, and outright tax evasion over the years, but the people involved are the 1% of the 1%--even if you are able to get them into a court you will have a hard time convicting them of anything. Even if you convict them, in most cases the punishments will be only fines which they can afford. Both Obama and Clinton were (at least publicly) shocked by how much activity detailed in the dump was legal albeit shady.
*************
Whitefish is stopping its work in Puerto Rico because PREPA has missed payments (the contract was set to be canceled, if you recall). Whitefish is now claiming that it is owed $83 million for the work it has already done.
*************
NASA and many other astronomical researchers have recently been taking a lot of pictures of Oumuamua, the first object from interstellar space to enter the Solar System (they were able to rule out any other point of origin based on its trajectory). It is moving away from us but they are studying it as much as they can for now.
*************
Charles Manson is finally dead. Other people have committed crimes just as heinous as his since his time but he got a lot of press because he had high-profile victims.
Verizon could use the repeal of net neutrality to damage its competitors. It's exactly the opposite of how free market capitalism is supposed to work: companies working on an even playing field and consumers having equal access to all of them. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Republican head of the FCC, Ajit Pai, has worked for Verizon in the past. It's a clear conflict of interest.
There is no reason for an internet service provider to be able to punish you for which websites you choose to visit and which companies you choose to patronize.
Prepare for your Netflix to be throttled mercilessly. ComcastOStream will be given the fast lane.
Also, it looks like Trump' Jeff Sessions' department of justice is going after Harvard for their supposedly discriminatory to asians admissions policies. Who cares right? Wrong, this is an attack on affirmative action. Racist Jefferson Sessions is going to do away with affirmative action.
I get that people have been conditioned to instinctively hate government regulation. This whole country is going to find out very shortly what happens when you hand the keys to the henhouse over to the foxes. There is only one party to blame here. While it is true that Obama's FCC Director had to be lobbied pretty hard in regards to Net Neutrality, in the end they did the right thing based on enourmous public pressure. Do you like your cable company?? I doubt it. And this ruling stands to make things 10x worse.
Take me for an example. I have no less than 4 devices in my apartment that are essentially useless without high-speed internet: my phone, my laptop, my PS4, and my Switch. I pay $120 dollars a month for a cable and internet package. I'm not complaining. But I sure as shit will start to complain when that bill goes up to $220 simply because of the whore for the telcom companies Trump put in charge of the FCC. And so will tens of millions of others.
Allowing these monopolies to further control what you see is a terrible idea.
Corporate interests already have a chokehold on our lives. Trump is giving them permanent tax cuts and rolling away protections that prevent them from preying on us. He is allowing them to squeeze us even more and he is shifting the burden of the cost of society on to us.
President Trump also recently signed an executive order allowing forced arbitration in another blow to consumer rights. Forced arbitration is a scam that allows credit card companies, lenders, and others to rip you off. Your only resort is arbitration with an arbiter who is appointed by the agencies you should be suing. Unsurprisingly forced arbitration rules against people in favor of corporations over 90% of the time.
He's allowing the FCC to control the information we get. The FCC repealed 40 year old rules preventing a monopolies of local news. They did this to ease hardcore conservative Sinclair media consolidation efforts to merge and reach 75% of American households and flavor local news across the nation.
Now, the DOJ is attacking affirmative action through the Harvard case.
Elections have consequences and they include gutting protections for American citizens in favor of corporations. And the loss of a free press and an independent judiciary. Trump literally appointed a 36 year old conservative blogger who has been on ghost hunting expeditions and never has tried a case for a lifetime position as a federal judge. Republicans in the Senate are rubber stamping these extremists. They are attacking an independent judiciary these guys are being appointed to defend corporations first and white conservative Christian interests second and everyone else can get lost.
As a white conservative Christian I assure you that my interests are not being met.