A woman in the making but where are the shoes?
It is high time for America to contribute to U.N Agencies that accomplish what we favor and withdraw funds, when appropriate, from those who fail in their mission. We have been suckered long enough. It is insulting to American tax payers to see their hard earned earnings squandered/ benefiting those who hate us, refuse to support us and only want our co-operation and money.
It is high time for our State Department to end funding tin cup diplomacy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A more positive view of the tax bill. (See 1 below.)
Hard to believe Schumer and Pelosi believe a strong economy, more employment will work against Trump because wealthy individual also get benefits.
I guess Democrats believe Americans lack a generous spirit, cannot see beyond their own pockets. believe punishing the wealthy is good for America, embrace the politics of envy and are totally unrealistic when it comes to who should spend their own hard won earnings.
If Americans have embraced socialism then the Democrats are correct. However, if Americans still believe in entrepreneurship, individualism, reject identity politics and pitting one American against another then the far left of the Democrat Party may eventually realize Schumer , Pelosi, Pocahontas, Gillebrand, Sanders et. al are spewing the wrong message.
We will soon see whether America is going the way of the "new liberalism" expressed by students who do not favor free speech, do not see relevance in our Constitution and are more interested in self along with the 'kneelers' who reject our national symbols.
If the American economy is gaining momentum and local pocket book issues still dictate that should become a meaningful hurdle for those who have chosen to take the path of contentious opposition.
Is new campus and street radicalism a passing phase or will it leave an indelible mark and direct our nation's future?
This is really what the 2018 election will be about and the rejection of Trump and his policies is simply a cover/ruse for turning America into a copy of a decaying Europe.
The radicals who have taken over the Democrat Party are a modern day Trojan Horse.
I forwarded the above to selected friends and fellow memo readers before I posted and this is a response from one: " Dick, Your question to “Letted,” viz., “Is new campus and street radicalism a passing phase or will it leave an indelible mark and direct our nation's future?” is quite apt, in my view. As I lived through the mid sixties and worked literally down the street from Sproul Plaza, I too had the Pollyannish view that “this too will pass.” I failed to realize then that the people throwing fire bombs through store windows all the while, of course, carrying “peace” signs or forbidding speech that didn’t agree with their view of the world, again, all in the name of “free speech”) were destined to become our doctors, lawyers, priests, teachers, congressmen, etc., and lead future generations into the same moral morass into which they had fallen. Alas, that is precisely what happened and we’re now seeing the end result of two generations of corrupt, immoral, far left leadership in almost all public and many private endeavors.
My point, to partly answer your query, these movements have a way of taking on a life of their own and have implications and influence far beyond their current destructive anti-social behavior. I see no reason, or hope for that matter, for their present behavior not to at least influence, if not direct entirely, at least another generation.
Cynical? Perhaps. But I’ve lived it once, I’druther not do it again. But there you are – history is usually a good teacher if we’ll but listen.
Woe is me!! E-"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++It is amazing how many high level bureaucrats, who earn "uge" salaries have such pathetic selective memories Obviously they only remember what they want yet, their memories are quite good when it comes to remembering the sins of Trump. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
According to an article by Andrew Browne in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, Trump's new security policy characterizes China in realistic terms. Browne writes:"...Yet the document is also a frank acknowledgment of widely shared concerns about China's rise. Its complaint of China's bullying of other states 'using economic inducements and penalties, influence operations and implied military threats' echoes fears spreading from Asia to Europe..." (See 3 below for China's response.)
++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, my dear friend and fellow memo reader LC (Ret) Allen West has made an appeal to which I personally responded and ask you to consider doing likewise. Semper Fi. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) ECONOMY COMMENTARY
5 Myths About Tax Reform, and Why They’re Wrong
Next week, the House and Senate will take their final votes on tax reform. The president’s goal is to sign the legislation into law before Christmas.
Although there are still some unknown details, the important parts of the bill for most Americans are already known and would greatly improve our current, woefully out-of-date tax code.
The bottom line is that taxpayers across America can expect a tax cut. The bill would lower tax rates for individuals and businesses, double the standard deduction, and significantly increase the child tax credit.
The bill is also pro-growth and pro-American worker. The economy could grow to be almost 3 percent larger at the end of 10 years. That translates to more than $4,000 dollars per household, per year. American families could finally get a real raise.
