After the orgy spectacle of Cohen and dim-0-craps, We are no closer to the "end of Trumpy's Presidency.

LOL. How did the wishing come out there, boob?

From what I observed all I saw was a orgy of moonbatty i***ts with TDS. No collusion. No proof of trumpy doing anything wrong. No big revelation to indict trumpy. Tell me one politician that is lying when his/her mouth is moving.

Boob, why don't you and b***h madcow wish in one hand and s**t in the other and see which one fills up first? Cohen could...Congress may...Cohen might...Madcow and especially YOU have NO CLUE only your obssessed TDS.

Who gives a FV(k about this b***h and her moonbatty opinion? It ain't news.

It is not the "military action" so much as it is just the "military spending" of taxpayer money to perpetuate the false threat scenario and keep enough of the sheople convinced there is a real and eminent danger if the US doesn't keep arming itself and its allies and it enemies.

Are you trying to get trumpy accused of collusion with putin?...of trumpy being his puppet? I think putin would like it if the US/Nato would quit encroaching on Russia's border and interfering in the e******ns of sovereign countries just because they are anti-US or pro-ruskie or even neutral.

Or they wil just have their puppet potus and enough puppet legislators to lie the US sheople into a war. bushie's Iraq lies come to mind....his oliness' own's Libya...Syria?

The last truly military POTUS was Eisenhower and I believe it was he that warned the American people of the dangers a too powerful and corrupt military industrial complex and to not waste America's vast resources on today at the expensive of the children. He said those things on TV in his 1961 farewell address to the nation. Talk about understanding and foresight...!

Z, when raygun and gorbi signed the 1987 INF Treaty, NATO "promised" not to expand into Eastern Europe. Of course NATO immediately started its eastward expansion. Russia complained when the United States deployed several Tomahawk-capable launchers at NATO bases in Romania and Poland. That was the first step that the USA made to violate the terms of the agreement. This was before trumpy's declaration.

The US under his oliness' reign instigated and finance a c**pe in the Ukraine against its democratically elected president because he was pro-Russian and installed a US/western friendly puppet.

Now against all the the US and NATO have done in violation of the INF treaty of which there is irrefutable proof, the US has no such evidence of Russia actually violating the treaty, only accusations. However, the US has never worried much about the need to base its decisions on evidence - suffice it to recall the bombing of Yugoslavia or the invasion of Iraq and Libya.

Just as long as the military industrial corporations and their banksters are happy and making BILLIONS.

I, obviously unlike ZZZ, knew what you meant. They have been targeting us as we have them for a loooonnng time.

If one would pay attention to the actual events and not the lies and propaganda the t***h is not hard to discern.

Let’s think back to 1990. Back then, as the old Cold war ended, progressives quite rightly enthused about the so-called ‘peace dividend’. Taxpayer money wasted on weapons could now be spent on more worthwhile things such as hospitals, health CARE, schools, infrasrtucture, etc. But NATO - unlike the Warsaw Pact - didn’t disband, on the contrary, it expanded to Russia’s borders.

Countries that didn’t want to join the NATO club were targeted with sanctions (Belarus) - or sanctions and bombing (Yugoslavia). In 1999, NATO - established as a defensive military alliance in 1949 - not only broke international law when it attacked the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but also contravened Article One of its own constitution which states: “The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

What was that line in the USEUCOM report about violating numerous agreements and international law?

Russia was fine as long as it was acquiescing in all of this, but as soon as it began to stand up for itself and try and defend its own legitimate interests, the Cold War was quickly "rekindled" by the US and its NATO allies. As OpEder John Wight put it in a 2016 article on the demonization of Putin: “All this baloney about Putin having expansionist aims is an attempt to throw a smokescreen over the West’s own expansionist agenda in Eastern Europe with the goal of throwing a cordon sanitaire around Russia in pursuit of a cold war agenda.”

When the staunchly pro-US government in Georgia pounded South Ossetia in August 2008 and Russia responded to protect ethnic Russian citizens, it was Russia who was portrayed as the aggressor in the neocon media.

Likewise in Ukraine in 2014/15 when a State Department/EU “regime change” operation to topple a democratically elected pro-Russian government and replace it with a staunchly pro-US, pro-EU, anti-Russian one, took place.

What happened in eastern Ukraine and Crimea after the regime change in Kiev was not Russian aggression but the response to US/EU aggression against Russia.

Military industrial corporations, their stockholders, and Wall Street banksters have been getting richer for years promoting this propaganda.

