Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

The isolated and unpredictable strongman in the Kremlin is not shy when it comes to reminding the world of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. If anyone “tries to stand in our way,” Putin warned on the eve of the invasion of Ukraine, they would face “consequences with such as you have never seen in your entire history.” The returning possibility of nuclear war may be just one of the ways in which Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought our holiday from history to an abrupt end. But it’s the most alarming.


Into this tense standoff steps Joe Biden, seemingly convinced that he is the man for this fraught moment even as he demonstrates otherwise with nearly every public utterance. On a recent trip to Europe, the most important diplomatic mission of his presidency, he could barely open his mouth without issuing a foolhardy provocation. He threatened regime change in Moscow, implied that American troops were about to be sent into Ukraine and suggested the United States would respond “in kind” to a Russian use of chemical weapons.

These statements were widely labeled “gaffes.” To be sure, they were the misstatements of an aging politician not known for his rhetorical dexterity. But they also revealed hotheadedness, ill-discipline and self-righteousness: traits that were identifiable even in a younger, more alert Biden — and traits that now make the world a more dangerous place.

(source)

“The adults are in charge again,” bragged Biden’s advisors when they entered the White House. This claim of competence was soon disproved by events, but it also obscured a tension in Biden’s foreign policy. The president elected on a promise to restore America’s alliances has also shown a clear determination to pare back America’s global role. The withdrawal from Afghanistan highlighted that contradiction: a move built on a serious conviction of the need to acknowledge the limits of American power — that enraged our closest allies.

At the time, many foreign policy restrainers and realists welcomed a president who appeared to see the world the same way as they. But in Ukraine, the administration has stumbled into a strategy that pleases no one. The camp that saw the logic of the Afghanistan withdrawal, however botched its execution, may have welcomed Biden’s explicit ruling out of escalatory steps like a no-fly zone and his willingness to let Europeans take the lead in assisting Ukraine. But they cannot be comfortable with the administration’s drift toward regime change in Moscow as a US objective.

Biden’s public declaration that Putin “cannot remain in power” may have been a gaffe that was quickly walked back, but the policy steps the US president has taken suggest that the removal of his Russian counterpart is his ultimate goal. From ratcheting up sanctions to admonishing Putin as a “war criminal” and a “thug,” these are not the steps of an administration putting de-escalation first.

Those who favor a bolder approach might agree with some of Biden’s rhetoric but find worryingly little action to back up the talk. That hazardous gap between rhetoric and policy isn’t limited to Ukraine. At a dangerous moment in history, Biden seemingly refuses to acknowledge the difficult choices and tough tradeoffs that lie ahead. This administration appears to think that Putin will be gone, Ukraine will be free, China will be contained, a deal will be reached with Iran that doesn’t give another regime a nuclear weapon and the US economy will fend off “Putin’s price rises.” Everything, in other words, will be just fine. And all without a meaningful change of course in US policy.

Since I'll likely be accused of partisanship anyway

To begin in the middle, as it were, Biden's foreign policy seems — shall I say, confused?

This phenomenon is present in Western European countries too, e.g. Sweden and Belgium can be unable to form a government (called "government crisis") for years, yet the country keeps functioning just fine, because state officials keep doing their job.

Doesn't depend on federal or otherwise. Sweden is not federal. And the same seems to work in Netherlands.

it means that Biden is rather similar to Trump. And apparently Trump is great when he does the same things.

His foreign policy -such as it was- harkened back to the Founders: America was to be "the friend to Liberty everywhere, but the guardian only of her own" — and he seemed to recognise that Congress adopts treaties for the U.S., and declaring War is their responsibility!

[Edit]But it matters in this context how the operations are funded. Do the regions have their own taxes and are able to draw own taxes directly to own budget? In Estonia and Sweden, municipalities have the right to impose some municipal taxes. In Sweden the municipalities also in fact use this capacity. In Estonia they do not. But either way, the tax money goes to the state and the municipalities need to wait until their share gets distributed to them from the state. And this municipal tax base is so limited that any bigger project, say a major reconstruction of a kindergarten, not to mention a whole new kindergarten, needs external funding, state support or private sponsors.[/edit]

Among other things, Carantonis refers to the car registration tax. It is noted that certain luxury models of BMW, with a purchase price of approximately 80,000 euros, are charged a registration tax of 4,957 euros in Wallonia and Brussels. In Flanders, on the other hand, only 468.90 euros has to be paid. This has to do with Flanders' decision to calculate the tax on emissions, while in Wallonia and Brussels it is still calculated on power. Since the BMW in question has a particularly high power output, but also records good ecological performance, the differences are particularly high.