The bias in the mainstream media continues to increase. Before the end of 2017, there is something you can do to combat this. Find out more >>
Americans deserve to know the truth about the proposed tax reform packages. There are several myths going around about what the proposed plan would do.
Here are a few of them, and why they’re wrong.
Myth 1: This is just a tax cut for the rich, and it will actually raise taxes for everyone else.
The truth is in fact the opposite. The Senate tax bill increases the amount of taxes paid by the rich and, according to the liberal Tax Policy Center, 93 percent of taxpayers would see a tax cut or no change in 2019. It found similar results for the House bill.
Both tax bills would actually increase the progressivity of the U.S. tax code. That means fewer people at the bottom will pay income taxes, and people at the top will see their share of taxes paid increase.
The Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards notes that the Senate tax bill cuts income taxes for people making $40,000 to $75,000 a year by about 37 percent. People making over $1 million see a cut of only 6 percent.
In two recent Daily Signal pieces, we calculated how 12 different taxpayers would fare under each of the tax plans. The results show that almost everyone will see a tax cut, and only the wealthiest families are at risk of their taxes going up.
Under the current tax code, the top 10 percent of income earners earn about 45 percent of all income and pay 70 percent of all federal income taxes. The U.S. tax code is already highly progressive, and these tax reforms will only increase the trend of the wealthy paying more than their share of income earned.
Myth 2: Repealing the individual mandate will raise taxes on the poor, raise insurance premiums, and kill 10,000 people a year.
Only in Washington can removing a tax penalty be considered a tax increase.
Tax reform will likely repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate, which imposes a tax penalty anywhere from $695 to upward of $10,000 for not purchasing the type of health insurance mandated by the federal government.
Depending on income and available health insurance options, the federally mandated health insurance comes with subsidies paid to the insurance company that can range from no more than a few dollars to over $12,000 a year per individual, and upward of $20,000 per year for families.
Repealing the mandate would not force anyone to give up their coverage or forego their current tax credits. It would just make the Obamacare insurance optional, and thus increase health care choices.
Eliminating the Obamacare individual mandate will not reduce any taxpayer’s income by a single cent. It will, however, reduce the tax bills of many individuals and families—based on their own choices—by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.
The individual mandate with its penalties is also not the “glue” that holds Obamacare together, as some have claimed. It never was.
“The lifeblood of the law is the generous taxpayer insurance subsidies, which attract and maintain the historically sluggish enrollment,” explains senior Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffit. Repealing the mandate will not precipitate doomsday for insurance premiums.
While it is extremely difficult to predict how insurance premiums would change without the individual mandate penalty, we do know that eliminating the penalty will prevent low- and middle-income individuals and families from having to subsidize the high medical costs of others.
One particularly outrageous claim is that due to people voluntarily choosing alternative health care solutions, 10,000 people will die each year because the government is no longer forcing Americans to buy health insurance.
Two economists reviewed these claims and found the exact opposite. They found that there is “poor evidence linking insurance coverage to mortality” and that “the mandate may in fact be elevating death rates in some populations.”
When you factor in the economic growth and higher wages from tax reform, the tax bill could actually save lives.
Myth 3: Corporations and their rich owners will receive a huge windfall.
Politicians who don’t want tax reform claim that cutting taxes for business will only help the rich.
Despite the name—“corporate” tax reform—the burden of the corporate income tax falls almost entirely on workers in the form of lower wages. Americans are undoubtedly skeptical about this claim, but the realities on the ground are actually quite simple.
When business taxes go down, workers’ wages go up.
That’s not just the result of corporate benevolence. Rather, wages rise because higher profits translate to additional investments that make workers more productive, and businesses that don’t pay workers what they are worth will lose them to competitors who do.
American corporations pay a federal income tax rate of 35 percent—one of the highest in the world. If tax reform can lower that rate to 21 percent, American businesses and the workers they employ will be globally competitive again. Businesses will invest more, hire more workers, and be forced by the laws of supply and demand to raise wages.
This is exactly what happened over the past decade and a half in neighboring Canada. In 2007, Canada began lowering its corporate tax rate. And guess what? Wages grew significantly faster in Canada than other comparable countries.
Most economic researchers agree. A recent review of 10 separate studiespublished between 2007 and 2015 concluded that when governments cut corporate taxes, workers receive almost all of the benefit through higher wages.
Myth 4: Tax reform will be bad for seniors.
Retirees may be the most concerned about what tax reform will mean for them, as most rely on relatively fixed incomes.
