The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

ooh I like this one :

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...uran-is-poison

I especially like it because what the neocons (no doubt) fail to realize is that there's no contradiction in this man's actions in fact they're very consistent: he's a far-right winger who adopted a far-right ideology
lol

[Womble]

So I came back from a family trip to Germany and the Philippines and I'm trying to sort through the local Israeli news since we're having elections in March and I need to figure out who to vote for.

It's not easy.

I will not be voting for Netanyahu's Likud, unless by some miracle they oust the leader. Netanyahu has been good forIsrael - especially for our economy - up until a few years ago, but the moves he's made since then have been a mixed bag at best. I find corruption accusations against him quite believable, and his refusal to step down as PM until investigations are concluded, along with his attacks on judicial system, irks me to no end.

The non-Likud right wing is a circus. There's Jewish Home, basically a renamed MAFDAL, a religious-nationalist party that vetoed a proposal to give gay parents equal tax benefits to straight parents despite 57% of their electorate being pro-gay marriage. The party was ditched by their charismatic leader, hi-tech multimillionaire Naftali Bennett who set up his own party, The New Right. I agree with Bennett on many domestic and foreign issues, from his push for free trade with China to his food prices reform and the push to integrate of Arab women into the workforce - but he advocates annexation of the West Bank and he is allied with religious parties on isues related to marriage and Sabbath limitations, and I won't stand for that.

The center... There's Moshe Kahlon's Kulanu, a party mainly concerned with consumer protection and cost of living. I like them a lot, but they are doomed by design to play second fiddle to a larger partner, ergo it makes more sense to vote for someone whom I expect to be that larger partner.

And then there's Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid, a party focused on secularist reforms and economy. Lapid makes a lot of sense for me, with his positions on religion vs. state, the economy and his support for two-state solution while firmly supporting Israeli interests. A former journalist and TV presenter, he can give Netanyahu a run for his money when it comes to confronting various detractors of Israel on live TV. Like Netanyahu before him, Lapid also has the one kind of experience which I consider absolutely necessary for a good state leader - that of serving as a finance minister. I see him as being similar to early, yet-uncorrupted Netanyahu and I'm ready to give him a chance. My main problem with Lapid is that he isn't very good at playing nice with other parties, and in the Israeli politics no one can go it alone. Still, he is most likely to get my vote at the moment.

The left-wing parties have changed over the years, but they are still a no-go for me. I am not afraid of them falling into the "peace talks" trap again, it'd take total insanity. But Labor is a disastrous mess that's just cleaved itself into two separate parties, with multiple candidates for leader proving on a daily basis that they will readily sell out for a better political position, and Meretz is sitting at its usual 4%, marketing themselves abroad as the only true "peace lovers but getting actual votes domestically mainly on LGBT rights and promises to legalize cannabis.

I hate elections.

[Annoyed]

So I came back from a family trip to Germany and the Philippines and I'm trying to sort through the local Israeli news since we're having elections in March and I need to figure out who to vote for.

It's not easy.

I will not be voting for Netanyahu's Likud, unless by some miracle they oust the leader. Netanyahu has been good forIsrael - especially for our economy - up until a few years ago, but the moves he's made since then have been a mixed bag at best. I find corruption accusations against him quite believable, and his refusal to step down as PM until investigations are concluded, along with his attacks on judicial system, irks me to no end.

The non-Likud right wing is a circus. There's Jewish Home, basically a renamed MAFDAL, a religious-nationalist party that vetoed a proposal to give gay parents equal tax benefits to straight parents despite 57% of their electorate being pro-gay marriage. The party was ditched by their charismatic leader, hi-tech multimillionaire Naftali Bennett who set up his own party, The New Right. I agree with Bennett on many domestic and foreign issues, from his push for free trade with China to his food prices reform and the push to integrate of Arab women into the workforce - but he advocates annexation of the West Bank and he is allied with religious parties on isues related to marriage and Sabbath limitations, and I won't stand for that.

The center... There's Moshe Kahlon's Kulanu, a party mainly concerned with consumer protection and cost of living. I like them a lot, but they are doomed by design to play second fiddle to a larger partner, ergo it makes more sense to vote for someone whom I expect to be that larger partner.

