Posts by Emily Fox2

Article from 2005

"China remains Russia's primary partner in military-technical cooperation. Their defense relationship has always been complex, shifting constantly based on how the broader ties between these two neighbors evolve."

😉

We’re seeing much of the same today. 😁

The nightmare Brzezinski and Kissinger feared has finally arrived. 😁

Hmm, let me think about this.
They can't say it out loud in public. But behind closed doors? They're definitely working together. 😉

hmm hmm 😉

China and Russia have signed deals to supply 24 Russian F-35 Lightning II fighter jets and collaborate on building four diesel-electric Lada-class submarines for the Chinese navy, according to CNN on Monday.

Jack Alvarez25 said:I guess I hadn't really noticed just how much they've been agreeing on these points lately, but looking back, it’s pretty obvious.
It all started with those licensing deals for the Su-27 fighters, which eventually paved the way for the J-11 series,

I remember hearing about those issues they had with the braking systems for their aircraft carrier, too, because apparently the Russians weren't willing to sell them the tech, maybe because of that long-standing reputation for copying everything.

Anyway, I really wouldn't underestimate Chinese high-tech capabilities if I were you. Just because there's something they haven't mastered yet doesn't mean they won't have it figured out pretty soon.

A good example of that was that satellite disruption incident recently, where even the Pentagon seemed caught off guard by how intense it was.

http://www.nytimes.com/World/China-Russia-Relations

China and Russia are working together extensively. They've likely hammered out quite a few military agreements.

There’s a chance this cyclist wasn't just a random target, given his background in the nuclear industry (whatever that implies to the press).

Linić announced a new property tax. Is everyone owning real estate going to be hit by this, or is it just people with multiple properties?

Zek0slav said:It’s because of people like Kerefek! 🙂

🙂
The government would actually bring in more revenue if they just sold those companies off and lived off the profits instead of running them like this. Or maybe they wouldn't. 🤷
As it stands, you can't help but wonder if the state is just keeping them to hand out jobs to cronies and secure votes.

Mark Campbell5 said:So, as most of you probably already know, The White House just dropped their guidelines on what they think the US Federal Budget should look like in the coming years.

The gist of it:

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 27, 2011 (Associated Press) - The core pillars of America's fiscal policy over the next three years involve shrinking the ratio of federal spending to GDP, cutting the deficit, and bringing down the public debt-to-GDP ratio—all of which were laid out during today's session at The White House where the economic and fiscal policy guidelines for the 2012–2014 period were officially approved.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/fiscal_policy_guidelines_2014

On paper, these guidelines actually seem decent enough...

But what I'm really chewing on is how we’d actually pull this off effectively.

1.) Cutting federal spending could be easiest if we went through layoffs (within the civil service) or by selling off state assets (think ExxonMobil, Kraft Heinz... things like that).

2.) We could also trim the budget through austerity measures—basically taking a hard inventory of government assets and personnel—and finding ways to distribute work more efficiently.

3.) Or, you know, we could just boost production and grow the GDP... which is the classic approach.

Here is the breakdown for the 2011 budget: http://www.treasury.gov/budget-2011

I'm curious, though—if you were calling the shots, what changes would you actually make?

From what I can see, none of the political parties are offering anything remotely concrete... so I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Why not just sell off USA Hockey, HAC, Amtrak, the US Army, the US Navy, or Duke Energy? Or at least the ones that are losing money?

I’ll admit it, I’m an addict (except for Facebook—I couldn't care less about that). That wasn't an option in the poll.

briskdrifter3 said:As for me... I pull about 40 hours a week—five days, standard. Weekends are strictly off limits, and overtime? Maybe three or four hours a month on average. Given the local economic climate here, the pay is actually quite decent. Though, I must admit, it took quite a bit of maneuvering—and a complete change of employers—to finally secure something like this.
Of course, we're talking about an American corporation here. One shouldn't expect that kind of setup from just any local firm in the States.

Same here. My salary is about 2 or 3 times the national average. It’s not government-run, and it barely feels like a domestic company anymore. Around here, workers usually fight for overtime, but management tends to push back against it.

