Politics

[375 Ruger Fan]

According to Stephen Miller, who I don't care for, "There won't be any refugees, we aren't going to fly them out like Biden did."

 

[Altitude sickness]

They will attempt to walk and drive across borders. We’ve seen this play out dozens of times. They either get across the border or countries block the border, creating tent cities. disease and starvation set it. so the world cries out for a solution. either way it’s a last resort.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Iran has tipped its hand that the U.S. will face a threat we have not seen before and are not prepared for.

Does this mean missiles sitting within 1000 miles of the Continental U.S. offshore? or on land hitting U.S. targets. Which we have zero defense capabilities for. We have minuscule missile defense in 99% of our country. Major cities are a wide open target.

 

[Flipper Dude]

Texas says: “Hold my beer.”.

Though, I’d submit lack of income taxes more than makes up for it.

True, although income taxes are generally manageable or pretty much gone at retirement, depending on your structure. But these damn property taxes are with you till you die. There are some breaks for 65+, but it’s not substantial. People on a fixed income aren’t real keen on paying 1500-2000$ a month to the state and county and ISD just to stay in the house they’ve been in.

 

[RLD]

Now good and bad policy is one thing, but basic political competence is another.

How on God's green earth does Gabbard's testimony include this:

In the written version, Gabbard said U.S. airstrikes on Iran last summer “obliterated” Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program, and “there has been no effort since then” to rebuild it.

And they can't even say she misspoke because it was in her written statement. Doesn't anybody proof this stuff?

If you are going to start a war how hard should it be to at least sing from the same songbook? Will she be the next one out the door?

 

[Altitude sickness]

For retirees. A financial expert would say sell your house now at somewhat of a height in the market. Then rent houses the rest of your life. No maintenance, insurance, taxes.

savvy experts say never buy a house. Rent and invest the difference for the rest of your life. The difference in net worth over a lifetime is drastic. A house is a liability not an investment. Anything that takes money out of your wallet every month with zero return is a liability. Sure you get the increased value of the building, but you’ll never get the Taxes, maintenance, or insurance back.

I of course don’t follow this advice. I prefer to own.

 

[Russ16]

For retirees. A financial expert would say sell your house now at somewhat of a height in the market. Then rent houses the rest of your life. No maintenance, insurance, taxes.

savvy experts say never buy a house. Rent and invest the difference for the rest of your life. The difference in net worth over a lifetime is drastic. A house is a liability not an investment. Anything that takes money out of your wallet every month with zero return is a liability. Sure you get the increased value of the building, but you’ll never get the Taxes, maintenance, or insurance back.

I of course don’t follow this advice. I prefer to own.

That also depends on some other factors. Where I am renting a house at the same price as my mortgage would give me a house or condo less than half the size of my house and likely in a much worse school district which would really matter if I had kids.

Around here here aren’t many rentals in areas where you would want to raise kids. So the quality of life element has to factored in to the financial calculation.

 

[KJE81]

Now good and bad policy is one thing, but basic political competence is another.

How on God's green earth does Gabbard's testimony include this:



And they can't even say she misspoke because it was in her written statement. Doesn't anybody proof this stuff?

If you are going to start a war how hard should it be to at least sing from the same songbook? Will she be the next one out the door?

It really feels like they make it up as they go along, both with the tariff policy and the wars/military attack...seems like its other factors that drives the development of events for this administration rather then careful planning.

 

[WAB]

I am struggling with the strategy of taking out Iran’s energy capability. If we truly think that we are going to completely destroy their military capability, and likely set the table
for a populist revolution, all destruction of energy infrastructure is accomplishing is the creation of a multibillion dollar repair bill that we are likely to pay. I am not a military strategist, but reasons I can come up with for this change in tactics are:

1) this war is going to last much longer than we have been told and we need to take away their ability to finance it,
2) we have come to the conclusion that we cannot completely annihilate this regime and we need to effect as much military and economic damage as possible before we cease hostilities.

What am I missing?