And then there's Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid, a party focused on secularist reforms and economy. Lapid makes a lot of sense for me, with his positions on religion vs. state, the economy and his support for two-state solution while firmly supporting Israeli interests. A former journalist and TV presenter, he can give Netanyahu a run for his money when it comes to confronting various detractors of Israel on live TV. Like Netanyahu before him, Lapid also has the one kind of experience which I consider absolutely necessary for a good state leader - that of serving as a finance minister. I see him as being similar to early, yet-uncorrupted Netanyahu and I'm ready to give him a chance. My main problem with Lapid is that he isn't very good at playing nice with other parties, and in the Israeli politics no one can go it alone. Still, he is most likely to get my vote at the moment.

The left-wing parties have changed over the years, but they are still a no-go for me. I am not afraid of them falling into the "peace talks" trap again, it'd take total insanity. But Labor is a disastrous mess that's just cleaved itself into two separate parties, with multiple candidates for leader proving on a daily basis that they will readily sell out for a better political position, and Meretz is sitting at its usual 4%, marketing themselves abroad as the only true "peace lovers but getting actual votes domestically mainly on LGBT rights and promises to legalize cannabis.

I hate elections.

Since I have never been there, let alone live there, I can't know enough to make any judgement.

But one comment. You say you like Moshe Kahlon's Kulanu, but think they're too small to win. I don't know the setup in your country, but it might be good to consider them anyway. Sure, they may not win this time, but more votes in general will indicate support for that group. And that may influence their spot on the ballot next time, or even if they remain on the ballot at all. Might also trigger some sort of funding for their campaigns. Just a thought.

Otherwise, do the same thing we have to do here most of the time. Hold your nose and vote for the one that stinks the least.

[aretood2]

We don't know the specifics in each case, but the 83K to 150K ranges cited by the article SR cited are somewhat above the definition of middle class you cite. Even the ranges you cite are way above what I consider to be middle class. It may not be wealthy, but they're doing far better than most.

But you just go right on believing the raw BS the TDS infected media keep telling you.

Did you even read that article? 45K is the middle class floor, not 83k. And even then, I know someone who works in construction, insulation specifically, he makes about 50k. Combine that with his wife who has secretarial job and that gets closer to 80k together, more or less. I'd hardly call them "upper class". Just to give you an idea. Free and reduced meals in schools start at parents who have a combined income less than 60K-65K. Basically two parents who earn 30k a year which would be minimum wage jobs with considerable overtime or jobs a little over minimum wage.

If you earn less than 40k as a single man, you're more working class than middle class. Barely lower middle class. The actual middle class (of which I barely qualify, based on what you have shared we might actually be in the same boat) is the one that isn't getting as big as a pay raise (or any) as promised.

So I came back from a family trip to Germany and the Philippines and I'm trying to sort through the local Israeli news since we're having elections in March and I need to figure out who to vote for.

It's not easy.

I will not be voting for Netanyahu's Likud, unless by some miracle they oust the leader. Netanyahu has been good forIsrael - especially for our economy - up until a few years ago, but the moves he's made since then have been a mixed bag at best. I find corruption accusations against him quite believable, and his refusal to step down as PM until investigations are concluded, along with his attacks on judicial system, irks me to no end.

The non-Likud right wing is a circus. There's Jewish Home, basically a renamed MAFDAL, a religious-nationalist party that vetoed a proposal to give gay parents equal tax benefits to straight parents despite 57% of their electorate being pro-gay marriage. The party was ditched by their charismatic leader, hi-tech multimillionaire Naftali Bennett who set up his own party, The New Right. I agree with Bennett on many domestic and foreign issues, from his push for free trade with China to his food prices reform and the push to integrate of Arab women into the workforce - but he advocates annexation of the West Bank and he is allied with religious parties on isues related to marriage and Sabbath limitations, and I won't stand for that.

The center... There's Moshe Kahlon's Kulanu, a party mainly concerned with consumer protection and cost of living. I like them a lot, but they are doomed by design to play second fiddle to a larger partner, ergo it makes more sense to vote for someone whom I expect to be that larger partner.