But, the proposed reforms are good news for retirees. For the most part, they would be less affected than other Americans, as the proposed reforms would not change the way Social Security and investment income are taxed.
Many retirees would in fact benefit from the tax bills’ doubling the size of the standard deduction.
While seniors’ earnings and pension income would be subject to new individual income tax brackets and rates, those changes would actually mean tax cuts—not increases—for an overwhelming majority of seniors and retirees.
Myth 5: Tax reform won’t grow the economy, it will only add to the debt.
Congress rightly allowed the tax reform bill to decrease revenues over 10 years by $1.5 trillion—about 3.5 percent of projected revenue. But such “static” budget scores provide zero useful information about how the reform will actually affect the deficit.
Properly designed tax reform will lead to a larger economy and higher wages. Each of these economic benefits can result in more tax revenue.
A recent Heritage Foundation analysis shows that the Senate tax reform bill could boost the size of the U.S. economy by almost 3 percent over the long run.
Other estimates are even more optimistic. Nine leading economists recently described how the economy could see a boost of up to 4 percent due to tax reform. The President’s Council of Economic Advisers believes the economy could grow between 3 and 5 percent, a range that was independently verified by three economists from Boston University.
Tax reform that grows the economy could result in more than $130 billion of new federal revenue in every year outside the current budget window. And that’s using the most conservative of the estimates above.
More optimistic estimates would bring in well north of $200 billion, making up most—if not all—of the static tax cut once the economy reaches its new larger potential.
Congress’ spending addiction shouldn’t stop tax reform, but the tax cuts will be short lived if Congress continues to increase spending every year.
The fact remains that our deficit cannot be eliminated with tax increases. Believing it can denies the fundamental problem: The deficit is driven by out-of-control spending. Spending is where congressional deficit hawks should turn their attention.
It is true that the proposed tax reform packages would mean big changes for individuals, families, and businesses across the United States. Overwhelmingly, however, these changes would be resoundingly positive.
Lower- and middle-income families would receive the largest tax cuts, and they would be the primary beneficiaries of business tax reforms that would generate higher wages and more job opportunities across America.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Sources: McCabe's Memory Was Foggy, His Testimony Conflicted With Other Witnesses
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe's closed-door interview with House Intelligence Committee investigators on Tuesday did not go well for him, Fox News' James Rosen reported in an exclusive on Wednesday.
According to congressional sources, McCabe's answers during his seven-hour interrogation conflicted with the testimony of previous witnesses, prompting one House investigator to tell Fox News, “It’s hard to know who’s telling us the truth.”
The discrepancies have spurred Republican majority staff of the intel committee to issue fresh subpoenas next week for other Justice Department and FBI personnel.
Fox News reports that those personnel are likely to be "demoted DOJ official Bruce G. Ohr and FBI General Counsel James A. Baker, who accompanied McCabe, along with other lawyers, to Tuesday’s HPSCI session." Ohr -- whose wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS through the summer and fall of 2016 -- is set to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committeelater this week, as well.
The questioning on Tuesday was led by Rep. Trey Gowdy, (R-SC) with several other lawmakers participating, according to Fox News. Gowdy, in particular, has been very keen to find out whether the FBI relied on the anti-Trump dossier to secure a FISA warrant to spy on President Trump and his associates. "I want to know whether the nation's premier law enforcement agency relied on a document that looks like the National Enquirer prepared it," Gowdy said in October.
In what has to be a blow to the #RussiaGate crowd, the number two official in the FBI was apparently unable to cite which specific details in the dossier had been actually corroborated, after he told investigators that the bureau had verified some of the allegations. He also seemed to suffer from an attack of amnesia when asked about the Democratic funding of the dossier.
Sources close to the investigation say that McCabe was a “friendly witness” to the Democrats in the room, who are said to have pressed the deputy director, without success, to help them build a case against President Trump for obstruction of justice in the Russia-collusion probe. “If he could have, he would have,” said one participant in the questioning.
Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the contents of the anti-Trump “dossier” and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier’s allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly held in Moscow.
The sources said that when asked when he learned that the dossier had been funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, McCabe claimed he could not recall – despite the reported existence of documents with McCabe’s own signature on them establishing his knowledge of the dossier’s financing and provenance.
McCabe will also testify before the House Judiciary Committee in a closed-door interview on Thursday, although some members would like him to testify in public.