 

[mdwest]

I don’t think you’re missing anything…

As long as the IRGC and Basij exist there will be no populist revolution…

The intel agencies know enough about Iran and have assets seated deeply enough to know the whereabouts and movements of the most senior leadership… so, they definitely also know the situation regarding populist revolution as well…

So they are left with destroying Irans military capability and destroying their ability to rebuild their capability…

My guess is that has been the plan all along…

They had to at least “show” that Iran had the option to have revolution… but I can’t believe anyone actually expected that to happen…

War plans like these are developed many, many years in advance, and are taken off the shelf and updated periodically as weapons systems upgrade and change, enemies change, relationships change, etc…

No one is shooting from the hip.. the plan to conduct an aerial war without committing ground troops that eliminates leadership and destroys military, infrastructure, and economy, was written long ago…

There would also be war plans for coalition ground invasions, nuclear strike, and an assortment of other options…. But this one was chosen… and based on Irans limited response, I’d guess they are adhering to the playbook… they’re not having to deviate…

 

[Aaron N]

I am struggling with the strategy of taking out Iran’s energy capability. If we truly think that we are going to completely destroy their military capability, and likely set the table
for a populist revolution, all destruction of energy infrastructure is accomplishing is the creation of a multibillion dollar repair bill that we are likely to pay. I am not a military strategist, but reasons I can come up with for this change in tactics are:

1) this war is going to last much longer than we have been told and we need to take away their ability to finance it,
2) we have come to the conclusion that we cannot completely annihilate this regime and we need to effect as much military and economic damage as possible before we cease hostilities.

What am I missing?

Rebuilding contracts to cronies?

Would it not be in American interests to help rebuild the infrastructure with American entities under the guise of helping a new formed government?

 

[Red Leg]

For retirees. A financial expert would say sell your house now at somewhat of a height in the market. Then rent houses the rest of your life. No maintenance, insurance, taxes.

savvy experts say never buy a house. Rent and invest the difference for the rest of your life. The difference in net worth over a lifetime is drastic. A house is a liability not an investment. Anything that takes money out of your wallet every month with zero return is a liability. Sure you get the increased value of the building, but you’ll never get the Taxes, maintenance, or insurance back.

I of course don’t follow this advice. I prefer to own.

Or do not have a house note. In that case, the house becomes an appreciating asset that will benefit your heirs with no attached burden other than a property tax for however long they maintain ownership. They would also owe a capital gains tax but only on the gains realized since inheritance.

And yes, we too much prefer ownership. Also, Texas is a very generous state to disabled veterans with respect to property taxes.

 

[Red Leg]

I am struggling with the strategy of taking out Iran’s energy capability. If we truly think that we are going to completely destroy their military capability, and likely set the table
for a populist revolution, all destruction of energy infrastructure is accomplishing is the creation of a multibillion dollar repair bill that we are likely to pay. I am not a military strategist, but reasons I can come up with for this change in tactics are:

1) this war is going to last much longer than we have been told and we need to take away their ability to finance it,
2) we have come to the conclusion that we cannot completely annihilate this regime and we need to effect as much military and economic damage as possible before we cease hostilities.

What am I missing?

I don’t think you’re missing anything…

As long as the IRGC and Basij exist there will be no populist revolution…

The intel agencies know enough about Iran and have assets seated deeply enough to know the whereabouts and movements of the most senior leadership… so, they definitely also know the situation regarding populist revolution as well…

So they are left with destroying Irans military capability and destroying their ability to rebuild their capability…

My guess is that has been the plan all along…

They had to at least “show” that Iran had the option to have revolution… but I can’t believe anyone actually expected that to happen…

War plans like these are developed many, many years in advance, and are taken off the shelf and updated periodically as weapons systems upgrade and change, enemies change, relationships change, etc…

No one is shooting from the hip.. the plan to conduct an aerial war without committing ground troops that eliminates leadership and destroys military, infrastructure, and economy, was written long ago…

There would also be war plans for coalition ground invasions, nuclear strike, and an assortment of other options…. But this one was chosen… and based on Irans limited response, I’d guess they are adhering to the playbook… they’re not having to deviate…

I do not believe that we have made any decision to attack Iran's petroleum infrastructure - at least not yet. Indeed, there seems to have been something of a disagreement between the administration and Israel following the IDF strike on the Tehran storage facility that was used by the regime security forces among other interests. Were we serious about that, then a single strike against Kharg Island would eliminate Iranian export capability.

Yes, the US constantly works contingency plans. That effort is led by the various Combatant Commands, with each service, through their war plans staffs (like the Army G 3/5/7 team headed by a three-star), developing service specific plans to support the Combatant Commanders' intent. The Iran contingency set has been under constant development and revision for four decades. Each plan has "branches and sequels" that require different forms of support and each of which can be activated sequentially or in any combination as required.

For instance, the Army is reportedly deploying Apache assets to theater, and the Air Force A-10's, to help address the drone issue. Those Apache units and A-10 squadrons would have had that potential deployment scenario as part of their contingency planning set. It is why they can be alerted and then deployed so quickly.