And then there's Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid, a party focused on secularist reforms and economy. Lapid makes a lot of sense for me, with his positions on religion vs. state, the economy and his support for two-state solution while firmly supporting Israeli interests. A former journalist and TV presenter, he can give Netanyahu a run for his money when it comes to confronting various detractors of Israel on live TV. Like Netanyahu before him, Lapid also has the one kind of experience which I consider absolutely necessary for a good state leader - that of serving as a finance minister. I see him as being similar to early, yet-uncorrupted Netanyahu and I'm ready to give him a chance. My main problem with Lapid is that he isn't very good at playing nice with other parties, and in the Israeli politics no one can go it alone. Still, he is most likely to get my vote at the moment.

The left-wing parties have changed over the years, but they are still a no-go for me. I am not afraid of them falling into the "peace talks" trap again, it'd take total insanity. But Labor is a disastrous mess that's just cleaved itself into two separate parties, with multiple candidates for leader proving on a daily basis that they will readily sell out for a better political position, and Meretz is sitting at its usual 4%, marketing themselves abroad as the only true "peace lovers but getting actual votes domestically mainly on LGBT rights and promises to legalize cannabis.

I hate elections.

Voting for this Moshe Kahlon guy seems like your best bet the way you described it. That is depending on how much in the way of votes he can get. But that's from the perspective of someone who voted against someone in 2016 instead of for someone.

[Annoyed]

Did you even read that article? 45K is the middle class floor, not 83k. And even then, I know someone who works in construction, insulation specifically, he makes about 50k. Combine that with his wife who has secretarial job and that gets closer to 80k together, more or less. I'd hardly call them "upper class". Just to give you an idea. Free and reduced meals in schools start at parents who have a combined income less than 60K-65K. Basically two parents who earn 30k a year which would be minimum wage jobs with considerable overtime or jobs a little over minimum wage.

If you earn less than 40k as a single man, you're more working class than middle class. Barely lower middle class. The actual middle class (of which I barely qualify, based on what you have shared we might actually be in the same boat) is the one that isn't getting as big as a pay raise (or any) as promised.

Well, it's no secret that our social assistance programs are far too generous. Hell, they get free cell phones! You can't possibly tell me that parents with combined incomes of 60K can't afford to make peanut butter sandwiches for their kids to take to school with them. Every hear the term "brown bag"? That's how I did lunch right on thru either Jr. or Sr. high (I forget which, it's been a long time)

Regarding the wage levels, I was citing the examples shown from the twitterverse. (Yes, I know, about the worst source of info you can find, except for other social networking)

And yes, I've heard the media reports of people whining about the effects on their taxes.

But note that almost all of them refer to their tax REFUNDS, not the total amount of taxes. This indicates that they did not make required adjustments to their withholding and perhaps make changes to their deduction strategy. The standard deduction was nearly doubled, so I can easily see how someone who had been itemizing to take advantage of targeted deductions can end up in the hole if they failed to take that into account.

That's on the taxpayer, not the tax reform. It is up to the individual to do their taxes properly. If you like, consider it a stupidity tax.

For example: For decades, I've had my withholding set so that at the end of the year, I owe maybe $25-$50 bucks. I've carefully set this up to avoid giving the govt. an interest-free loan for the year, as well as protecting myself from having to wait for whatever delay might occur with the refund process (NY State has occasionally threatened to delay refunds as part of the annual budget fight in the past.)

[aretood2]

Well, it's no secret that our social assistance programs are far too generous. Hell, they get free cell phones! You can't possibly tell me that parents with combined incomes of 60K can't afford to make peanut butter sandwiches for their kids to take to school with them. Every hear the term "brown bag"? That's how I did lunch right on thru either Jr. or Sr. high (I forget which, it's been a long time)

I think the point is to not raise kids on PB&J sandwiches. Less than 60k is hardly a lot of money when half of that ends up being used on housing and transportation alone in many places. And our "generous" social programs are considered pitiful in other countries like Canada and the UK where they look down right communist when compared to ours. But you know this already, you've been told this on this website by international members already. You simply ignore it by choice simply because they refuse to consider the possibility that they could be wrong.

Regarding the wage levels, I was citing the examples shown from the twitterverse. (Yes, I know, about the worst source of info you can find, except for other social networking)

And yet you cited them anyways....

And yes, I've heard the media reports of people whining about the effects on their taxes.

