Posted on 10/30/2016 6:06:10 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
October 25, 2016
Is Trump Right About Putin?
One of the surprises of the 2016 election is to have a Republican candidate saying the United States needs to be more conciliatory toward the autocratic Russian president Vladimir V. Putin. Meanwhile, the Democrat is talking tough.
Russia is enabling the slaughter in Syria, occupies part of Ukraine and threatens action in the Baltic region. But would it still make sense for the United States to try to deal more closely with Russia?
/snip
Diplomatic Isolation of Russia Is Counterproductive
Matthew Rojansky 3:20 AM
The current U.S. approach to Russia has failed. Moscow is ostensibly isolated and subject to sanctions. Yet it has not appreciably changed its course on Ukraine or Syria; instead it is escalating and broadening the conflict via nuclear saber rattling, cyber attacks and information warfare. Meanwhile it has re-established considerable influence throughout the Middle East, the former Soviet region, and even East Asia and Latin America. What is to be done?
Stop obsessing over Putin, stop expecting true democracy in Russia and re-establish dialogue as a vital tool for advancing our national interests.
First, we need to stop obsessing over Putin. Our problem is with Russia. Putin stands in the mainstream of a centuries-old Russian foreign policy tradition and worldview and he enjoys broad elite support and popular consent for his policies. Any approach premised mainly on "being tough" with Putin (as Hillary Clinton promises) or on charming him into making a deal (as Trump does) misses the point entirely.
Second, we need to stop pursuing policies with the expectation either that Russia will change into a friendly democracy or that it can be fully defeated and sidelined. Neither is remotely likely in the foreseeable future.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“When Donald Trump and I observe that, as I’ve said, in Syria, in Iran, in Ukraine, that the small and bullying leader of Russia has been stronger on the world stage than this administration, that’s stating painful facts. That’s not an endorsement of Vladimir Putin — that’s an indictment of the weak and feckless leadership of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.”
______________________________
Also from the Oct 5, 2016 first VP debate...
QUIJANO (Moderator): I want to turn now to Syria. Two hundred fifty thousand people, 100,000 of them children, are under siege in Aleppo, Syria. Bunker buster bombs, cluster munitions, and incendiary weapons are being dropped on them by Russian and Syrian militaries. Does the U.S. have a responsibility to protect civilians and prevent mass casualties on this scale, Governor Pence?
PENCE: The United States of America needs to begin to exercise strong leadership to protect the vulnerable citizens and over 100,000 children in Aleppo. Hillary Clinton’s top priority when she became secretary of state was the Russian reset, the Russians reset.
After the Russian reset, the Russians invaded Ukraine and took over Crimea.
And the small and bullying leader of Russia is now dictating terms to the United States to the point where all the United States of America — the greatest nation on Earth — just withdraws from talks about a cease-fire while Vladimir Putin puts a missile defense system in Syria while he marshals the forces and begins — look, we have got to begin to lean into this with strong, broad-shouldered American leadership.
It begins by rebuilding our military. And the Russians and the Chinese have been making enormous investments in the military. We have the smallest Navy since 1916. We have the lowest number of troops since the end of the Second World War. We’ve got to work with Congress, and Donald Trump will, to rebuild our military and project American strength in the world.
But about Aleppo and about Syria, I truly do believe that what America ought to do right now is immediately establish safe zones, so that families and vulnerable families with children can move out of those areas, work with our Arab partners, real time, right now, to make that happen.
And secondly, I just have to tell you that the provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength.
And if Russia chooses to be involved and continue, I should say, to be involved in this barbaric attack on civilians in Aleppo, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike military targets of the Assad regime to prevent them from this humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Aleppo.
There’s a broad range of other things that we ought to do, as well. We ought to deploy a missile defense shield to the Czech Republic and Poland which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama pulled back on out of not wanting to offend the Russians back in 2009.
QUIJANO: Governor, your two minutes are up.
PENCE: We’ve just got to have American strength on the world stage. When Donald Trump becomes president of the United States, the Russians and other countries in the world will know they’re dealing with a strong American president.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/us/politics/vice-president-transcript.html
______________________________
And....
PENCE: What we’re dealing with is the — you know, there’s an old proverb that says the Russian bear never dies, it just hibernates.
And the truth of the matter is, the weak and feckless foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has awakened an aggression in Russia that first appeared a few years ago with their move in Georgia, now their move into Crimea, now their move into the wider Middle East.
And all the while, all we do is fold our arms and say we’re not having talks anymore.
To answer your question, we just need American strength. We need to — we need to marshal the resources of our allies in the region, and in the immediate, we need to act and act now to get people out of harm’s way.
Putin has been effective in eliminating his political enemies and consolidating his power, but his partial turn back to communism (by now 70% of Russian economy is state controlled) has been terrible for the economy and it begins to show.