"We absolutely need to get sworn testimony, under oath, in public because the American people deserve to know whether or not their taxpayer money was used to fund a dossier to discredit the president," House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) told Fox Business anchor David Asman on Wednesday. "We have to know whether that dossier was then dressed up as an intelligence document and used to spy on Americans," he said, adding that "we certainly have to know why Nellie Ohr, the wife of Bruce Ohr -- one of the top officials at the Department of Justice -- was getting paid by the very company, paid by the Democrats, to go give money to the Russians, to dig up dirt on the president that wasn't true."
Gaetz said demoted Agent Strzok's now famous "smoking gun" text message referring to an "insurance policy" against the president makes McCabe "a witness to a potential conspiracy to undermine the duly elected president of the United States."
"The 'insurance' was to discredit the president," he added. "Unequivocally, the ties between this Trump dossier, the Democratic National Committee, the FBI and then the very wife of one of the top officials at the Department of Justice make it very clear that this was a coordinated effort to undermine President Trump, and if we allow this to continue, it casts a cloud over the entire presidency and it leaves in place institutions that aren't truly serving the will of the people," he said.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) China Says U.S. Risks Harming Itself With New National-Security Policy
Chinese diplomats and state media criticize Trump’s decision to describe China as a major threat
BEIJING—Chinese officials chided the U.S. for labeling China as a “rival” power, warning that President Donald Trump’s confrontational rhetoric would be self-defeating.
In public remarks and commentaries on Tuesday, Chinese diplomats and state media roundly criticized Mr. Trump’s decision to describe China as a major threat in a presidential report on national-security strategy—the first such designation since Washington started issuing these documents three decades ago.
“China will never seek development at the price of sacrificing other countries’ interests,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a regular briefing Tuesday. “We urge the U.S. to stop deliberately distorting China’s strategic intentions and discard outdated Cold War zero-sum mentalities, or risk harming others and itself.”
Getty
The national-security strategy laid out by Mr. Trump on Monday was the first to omit language saying the U.S. would welcome or support China’s growing international role since Congress in 1986 mandated the president to make the periodic report. Instead, it said: “We learned the difficult lesson that when America does not lead, malign actors fill the void to the disadvantage of the United States.”
All U.S. national-security strategies issued by presidents from Ronald Reagan through Barack Obama had included a formulation saying that the U.S. welcomed China’s growth as a responsible power, sometimes parceling out advice for how China could “reach its full potential.”
In China, observers say Mr. Trump’s adoption of a more confrontational tone underscores the shift in the global balance of power away from the U.S.
“China has set a goal that logically threatens the U.S. view of its dominant position in the world,” said Shen Dingli, professor of international relations at Shanghai’s Fudan University. “The U.S. isn’t wrong in perceiving Chinese competition for its place at the center stage of global affairs.”
Departing from cooperative tones in past reports, Mr. Trump’s national-security strategy condemned China for projecting influence at the expense of neighbors’ sovereignty, exporting corruption and stealing intellectual property. It said the U.S. would consider restricting visas to science and technology students from “designated countries.” China’s ministries of commerce, defense and education didn’t immediately respond to faxed requests for comment.
The report is likely to deepen mistrust, as more officials on both sides revert to Cold War thinking in handling bilateral ties, said Zhao Tong, a security expert at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy in Beijing.
The Chinese Embassy in Washington said Mr. Trump’s speech was laced with “self-contradictory rhetoric.”“There’s the same sentiment in China toward the United States, too,” he said. “The deep suspicion toward American strategic intentions has only increased.”
“Preaching rivalry and confrontation goes against the global trend, and will lead to failure,” the embassy said in a Tuesday statement. “For China and the United States, cooperation leads to win-win outcomes, while confrontation can only lead to a lose-lose situation.”
China experts and state media also said Beijing would watch to see if the policy statement is put into practice.
“The national-security strategy document is a declaration of policy intent rather than a practical program of policy implementation,” said China’s state-run news service Xinhua.
The report also reflected Washington’s growing doubts that Chinese economic development will lead to democratic reform. In his 1991 national-security strategy, President George H.W. Bush said the U.S. needed to strengthen cooperation with China as it proceeded “inexorably toward major systemic change.”
Monday’s report said “the American way of life cannot be imposed upon others, nor is it the inevitable culmination of progress.”
— Xiao Xiao and Kersten Zhang contributed
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)
| |||||
| |||||
|
No comments:
Post a Comment