But note that almost all of them refer to their tax REFUNDS, not the total amount of taxes. This indicates that they did not make required adjustments to their withholding and perhaps make changes to their deduction strategy. The standard deduction was nearly doubled, so I can easily see how someone who had been itemizing to take advantage of targeted deductions can end up in the hole if they failed to take that into account.

That's because they were promised that in refunds, not distributed over the year.

For example: For decades, I've had my withholding set so that at the end of the year, I owe maybe $25-$50 bucks. I've carefully set this up to avoid giving the govt. an interest-free loan for the year, as well as protecting myself from having to wait for whatever delay might occur with the refund process (NY State has occasionally threatened to delay refunds as part of the annual budget fight in the past.)

Good for you?

[Annoyed]

I think the point is to not raise kids on PB&J sandwiches. Less than 60k is hardly a lot of money when half of that ends up being used on housing and transportation alone in many places. And our "generous" social programs are considered pitiful in other countries like Canada and the UK where they look down right communist when compared to ours. But you know this already, you've been told this on this website by international members already. You simply ignore it by choice simply because they refuse to consider the possibility that they could be wrong.


That's because they were promised that in refunds, not distributed over the year.

Who says that that's all they are raised on? It's just lunch, for cripe's sake. I maintain that a couple who make 60K can feed their own kids.

Where? The tax reform promised a reduction in tax liability for lower/middle classes, not fatter refunds. That's exactly what we got.

[Coco Pops]

Wow using Brietbart as a credible news source. That's interesting.

[Annoyed]

Wow using Brietbart as a credible news source. That's interesting.

Why? It is just as legitimate as Salon, Vox, Huffington or any other other far lefty sites. The only difference is that it doesn't lean left.

You don't seem to have a problem with the left biased sites, so why should I have a problem with right biased sites?

[Gatefan1976]

We know they are biased and take it into account?
You know it's biased and you don't care.
See the difference?
We know the difference between an opinion piece and a news article.
You don't make that distinction?
See the difference?

[Gatefan1976]

These are facts:
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-b...ercent-3306296

[Chaka-Z0]

Well, it's no secret that our social assistance programs are far too generous. Hell, they get free cell phones!

If I were to strip you of every single possession you have, drop you in a foreign country with a foreign language without any electronic devices, how would you go about to get a job, get a bank account, determine what paperwork needs filling? You might succeed, but it would be an absolute nightmare. This is 2019, you can't actually live in a society without any internet access / mobile or computer.

But note that almost all of them refer to their tax REFUNDS, not the total amount of taxes.

Because that's the only thing that matter? If I need to pay 500k in taxes and get 499.8K in refunds, that's what counts? That's not even an argument.

For example: For decades, I've had my withholding set so that at the end of the year, I owe maybe $25-$50 bucks. I've carefully set this up to avoid giving the govt. an interest-free loan for the year, as well as protecting myself from having to wait for whatever delay might occur with the refund process (NY State has occasionally threatened to delay refunds as part of the annual budget fight in the past.)

You're one of those that think they're smart for withholding taxes. Flash news, you're not. Withholding taxes and paying the full amount at the end of the year is exactly the same thing. The only advantage of doing that is for folks that don't have the cash at hand at the end of the year, nothing more.

If you were smart, what you would do instead is use the monies you're withholding and invest in funds or any other types of investments, collect interests out of it, and pay your full amount at the end of the year.

[Annoyed]

If I were to strip you of every single possession you have, drop you in a foreign country with a foreign language without any electronic devices, how would you go about to get a job, get a bank account, determine what paperwork needs filling? You might succeed, but it would be an absolute nightmare. This is 2019, you can't actually live in a society without any internet access / mobile or computer.

Why would I go to a foreign country?

Is there any public library that doesn't provide computers/internet these days? A gmail/yahoo email address is free. Sorry, that excuse doesn't fly.

In point of fact, that is exactly how I obtained my current job. I had been out of work for some time, so no device/home inet, and this place only accepted electronic applications. I seem to have gotten the job.

Because that's the only thing that matter? If I need to pay 500k in taxes and get 499.8K in refunds, that's what counts? That's not even an argument.



You're one of those that think they're smart for withholding taxes. Flash news, you're not. Withholding taxes and paying the full amount at the end of the year is exactly the same thing. The only advantage of doing that is for folks that don't have the cash at hand at the end of the year, nothing more.