He is using aggressive posturing to distract Russians from their economic woes, but that can be very dangerous if Russian economy continues to deteriorate. He might choose to do some seriously harsh things like stepping up his war against Ukraine to send Russians into a war frenzy and stop questioning why they are so poor if Putin is so smart as the TV tells them.
I know your reply is to Strac6, but like to say that you’re correct on a couple of things, not others. At any rate, this type of argument requires context, and can apply to USA too.
Best starting point, imo, is Russia and USA are rivals or competitors (think someone said as much already, in this thread too).
I think the context is what a human needs to survive.
Russian high school teachers are pissed because suddenly they earn only 150$ a month and are told to hang in there. Teacher and teacher are similar, but I believe the unionized teachers complaining are making only $4000 a month HAVE NO IDEA what it is like to live on $150.
Now we are getting into specifics of ONE of your previous points. And, this single point you made is multi-dimensional.
“I think the context is what a human needs to survive.”
No kidding.
About income example you gave, that’s shocking!
Then, consider that Russians, last I heard, had a flat income tax of 13%, paid by the employer, not employee.
Can tell you that’s a hell of a lot less income tax than Scandinavian countries, or Brits, or Australian employees pay - they can pay up to 40% (not their employer) - Scandinavian countries like Denmark can pay over 50% of their individual income. Equally, consider cost of buying a property, rent, basic living expenses in mentioned Western countries vis a vis Russia which on average is cheaper.
Some of the mentioned Western countries are worse than others for high individual income tax, yet offer no real “basic social services or benefits”. And, in certain industries are still heavily unionised. Bloody Commies!
U.S. market is huge and its economy is not even comparable to Europe, Russia or Australasia. It’s been developed over time too (WITHOUT SANCTIONS for misbehaving). So, Don’t compare apples with oranges.
On that note, got to sleep.. work day tomorrow.
"Two toughest kids on the block, I guess. Sooner or later, they're gonna fight." -- USAF Pilot, Red Dawn
That’s the thing. Russian model is not collecting taxes from free enterprises. They fund the government by straight up owning 70% of the economy.
Even with that they don’t have low taxes. They have 13% income tax, but also on top of that 30% social tax and other payroll taxes.
They are an inefficient petrostate with state controlled economy and no rule of law.
They do collect Company/enterprise tax. It’s between 20 to 25%. They have a Tax Code, not simply a government decree.
The biggest Corporate (Company/Enterprise) tax collected is from oil and natural gas companies (45% or over) compared to say Construction or Telcos (around 14% and 17% respectively). These are state owned or the government has a large share in it.
In Australia, Transport/Railways, Postal Service, Energy/Electricity and Water are either partly or entirely owned by federal or state governments.
Employees in Russia do not pay Social Security and payroll tax. The employer (company) pays them.
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/russia/russia_tax.asp
Btw, China has the largest % of state-owned companies (96%), followed by United Arab Emirates (88%).
In the end it really doesn’t matter whether it is said to be an employee tax or an employer tax. It is the difference between what the employee gets in hand and how much it costs to pay it.
That said the tax wedge is not high compared to the other countries. It is higher than 13% though.
In 2014 someone getting €24k a year net in Russia means the employer spent 1.39 times more. At €24k/y level the tax wedge is slightly higher than in the US.
http://www.awarablogs.com/effects-of-putins-tax-reforms-on-state-tax-revenue-and-gdp/
“It is the difference between what the employee gets in hand and how much it costs to pay it.”
Yes and no. Depends on looking at it from an employee or employer perspective.
Ultimately it all comes down to (net) income vs. expense or spend.
For example, if I have to pay 40% or more (includes medicare levy & social security) of my income as an individual to gov’t, then I’ll have less to save and spend - as said in #25, I’ll have to consider cost of living (rent, buying a property, necessary living expenses), which overall are much more expensive than in Russia. So, I’ll have to negotiate the highest salary I can get or have multiple sources of income, of which I still have to pay tax for total gross annual income, as one person (individual). In Australia, I’ll be also taxed on my savings, even pension once I can withdraw it at a certain age.
Private Enterprises are all for their profit margins, they have multiple sources of income, are taxed at 30% max, and the first thing they do to save cost is to ‘downsize’ their workforce, or outsource to cheaper labour in a far away land like India who in turn have their own substandard idea of ‘quality & customer service’.
Gov’ts also increase their revenue (income) from multiple sources at the expense of taxpayers. GST (goods and services tax - similar to VAT) on food, other consumer purchases, never ending road tolls, internet data upload/download, council rates, etc.. on top of 40%+ individual income tax). This is strictly the Australian example.
The U.S. is different because it has a much bigger market both domestically and globally. Therefore, has many more sources of income or revenue for both Enterprises/Companies and Gov’t. Logically, should have a lower individual (employee) income tax rate.
Anyway, I don’t want to make a meal out of it, but that’s why I said before it’s a multi-dimensional issue and the U.S. is different, comparatively.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.