ChaoticMusings

Vam · Getting Gobby

RE: Are we neare WW3 than any other time in recent history?

Maddog · Go Outside

jackb wrote:
Maddog wrote:
jackb wrote:
Maddog wrote:
jackb wrote:
Maddog wrote:

The US has spent hundreds of billions in US taxpayers money keeping Ukraine propped up.

We're broke.
The Americans engineered (forced Europe into having it this way after the second world war.

I don't think the Americans were planning on pumping billions into it 80 years later.

You got what you wanted at a cost you hadn't back then thought through.

I don't know if you can blame current events on things that happened 80 years ago.

Are you saying people in 1945 should have known the Soviet Union would dissolve and Russia would invade Ukraine at a later date?
I'm saying America decided it was a good idea to dominate Europe and if there were cost overruns later don't blame Europe... it was your plan your idea.

I'd agree with that if Europe actually lived up to their end of the bargain. Maybe they did when NATO was much smaller and the Soviets were a real threat, but in recent decades they haven't..The vast majority of NATO countries are in breech of their defense obligations..

Maddog · Go Outside

Red Okktober wrote:
The ingredients are there for a world war but I don't think it will happen for some time yet.

Civil war in the UK and across Europe, based on cultural differences, is far more likely to happen first.

Or even civil war in Russia..

I think the Russian military has been exposed. Keeping them bottled up shouldn't be that difficult and even a tyrant like Vlad will run out of support if he continues a stupid policy of wasting blood and treasure ..

Maddog · Go Outside

I think what Europe is learning is what we all sort of know in general.

If you rely on someone else for your survival you put yourself in a precarious position. Europe spent decades being reliant on the US for it's defense.

If you live like that, you need to understand that that dependence has a cost.

Europe is now waking up to the fact that Europe may need to take the lead in the defense of Europe.

jackb · 1000 Posts!?

Maddog wrote:
I think what Europe is learning is what we all sort of know in general.

If you rely on someone else for your survival you put yourself in a precarious position. Europe spent decades being reliant on the US for it's defense.

If you live like that, you need to understand that that dependence has a cost.

Europe is now waking up to the fact that Europe may need to take the lead in the defense of Europe.

Our leaders are nearly always mostly stupid.

When the wall came down they seemed to think Eurasia was now going to be one big happy family.

Russia was now going to stop having dictators and embrace capitalistic democracy.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Blimey, has he had a brain transplant?

"UK defence spending will increase to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 while the foreign aid budget will be cut, Sir Keir Starmer has said ahead of a meeting with Donald Trump.
The rise from the current 2.3% means £13.4bn more will be spent annually on defence after that year, the prime minister announced in an unexpected statement in the Commons."

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Blimey, has he had a brain transplant?

"UK defence spending will increase to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 while the foreign aid budget will be cut, Sir Keir Starmer has said ahead of a meeting with Donald Trump.
The rise from the current 2.3% means £13.4bn more will be spent annually on defence after that year, the prime minister announced in an unexpected statement in the Commons."

The UK has always met the 2% of GDP requirement for NATO membership.

Most of NATO hasn't..At least not in decades..

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Blimey, has he had a brain transplant?

"UK defence spending will increase to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 while the foreign aid budget will be cut, Sir Keir Starmer has said ahead of a meeting with Donald Trump.
The rise from the current 2.3% means £13.4bn more will be spent annually on defence after that year, the prime minister announced in an unexpected statement in the Commons."
The UK has always met the 2% of GDP requirement for NATO membership.

Most of NATO hasn't..At least not in decades..

He is increasing it, and instead of taking something else off UK pensioners (yet) he is actually cutting our foreign aid budget....at last.

The UK has been the third largest donor to overseas aid,. Why the heck should we be sending millions to China when we have record numbers having to use food banks at home.

It also costs us billions every year to support the refugees and asylum seekers who live here.

Red Okktober · Getting Gobby

To any normal person, inreasing our own defences by cutting foreign aid is the bloody obvious move - but it does seem odd when Starmer does something that most people will agree with. He's done it through gritted teeth though and has admitted he's not happy doing it. He's done something popular through having nowhere else to turn, not through choice or common sense

The Labour manifesto (toilet paper) actually pledged to increase foreign aid from 0.5% to 0.7% - his intention was to give even more of our money away as soon as he could. But now he can't, and has had to do a U turn instead.

Labour’s manifesto said the party was “committed to restoring (foreign aid) development spending at the level of 0.7% of gross national income as soon as fiscal circumstances allow”

Red Okktober · Getting Gobby

I know 2-3% of GDP equates to a lot of money, but it does seem a low number in percentage terms for something so important as defence spending.

If I didn't already know the figure and was asked to guess, I would guess at least double that.

Date: Feb 25 11:49 PM, 2025

I accept it was a necessary evil but to increase defence by plundering the Aid Budget does seem like the poorest and most vulnerable in society are suffering for Trump's twisted world view..couldn't there possibly be another way?? 🤔 Taxing the super rich would be understood under such circumstances surely. Trump has even stopped helping the vulnerable in his own country , the poorer Americans are not getting vital medication, and homeless centres have seen an increase. All due to the new enforced regulations hence the word "traitor" being aimed at him at the Superbowl. What if these people voted for him?? I honestly wonder why American's couldn't see right through him in the first place. I do applaud Starmer for the extra defence spending (although it is still not enough realistically ) but as I said it does seem like we are treading the wrong path by taking money we were giving to the most needy , Sudan etc and impoverished countries that need our aid. Trump would approve of such a choice.

Barksdale · Getting Gobby

Anonymous wrote:
Taxing the super rich would be understood under such circumstances surely.