If you were smart, what you would do instead is use the monies you're withholding and invest in funds or any other types of investments, collect interests out of it, and pay your full amount at the end of the year.

Unless, of course you lose your shirt in the wall street casino, or your investment firm pulls some chicanery and walks off with your money.
I've seem that scenario play out numerous times in the past.

[Chaka-Z0]

Why would I go to a foreign country?

I don't give a clap if you want to stay in MAGA land forever. Off-topic.

Is there any public library that doesn't provide computers/internet these days? A gmail/yahoo email address is free. Sorry, that excuse doesn't fly.

I agree, but even most public libraries will not let you in unless you have a membership card (it's how it works around here), the libraries are financed through municipal taxes here therefore it's legit and for that you need an official ID, which is not always the case with refugees. Coffee shops will require you to A) consume products to stay on site or B) charge you by the hour / minute for using the internet. Not ideal for someone who has no money to spare.

In point of fact, that is exactly how I obtained my current job. I had been out of work for some time, so no device/home inet, and this place only accepted electronic applications. I seem to have gotten the job.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do so, what I'm saying is that providing a phone makes it 1000x easier for them to get a job. They can get calls for interviews invitations, easier to do follow-up by email, etc. You complain about welfare leeches, this small investment of a few hundred dollars can speed up the process of those assets becoming profitable.

Unless, of course you lose your shirt in the wall street casino, or your investment firm pulls some chicanery and walks off with your money.
I've seem that scenario play out numerous times in the past.

Bad investment strategy. You don't need to buy into Wall-Street Shenanigans, there are much more options available for investors. Your portfolio should be multi-facets at all times to cover risky investments, such as investment funds. Unless you're a gambler or clueless, you can't really lose money. It's all about balance.

[aretood2]

Who says that that's all they are raised on? It's just lunch, for cripe's sake. I maintain that a couple who make 60K can feed their own kids.

Where? The tax reform promised a reduction in tax liability for lower/middle classes, not fatter refunds. That's exactly what we got.

I just noticed you keep focusing on 60K...you do realize that 60K does not qualify, right? It's under 60K. Which, by the way, is beyond the point. The point is that by everyone else's standards, our system is far from generous. You were talking to a Canadian trying to pass off our welfare as generous, when compared to their system, ours is quite comparable if not smaller actually. You were trying to shock him into "how much" money we give, when in reality to him that was nothing shocking. They get free healthcare up there for crying out loud. Though, ironically, the one place where we do got the Canadians beated is in school lunches.

Also, the issue here is also (can I use also twice?) that 60k for a family isn't an extravagant amount either, especially if you consider that rent can go as high as 15k a year with transportation capable of costing 2k assuming the whole family spends only an average of $40 of gas per week (considering that many people do commute long distances for work, it can be nearly twice as much). No family can do with less than $100 for groceries per week, unless they are trimming fat (literally, figuratively, and at possibly at unhealthy levels) or at least not if you want to eat healthy foods, so that's $5,200. Take taxes into account and that's one parent's income. Then you need car insurance, telecom bills, clothing, health insurance, Car and house maintenance, Utilities, and medical bills not covered by insurance companies. Sure 60K can cover that, but just barely with no room for any sort of disposable income. No mortgage, no new cars, no real luxuries or much in the way of middle class level "extras".

You go below 60K and you have to start making sacrifices. $700 a year in school lunches for one kid does all of a sudden make a difference.

And before you go into the "you shouldn't have kids" nonsense, you do realize that if everyone waited until they made 60k individually before having kids, that this country would have a demographic crises worse than anything in either China or Japan? We are talking societal collapse. Families are the bases of any civilization, without them there is no civilization. We as a society have a vested interest in people having kids, at least 2.1 kids per woman (the 0.1 for those that don't end up having kids for whatever reason. If we all adopt your "Only the rich should have kids" approach or even limit lower middle class and working class families to 1 kid, we would fall well below 2.1 kids per woman to the point where it would be irreversible. So yes, even if 50K or 55K or 59K salaries per household could (with creative accounting and sensible austerity) do without free or reduced meals in schools, for the benefit of American (and by extent Western) Civilization, I say it's not a bad thing at all and it is well worth the cost.

I'll go even further, if it means keeping our civilization up, I'd even bump it up to 70k to account for inflation.