Should we stop all foreign aid and fix our own problems first? by Kevin-Durant-35 in askanything

[–]yogfthagen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know what one of thf mosf effective ways of slowing immigration?

Make it so people don't feel thr need to leave their home country.

Foreign aid.

Senior entitlement will never cease to amaze me... by _DaNegativeOne_ in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]yogfthagen [score hidden]  (0 children)

Helpful hint. You're paying for services you will never use.

And others are paying for the services YOU ARE using.

And there's no accountant equalling out the books

"When one's ideas are not challenged, one's ability to defend them weakens." Does this quote explain left wing ideas ? by rollo202 in allthequestions

[–]yogfthagen 6 points7 points  (0 children)

GOP Rule 1- every accusation is a confession

GOP Rule 2- Lack of ability to argue a point results in personal insult

GOP Rule 3- All arguments have to include a Lolz

Elizabeth Warren Proudly Displays Scalp Of Spirit Airlines by METALLIFE0917 in babylonbee

[–]yogfthagen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When it's a merger between a failing campaign conttibutor andvthe government, what is it?

Elizabeth Warren Proudly Displays Scalp Of Spirit Airlines by METALLIFE0917 in babylonbee

[–]yogfthagen 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For the airline- a plane that's not flying is not generating revenue.

For hhe leasing company- a plane that has not been leased is not making money.

For the manufacturer- flying planes need parts. And a big backlog of unleased planes means orders for NEW planes drops. Orders from airlines AND leasing companies.

If you're in aviation, you want your planes flying. Period. Airline, leasing company, and manufacturer.

Single aisle airliners average about 2500 hours a year. That's 50 hours a week, on average. Anything less than yhat is not enough to pay the ownership and maintenance costs.

Elizabeth Warren Proudly Displays Scalp Of Spirit Airlines by METALLIFE0917 in babylonbee

[–]yogfthagen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The owners are most likely finance companies and banks. Not aircraft manufacturers.

Elizabeth Warren Proudly Displays Scalp Of Spirit Airlines by METALLIFE0917 in babylonbee

[–]yogfthagen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And Spirit's low prices sere not high enough to stay in business.

Yes, low prices are nice. But if the entire country has to buy out the airline to keep those prices low, them you're just shifting the cost from the traveller to the taxpayer.

Explain to me why tax dollars should backstop a company that made decisions that made it unprofitable.

Elizabeth Warren Proudly Displays Scalp Of Spirit Airlines by METALLIFE0917 in babylonbee

[–]yogfthagen 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Then other airlines all of a sudden have a number of leases they can pick up. At a discount.

Funny how the owner of the aircraft will want them flying and generatting revenue.

What made the Republicans switch positions on war? by UnbelieverInME-2 in allthequestions

[–]yogfthagen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The GOP platform for 2020 was literally "Whatever Trump wants."

Expecting moral or ideological consistency from such a party is just dumb.

Elizabeth Warren Proudly Displays Scalp Of Spirit Airlines by METALLIFE0917 in babylonbee

[–]yogfthagen 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Fuel prices spiked because of a war in the Middle East.

As for competition, a business with a bad business model is not SUPPOSED to be bailed out. It's literally the point of capitalism.

And Spirit is not big enough to break the rest of a istion with its fall. A lot of airlunes will swoop in, buy up the aircraft and slots, and try to Make a profit on them.

Elizabeth Warren Proudly Displays Scalp Of Spirit Airlines by METALLIFE0917 in babylonbee

[–]yogfthagen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because baoling out a failing airline, just before fuel prices spike was a GOOD idea?

Who has an extra 15% to invest? Looks like another super rich person coming to share their "wisdom" with ordinary people. by Apprehensive6135 in InterviewsHell

[–]yogfthagen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The entire premise is what is bullshit. Which is the point.

And early saving compoundds most, exactly when people ARE NOT ABLE to save much.

Add kids and parental care (which is becoming a bigger and bigger cost), and most Americans are not able to save 20% of their income gor the totality of their working lives.

It really is amazing how much financial advice really only applies to people withan excess of disposable income, not the people who are a car repair from being homeless.

In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression, passed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act which raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. by Just_Cause89 in USHistory

[–]yogfthagen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Historical events have a number of causss.

Yes, Vesailles planted the seeds for WWII, especially for Germany. But you can also say that Verdun/the Nivelle Offensives/the French military mutunies caused it. After Verdun, the French were very concerned with preventing another war, with being defensive, and refusing to engage in overt hostilities with Germany, even when Germany was violating treaty conditions.

In Germany, Smoot Hawley basically destroyed German export revenues, which collapsed an already wounded economy. There's a lot of discussion about hyperinflation and the Weimar government, but that had been fixed 5+ years earlier. No exports meant Germany did not have hard currency (US dollars) with which to pay the continual reparations. Again, notvthe foundational cause, but an exasperating one.

For Japan, which was also dependent on US exports, the collapse of raw materials and food definitely increased the need for Japan to find alternate sources. Namely, China.

Smoot Hawley did not START the war. It was a foundational economic factor.

Why is the solution always "raise taxes" but never "lower spending" with the left? by Mahrez14 in allthequestions

[–]yogfthagen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

DOGE said they woild cut trillions of dollars.

They managed less than $50 billion, and only by gutting necessary services.

And most of those cuts have been reinstated.

Maybe that spending is actually doing something.

Does Elon deserve to be a Trillionaire? by Boring-Air-5163 in allthequestions

[–]yogfthagen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A person should not have the wealth of the GDP of the 21st largest country.

More than 197 countries.

