• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

The end of NATO?

Randy Daytona

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
Spekkio said:
From a pure economic standpoint, the tariffs are supposed to be akin to a flat tax. According to the CBO, the increased revenue / lost GDP from tariffs should about equal and cancel out the lost revenue / increased GDP of making the TCJA permanent. The end result is a less progressive tax structure with fewer exemptions, which is typically what Republicans want in their fiscal policy platforms.

However, the Trump administration is using foreign imports vice domestic goods as the sales-tax punching bag, which is contrary to GOP globalism fiscal policy that goes back to at least the Reagan administration.

I think that there is some national security merit there, especially when we look at our inability to manufacture and distribute certain things during COVID (like masks). Then the Trump administration wraps this all into a 'we can return to the golden ages of the 1950s-1970s' populism for his older constituents to sell it while most people under 50 are like 'wtf are you doing?'

Sidenote: If anyone listens to Jon Stewart's weekly show podcast, he has two esteemed economists on a week or two ago that discuss the ins-and-outs of this like actual adults.

But what I don't understand is why the administration is set on making the tariffs sound punitive, and particularly against Canada. It's not the policy per se, it's the tone.
Click to expand...
Have you got a link to that Jon Stewart podcast?

Thought this was very interesting in The Financial Times:

www.ft.com

The realpolitik of Trump’s tariffs

The president’s trade policy is about power and security, not economics
www.ft.com www.ft.com
 
taxi1

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
taxi1 said:

Jeff and Tina: Hey, uh, what in the fuck?​

All we asked for was 80% compliance.​


Six years ago, the Department of Defense decided that it no longer needed our helpful hints on cyber awareness and operational security offered in a quiz game format. But now, as we assess the Secretary of Defense’s maddening group chat of embarrassing national security leaks and look back on the years we spent toiling without complaint while dealing annually with the same blisteringly elemental aspects of cyber security — social networking, home computer security, insider threats, phishing, and removable media — we’re asking ourselves, “what in the fuck?”

...Today, it’s evident that dozens of members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, including Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Ratcliffe would be smart enough to not invite Jeffery Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic magazine, into a group text established to discuss the details of a highly sensitive military operation on an unofficial communications network much less share classified “information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing” within it.

And yet, here the fuck we are, "currently clean on OPSEC,” as Defense Secretary Whiskey-Leaks put it. Sure, EXCEPT FOR THE FUCKING JOURNALIST YOU INVITED IN. He didn’t even have to phish you people. Come the fuck on!

We told you this shit was real, motherfuckers. We told you cybersecurity was easily overlooked. We gave you relatable scenarios where you could develop the most basic level of security professionalism in a safe environment. We even let you retake that shit every year to ensure you didn’t forget things that the average 14-year-old on Snapchat takes for granted. But it just wasn’t good enough, was it? No, you were too good to worry about a guy stealing your BlackBerry during your lunch break.

“Tina is a simpleton,” you giggled.

“Jeff’s blue sweater vest is for beta cucks,” you said.

Well, who the fuck is laughing now, bitches? Besides every other nation on earth? Hell, Nigeria is shelving their Prince scam emails on the assumption Secretary Bessent will invite them to share America’s ATM PIN (it’s “8008” BTW, and if you turn it upside down it looks like “BooB”. LOL, right, assholes?). We’re still trying to convince Secretary of Energy Chris Wright that “P@$$word” is an insufficient level of security for the nuclear arsenal. We can’t make this shit up. Well, we can, but you all just think it’s a big fucking joke anyway, don’t you?

To be fair, one of us looks vaguely Asian, and the other is kind of swarthy, and we know how much you hate us “DEI hires.” But if this represents “merit-based” cybersecurity best practices, we think somebody is due for remedial training.

The standard is 80%, assholes. And no skipping ahead to the test.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

...a longtime Department of Homeland Security employee who told colleagues she inadvertently sent unclassified details of an upcoming Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation to a journalist in late January, according to former ICE chief of staff Jason Houser, one former DHS official and one current DHS official. (The two officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they do not want to endanger their current or future career opportunities.)

But unlike Waltz and Hegseth, who both remain in their jobs, the career DHS employee was put on administrative leave and told late last week that the agency intends to revoke her security clearance, the officials said.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has largely rallied around Waltz and Hegseth, with Trump on Wednesday calling it “all a witch hunt.”
www.nbcnews.com

A DHS staffer faces serious punishment for accidentally adding a reporter to a group email

The episode, which hasn't been previously reported, raises questions about unequal punishment for inadvertent leakers in the Trump administration.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
Last edited:
Yardstick

Yardstick

Is The Bottle Ready?!
pilot
taxi1 said:
*sigh*

...a longtime Department of Homeland Security employee who told colleagues she inadvertently sent unclassified details of an upcoming Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation to a journalist in late January, according to former ICE chief of staff Jason Houser, one former DHS official and one current DHS official. (The two officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they do not want to endanger their current or future career opportunities.)

But unlike Waltz and Hegseth, who both remain in their jobs, the career DHS employee was put on administrative leave and told late last week that the agency intends to revoke her security clearance, the officials said.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has largely rallied around Waltz and Hegseth, with Trump on Wednesday calling it “all a witch hunt.”
www.nbcnews.com

A DHS staffer faces serious punishment for accidentally adding a reporter to a group email

The episode, which hasn't been previously reported, raises questions about unequal punishment for inadvertent leakers in the Trump administration.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...
“Inadvertently.” Yeah, sure ok I believe that 🙄. play stupid games…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top