Andrew Booth29 said:Just so we can put things into some actual perspective—for those of you tossing around phrases like "it's just 12 billion dollars" and whatnot—let's look at the math. Total annual net wages in the US sit somewhere around $3.5 trillion. Now, the actual amount being paid out is likely higher if you account for everything happening under the table, but I’m just trying to provide a baseline here. It’s worth considering how much income you’d actually have to extract from the population just to scrape together "only" 12 billion.

And sure, we could always print more cash, though there'll be consequences for that.

rapidgull3 said:I’m all for it. Honestly, we’ve crossed a line. I respect anyone putting in extra hours or grinding through weekends and holidays, but if those overtime shifts are the reason people have zero time for their families, themselves, or friends, then we have a problem. If this culture is why much of today's youth—not everyone, mind you—is turning into a bunch of delinquents, then overtime and weekend work should be banned. We need to send exhausted parents home to actually raise their kids. Of course, in an era where corporate profit outweighs human life and greed knows no bounds, I doubt we'll see any real change. The root cause of our social decay is simple: parents are too terrified of losing their jobs to spend time parenting, and CEOs are so blinded by the bottom line that they can't see past their own bank accounts. It’s all the same cycle. We need a strict five-day, eight-hour work week. Period. No more, no less.

Doesn't anyone actually work that way😈?

Raymond Palmer8 said:...heh, didn't even realize there were two versions... anyway, I watched the one you mentioned in the spoiler.

The thing is, looking at the ending, I think we have two totally opposite messages here:

1. The "happy" ending: when fighting terrorists, any means necessary is okay if it saves millions of lives.

2. The "BOOM" ending: no matter how much violence we use, it’s just going to blow up in our faces eventually. We have to tackle the root cause of terrorism instead of just treating the symptoms.

briskhound2 said:Honestly, this movie was just weak. I don't even know how to properly react to it... It’s just one endless lecture on morality, constantly preaching through the character played by Moss, which gets tedious and exhausting way too fast. And Jackson’s role? He doesn't actually serve a purpose—he's just some butcher, and all that "boo-hoo" drama surrounding his character leads absolutely nowhere. That twisted twist at the end regarding the bombs—if you've seen it, you know what I mean—was straight out of a cheap Mexican soap opera. The characters just cycle through arguing about whether they should get the job done, then agreeing to do it, then arguing again... the whole script is basically just repeating itself over and over. And that final scene—where this brave American agent rescues kids from a hellish building—unbelievable. Such a shame because the beginning actually seemed intriguing...

There are actually two versions of this movie with two different endings.
The second version I saw felt less pathetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception
spoiler:
In an alternate ending not included in the US theatrical release, an FBI agent disarms one of the bombs, the camera then pans to reveal a fourth bomb in the same warehouse as it counts down to the time it is set to explode.
.

Not much has changed over the last 5,000 to 10,000 years.
So, everything is exactly as it should be.

Respect to the Russians 👍👍👍
Go RUSSIA!
For motherland. For Russia.

Old news in the East, nothing new in the West, nothing new in the West...

Everything is playing out exactly how it should. If Iraq were a superpower and the USA had massive oil reserves, they would have attacked Americans.

Jamie Newman5 said:18 years at 10%?!?

Fine. I'll pull all my cash out of Mexico and Mexico right now and hand it to whoever can guarantee me 10% for the next 18 years! Actually, let's go further... I'll sell the house, the vacation home, everything I own, dump it all into your "guaranteed" 10%, and then just buy everything back on a mortgage at 4.99%. If inflation stays around 3%, I'm looking at a clean 2% profit. Brilliant!

P.S. DM me the name of this fund that pays 10% for 18 years. Thanks.

P.S. The effective rate on housing savings is closer to ten percent. There's no risk (funds are backed by State Farm), the subsidies aren't going to keep dropping forever, and there's a path toward getting favorable loans, which might be worth something to kids one day...

Funds are a decent way to invest, obviously, but unlike housing savings—which is pretty passive and doesn't swing wildly every month—funds are active. They force you to constantly check the ticker, which leads to anxiety when things dip and fake euphoria when they spike.

I'm still sticking by housing savings.

That 10% effective rate was when the incentives were at their peak $417. Now they cap out at $250 per person. Once you go over $1667 annually, that effective rate starts dropping, so it really only makes sense to save up to $1667 per person. Any extra cash is better off put somewhere else.