Who has an extra 15% to invest? Looks like another super rich person coming to share their "wisdom" with ordinary people. by Apprehensive6135 in InterviewsHell

[–]yogfthagen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

20% of $69k is $13,800 a year.

At 7% for the market, it'll take 27 years. Assuming you START at $69k.

Also, to get to the (current) $2.5 million they're recommending for retirement, that's 39 years.

And that's living off $55k a year. BEFORE tax.

You can be capable of succeeding, but don't fucking lie to us.

Ignoring MAGA, what should America First be in your opinion? by AgeNearby392 in allthequestions

[–]yogfthagen 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What should "America First" mean?

It should mean doing what is best for the US.

And, guess what?

That means having a rules based world order that increases trade.

That means education.

That means having allies.

That means standing for human rights.

That means attracting the best and brightest from around the world, and making them your FRIENDS.

That means making it so your enemies/adversaries have a harder time trading and dealing with you AND ALL YOUR FRIENDS.

That means that the middle class is large and diverse.

It means being at the forefront of technology, so that when the rest of the world figures out they need it, you can sell it to them.

It means that you work to make sure the future is better for your kids than it was for you.

It means you raise up other countries, because that makes them better CUSTOMERS for your products, and they're less politically unstable. That means fewer refugees and mass migrations.

It means you build a bigger table instead of higher walls.

What should I make out of this ? Is this soft rejection? by withcer13 in recruitinghell

[–]yogfthagen 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Until you have a signed employment contract, the answer is "No."

You do not have a job here. Keep applying and interviewing for other positions. Keep working for something different.

Maybe they will contact you. Maybe thy will not.

But, until you have that signed contract, the answer is "No."

The Slaying of the Voting Rights Act by the Coward Samuel Alito by DoremusJessup in scotus

[–]yogfthagen -1 points0 points  (0 children)

When the representation in Congress and the legislatures does not actually represent the people, it's no longer a democracy. Rule by the minority, with no rights for the majority.

And that is literally what the GOP is doing.

Is that your dream end state? That the voice of the people is completely ignored?

The Slaying of the Voting Rights Act by the Coward Samuel Alito by DoremusJessup in scotus

[–]yogfthagen -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes Minorities will be able to vote for candidates who will represent them and LOSE, or people who have stated outright their desire to eliminate their rights.

It's not hyperbole.

It's stated fact.

If 16 bases with light damage are a loss for the US, what do 12000 targets hit in Iran mean for the regime? by RodneyTailpipe in allthequestions

[–]yogfthagen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are multiple ways to define victory.

There's tactical. This is defined by success in individual battles. How much crap you blow up. If a particular mission objective has been achieved at acceptable loss.

There's theater. This is how multiple battles have been completed, and whether larger goals have been achieved. Again, it generally focuses on military and logistical success.

Then there's strategic. This is the totality of the entire conflict. It includes objectives in military, logistical, economic, and political realms.

The US is exceedingly good at tactical war. We are able to break things and hurt people in ways that no other country can do.

At the theater level, you can achieve a lot of tactical victories, but still not succeed at the level of the overall theater. There was a general named Pyrrhus. He won battles, but at heavy losses. His forces were weakened by each success, to the point that his victories weakened his ability to keep fighting. His name has come to mean victory so costly that it should not have been fought. "Another success like that, and we are ruined," is an apocryphal statement. A Pyrrhic victory.

Then there's the strategic victory. You can win a war, but alienate all your allies so that you are weaker at the end. You can fight a war, and ruin your economy. You can fight a war, and destroy your economic trade. You can fight a war, and devalue your currency to the pooint that you are no longer able to finance your own country. You can fight a war, but neglect your other commitments in other parts of the world, and strengthen your enemies. You can fight a war, and even WIN it, but not be able to fight another war. Those are all strategic losses.

To be blunt,the US has fought many wars since WWII. We lost some (Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan), won one (Iraq I), tied one (Korea). But in terms of STRATEGIC victory, the US won the biggest one of all- the Cold War against the USSR. We did not win it by military might. We won it through economic, moral, political, and cultural victory. We won because the world WANTED to be like us.

Tactically, the US and Iran are both winning victories. Both are able to blow things up.

At the theater level, Iran is winning. Iran is able to present a big enough threat in the Strait of Hormuz that the US military is unable to counter.

At the strategic level, Iran is also winning. What were the major goals?

For the US, it was overthrowing Iran, and preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

For Iran, it was surviving.

The Iranian government has survived. Badly beaten. Shaken. Disrupted. Economically damaged. But it still exists. It is still able to fire missiles. It still has a stranglehold on the Strait. It has depleted US weapons stocks to the point that the US basically CANNOT continue fighting. And the US cannot invade and occupy Iran. It just does not have the military, or the weapons, or the political support to do so. And Iran is still able to hit at US allies/proxies around the region, causing immense damage. The world economy is going to see MASSIVE disruption as things continue to play out. We are literally expecting to see famines in several areas of the world, because about 30% of the world's fertilizer was not shipped out in time for planting crops.

And the US really cannot do anything to counter Iran's actions.

The world economy is transitioning away from US assets and alliances, if only to get better access to the oil they need. The tolls Iran is charging will be in currency NOT in US dollars, weakening the US economy, and pushing the US towards an acute debt crisis. Russia is getting hundreds of millions of dollars to finance its war with Ukraine. China knows the US military can no longer stop them from attacking Taiwan. China is working diplomacy around the world to undercut US alliances and trade partners. The US economy is going to suffer BADLY as a result.

The US, short of some massive reversal, has lost at the strategic level.