Well, well what should we expect from Russia when the build-up of NATO military arms systems and installations, particularly from the US, in Eastern Europe on its doorstep targeting Russian installations with missiles and in general more sanctions?

Now, tell me again who the aggressors are with regard to US/Russian relations? The US, through NATO, puts weapons systems right up to Russia's western front door, the US instigated and financed a c**pe in the Ukraine against its democratically elected pro-Russian government and installs a pro-western government right on Russia's front door and when Russia moved to protect the overwhelming pro-Russian population of Crimea and in particular Sevastapol's port on the Black Sea, which is Russia's only year round open port, western media brands Russia as the aggressor and the US instigates sanctions.

What would the US do if Russia instigated a c**pe against the Mexiacan or Canadian governments and installed a pro-Russian government in either country then put missiles on their borders pointed at the US, imposed sanctions against the US, then told the rest of the world it was for defense against any US aggression?

Now, who is the aggressor? It’s Washington - and its aggressive policies - that’s made Europe and indeed the world in general less secure, not Moscow.

I agree. I almost laugh at those constantly claim that the wealthy pay most of the tax and 47% of the people pay no tax. Any working person making $132, 400 or less annually will be taxed 15.3% of their income for Social Security and Medicare. Those taxes go into the general fund just as other federal revenues.

I will post the chart I posted earlier again and one can see that Social Security (payroll taxes) as a percent of total federal revenues has steadily increased from about 10% in the 1950s to over 35% as of 2015, while income tax revenue (you know the taxes that the wealthy claim they are burdened with paying) has remained fairly constant and corporate tax revenues have steadily declined as a percent of federal revenues from over 25 to less than 10%. I will wager that those figures will be get even worse after trumpy's and the repulsive TAX CUTS for the wealthy and corporations.

The rantings that the wealthy and corporations pay the bulk of taxes is becoming more and more bogus.

Oldsalt, I think your confusing SSI with SSDI.


Supplemental Security Income is a program that is strictly need-based, according to income and assets, and is funded by general fund taxes (not from the Social Security trust fund). SSI is called a "means-tested program," meaning it has nothing to do with work history, but strictly with financial need. To meet the SSI income requirements, you must have less than $2,000 in assets (or $3,000 for a couple) and a very limited income.

Social Security Disability Insurance is funded through payroll taxes. SSDI recipients are considered "insured" because they have worked for a certain number of years and have made contributions to the Social Security trust fund in the form of FICA Social Security taxes. SSDI candidates must be younger than 65 and have earned a certain number of "work credits."

SSI benefits will begin on the 1st of the month you submit your application. With SSDI is a five-month waiting period for benefits, meaning that the SSA won't pay you benefits for the first five months after you become disabled. The amount of the monthly benefit after the waiting period is over depends on your earnings record, much like the Social Security retirement benefit.

My wife was diagnosed with cancer in January 2009 at 53. She worked for 3M for 26 years but had quit to go into business for herself at 50. She was immediately approved for SSDI afrter being diagnosed with cancer but was not going to begin to receive it until July. Her disability also qualified her for Medicare (we had to many assets to qualify for Medicaid. Little did I know that there is a 2 year waiting period before Medicare kicks in when one is not yet 65. I told the lady at the Social Security office that she would be dead before 2 years. She died in January 2010 at 54. She drew exactly 6 months of SSDI after paying into the Social Security system for 35 years. Politicains hope that is what happens to people that they die before being eligible to draw SS or they die shortly there after. THAT is why they keep increasing the age qualifications.

I know the small community bank I worked for from 1974-1985 was a Sub S corporation.

Now the claim that corporations do not pay income tax can be true. Amazon paid no income tax on the 11.2 BILLION 2018 profit. Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate—making its tax rate -1%. According to The Week, Amazon ended up paying an 11.4% effective federal income tax rate between 2011 and 2016. So, did they actually need the TAX CUT? Are they going to increase worker compensation or lower prices with their $129 MILLION windfall?

Look at what increase in payroll taxes as a source of federal revenue.

Look into the shenanigans GE has played with the tax loopholes for years. Did they really need a tax break?

Corporate taxes as a source of federal revenue have been declined from over 30% in the 1950s to less than 10% as of 2015. Now with trumpy's TAX CUTS for the wealthy and corporations I would bet that corporate taxes as a source of federal revenue declines even further.

We might ask tophat. He claims to be the expert.

LOL!