Starmer could do this, but we won't because he thinks it will be unpopular. It's an easier win for him to take it from the Foreign Aid budget and appeal to Reform / Conservative voters at the same time. It also signals to the market that Labour are being fiscally responsible which helps with keeping the interest rate on givernment borrowing down.

We will know more in the Spring / Fiscal statement but it increasingly looks like Starmer / Reeves won't be brave enough to take this route or deal with wealth inequality and they will tinker around the edges.

Looks like we are stuck with an every man for himself economy.

May the odds ever be in your favour...

Date: Feb 26 7:30 PM, 2025

@Barksdale Sadly I agree , it doesn't look like Starmer is brave enough to increase taxes for the rich, even slightly. Life really has became akin to a dystopian novel. I am furious with Trump for using his power to cause fear and division when instead he could help so many. His AI assisted animated vision of a future Gaza looking like a gold casino was so crass and frankly, mad. But I suppose we should expect nothing else. Now the UK has to pay tariffs and continue to find the defence budget Starmer needs to find yet more funds. But the government literally has no more money , the NHS is on its knees so he can't cut budgets to public services. It's going to be cuts to welfare in the spring statement.. So the vulnerable in society, the ailing and elderly get it on the neck again.. Pretty soon, people will be protesting if not rioting. Too many working parents are broke and at their wits end, schools are falling apart and doctors are tending to patients in toilets, it's madness to expect everyday people to continue to be walked all over. The taxation system is flawed and some millionaires have even appealed to the PM that they don't mind paying a fair share as they see the disparity of the widening divide between the have and have not's. It's time for common sense.

Maddog · Go Outside

Taxing the super rich is great politically because class envy sells.

But it rarely raises much money. It's largely symbolic..

Elizabeth Warren had a wealth tax bill that failed. Optimistically it would raise 200 billion a year. Probably less..

We spend about 7 trillion a year and borrowed about 1.8 trillion a year.

But, you can get some folks riled up with "eat the rich "..

Date: Feb 27 1:54 AM, 2025

Um, not all want the rich to be..eaten. A fairer taxation system is a more just way than making yet more cuts to those with a low income who have nothing to give. But if your stance is correct and it won't provide enough taxing millionaires a slither more then income tax will go up for all, no matter their 'class'. Not everyone envies the rich, Maddog. I suppose some might. Some people just wish there wasn't so many impoverished powerless people in the world starving or dying in needless wars. I believe the poor sods are called socialists!

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Anonymous wrote:
Um, not all want the rich to be..eaten. A fairer taxation system is a more just way than making yet more cuts to those with a low income who have nothing to give. But if your stance is correct and it won't provide enough taxing millionaires a slither more then income tax will go up for all, no matter their 'class'. Not everyone envies the rich, Maddog. I suppose some might. Some people just wish there wasn't so many impoverished powerless people in the world starving or dying in needless wars. I believe the poor sods are called socialists!

I would not want to eat a rich person anyway, all that blue blood oozing out, eeeww.

Red Okktober · Getting Gobby

Barksdale wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Taxing the super rich would be understood under such circumstances surely.
Starmer could do this, but we won't because he thinks it will be unpopular. It's an easier win for him to take it from the Foreign Aid budget and appeal to Reform / Conservative voters at the same time. It also signals to the market that Labour are being fiscally responsible which helps with keeping the interest rate on givernment borrowing down.
We will know more in the Spring / Fiscal statement but it increasingly looks like Starmer / Reeves won't be brave enough to take this route or deal with wealth inequality and they will tinker around the edges.
Looks like we are stuck with an every man for himself economy.
May the odds ever be in your favour...

I don't Starmer either cares or is aware of what being unpopular means. Practically everything he's done since being PM has been unpopular, and yet he continues to become more and more unpopular and Labour's ratings continue to plummet. So that wouldn't be a reason imo for not taxing the super rich. He's probably saving them for later on as he and Reeves are far from finished.

In any case, by the nature of being super rich, a lot of them would just up sticks and fuck off to another country.

Maddog · Go Outside

Anonymous wrote:
Um, not all want the rich to be..eaten. A fairer taxation system is a more just way than making yet more cuts to those with a low income who have nothing to give. But if your stance is correct and it won't provide enough taxing millionaires a slither more then income tax will go up for all, no matter their 'class'. Not everyone envies the rich, Maddog. I suppose some might. Some people just wish there wasn't so many impoverished powerless people in the world starving or dying in needless wars. I believe the poor sods are called socialists!

There are no starving people near you and I..

As for needless wars, they become more difficult to wage when governments have less funding

"If people are equal, they are not free. If people are free, they won't be equal."

Some poor sod who spent years in a socialist prison..

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Um, not all want the rich to be..eaten. A fairer taxation system is a more just way than making yet more cuts to those with a low income who have nothing to give. But if your stance is correct and it won't provide enough taxing millionaires a slither more then income tax will go up for all, no matter their 'class'. Not everyone envies the rich, Maddog. I suppose some might. Some people just wish there wasn't so many impoverished powerless people in the world starving or dying in needless wars. I believe the poor sods are called socialists!
I would not want to eat a rich person anyway, all that blue blood oozing out, eeeww.

I guess you could cook them well done..

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Um, not all want the rich to be..eaten. A fairer taxation system is a more just way than making yet more cuts to those with a low income who have nothing to give. But if your stance is correct and it won't provide enough taxing millionaires a slither more then income tax will go up for all, no matter their 'class'. Not everyone envies the rich, Maddog. I suppose some might. Some people just wish there wasn't so many impoverished powerless people in the world starving or dying in needless wars. I believe the poor sods are called socialists!
I would not want to eat a rich person anyway, all that blue blood oozing out, eeeww.
I guess you could cook them well done..

Thrice cooked at least

ChaoticMusings

Machines were mice and men were lions once upon a time. But now that it's the opposite it's twice upon a time.