As a side note, I am glad we are being forced to address the drone issue in combat. The services can study the problem in Ukraine forever, but likely would not take rapid development/deployment action of defensive measures without having to address them ourselves. Both the small drones and larger Shahads look impressive without an effective defense. That now will likely change very quickly in the US military.

 

[Brent in Az]

Perfect shoes for Tanks...

 

[deewayne2003]

Crude now $115 and rising..

 

[Altitude sickness]

I was encouraged to hear General Caine speak to the fact that they are taking battlefield wins and losses into a quick turnaround and sending back out in real time to the front what tools and tactics are working in this manner or that. And what isn’t working.

Of course this is nothing new. Only the execution is new. In the past we say we are going to do this. But egos between branches or civilian
organizations seem to always get involved.

The Navy was notorious for this in the GWOT. Hiding disastrous tactics and outcomes to ensure the Army wasn’t handed more assignments than the Navy thought was in their wheelhouse. (Roberts Ridge, Lone Survivor) all ego driven operations that should have been given to the Marines or Rangers.

Too many less famous examples to cite. But General Caine made a point of stating today he isn’t tolerating groups or branch’s ego getting in the way of the mission.

 

[Altitude sickness]

“I was encouraged to hear General Caine speak to the fact that they are taking battlefield wins and losses into a quick turnaround and sending back out in real time to the front what tools and tactics are working in this manner or that. And what isn’t working.”

I think the war in Ukraine taught us that a nimble, adaptive force is more valuable than sheer brute force.

 

[spike.t]

View attachment 753649

Obviously not in Europe...but am wondering what our prices are going to hit in next couple of months...or if we will have fuel at all.....

 

[mdwest]

Obviously not in Europe...but am wondering what our prices are going to hit in next couple of months...or if we will have fuel at all.....

I could see rationing happening just like it did in the 1970's...

Although if the politicians will get over themselves and their egos.. it doesnt have to happen..

20% of the worlds oil flows through the straits of hormuz...

that means 80% of it does not..

and roughly 90% of Irans oil goes to China...

The impact of losing Irans oil doesnt have to impact Europe.. as long as the assclowns in politics and industry can move past egos and greed... Simply dont let the Chinese buy oil tomorrow that they werent buying from you today and sell what you have to the same people youve always sold to..

The #1 producer in the world is the US.. Canada is the 4th largest.. Brazil is #8.. Mexico is #11.. Norway is #12.. #13 is Nigeria.. #14 is Libya.. #16 is Venezuela.. #18 is Algeria.. #20 is the UK... none of those countries need hormuz to deliver oil to Europe..

Ramp up production (politicians get over yourselves and all of your green energy bullshit and take care of your people).. and in a couple of months everything is copasetic..

Sadly, I have no faith that this will happen though.. Greenies will scream and would rather pay $23 for an onion because of rising fuel costs than to allow Canada to bump its production by 15%... and Politicians will appease greenies if for no other reason than "I hate Trump"...

 

[Finprof]

For retirees. A financial expert would say sell your house now at somewhat of a height in the market. Then rent houses the rest of your life. No maintenance, insurance, taxes.

savvy experts say never buy a house. Rent and invest the difference for the rest of your life. The difference in net worth over a lifetime is drastic. A house is a liability not an investment. Anything that takes money out of your wallet every month with zero return is a liability. Sure you get the increased value of the building, but you’ll never get the Taxes, maintenance, or insurance back.

I of course don’t follow this advice. I prefer to own.

I have taught a lot of financial planners/wealth managers. An economist would look at home ownership as being a landlord to yourself. At the same time you are renting from yourself, which is a consumption decision. The good thing is that you avoid landlord/tenant information asymmetry since you as the landlord have full knowledge of your tenant’s financial capacity and treatment of the property.
A landlord alone would have to be compensated for the risk of that information asymmetry.
The other benefit is diversification. Real estate prices and rents do not move lockstep with the stock market. For example in 2001 the NASDAQ got slaughtered but real estate did reasonably well. The opposite happened in the early 90s when the RFC was buying distressed S&L properties but stock markets were recovering.
I have some rental properties but most of my money is in the stock market. I am not selling rental properties for two reasons:
1 Prices are high but so are rentals Rents are about 70 percent higher than 2000 in my area.
2. Prices are high but I don’t know where they are heading next. Predicting the future is betting against God.