Registration duties on real estate are also much more advantageous in Flanders than in the other regions of the country. In Flanders, 10 percent of the selling price is applied, compared to 12.5 percent in Brussels and Wallonia. On a 300,000 euro home, this results in an advantage of 7,500 euros in Flanders. But in Flanders, these amounts can also be deducted when buying a larger home at a later date. If 400,000 euros has to be paid for this, 40,000 euros will ultimately be charged in registration duties in Flanders, compared to 87,500 euros in Brussels and Wallonia. Moreover, in Brussels the discounts for modest houses have been abolished. Belgians also still have to pay taxes in their own municipality. Only in Flanders, however, are there a number of exceptions to this. In De Panne, Knokke or Koksijde the municipal surcharges are 0.0 percent. In the Walloon municipalities of Mouscron or Visé, on the other hand, this rises to 8.8 percent.  Finally, in Wallonia there is still a tax of 100 euros per television set in the home to be paid. In Flanders and Brussels, these levies have been abolished for a long time.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

The one responsible for such communication and supervision of the administrative establishment is mainly the president's chief of staff, but also the vice president. Trump had Ginni Thomas

Biden also has Kamala Harris and Jen Psaki. I must confess that I am very jealous that Biden has Jen Psaki. I need a secretary like her very very much.

@Frenzie What I am most interested in is whether the regions have their own tax authority with their own tax officers and do the regional tax authorities operate their own tax accounts.

there cannot be any reasonable explanation

(You can easily look up the actual succession of Trump's chiefs-of-staff... If you'd not "do my homework for me", I will address the pros and cons of each, in turn. )

Were you familiar with the history of the American Presidency -as I am- you'd know that turnover in that position is usually rapid and frequent.

Added to this simple scheme is the Cabinet -chiefs of the various departments of the government- who serve "at the pleasure of the President"  —  meaning that he hires them and he can fire them: They're at will employees.

Of course, there's also the Bureaucracy  — so called "Civil Servants".
A good bureaucrat is one who is: Able and proficient, effective and conscientious — and neither pretentious nor presumptuous.

Harris was my state's Attorney General, and then one of our Senators... And I knew of her raw lust for power in the form of political office from her stint as San Francisco's District Attorney. (She'd had other "government" jobs, ebbing  from her position as "Willie Brown's mattress", as one wag put it!)

Psaki, whom I know only from her performative art as Biden's Press Secretary, is exceptionally good at prevarication and non sequitur responses to honest questions. (Do you need someone lie for you and help you avoid responsibility? )

You remarked that Trump had no foreign policy. I can only presume that you think "foreign policy" is what diplomats and ambassadors  do.

But I'll assume you don't know that Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Accords, the Iranian nuclear "It'll be a decade before they can nuke us!" deal, the reaffirmation of our traditional relations with Israel and the peace deals facilitated by his administration  in the Middle East; the renegotiation of NAFTA. and the reconsideration of NATO...

I feel sure my slight "explanatory" exposition will fail to satisfy you, ersi. (If only I would just join the refrain "Trump Bad!" with the rest of the proles, eh?)

First, you have not shown that you have any idea what foreign policy is.

Amazingly, for all the evil and stupid things that Trump did, he did not manage to overturn USA or the world. This, to me, indicates that there is a rather strong internal logic to the American administrative tradition that stays the course regardless of who is in power.^[1] I'd say that while W's excesses were *not* contained or constrained, but his excesses activated a counter-reaction that contained and constrained Trump's excesses.

In short, I'm for it. But not fanatically so; until the normal sense of community and a sense of shared values returns, there are more pressing matters to tend to and a distinct lack of the tools needed to recreate them. (Democracy of any stripe is indeed difficult!)

To my knowledge, it's not required in any of California's public schools... My children (and most of my extant family) were educated here, and the lack hasn't seemed to do them harm...

California
The state of California requires the pledge to be recited, but leaves oversight to school districts.

I trust I've answered your questions in a way that meets with your approval, for clarity and completeness anyway. I'll vouch for my honesty! (You'll just have to take my word for that!)

The pledge of allegiance is flat out regime propaganda, brainwashing and indoctrination

You could run for the district board and rectify the matter    or at least do some fiery speeches and liberty marches like many did against the masks and vaccines.

The Pledge of Allegiance is an innocuous display of fellow-feeling, unencumbered by political (Party) trappings.

Regime, you say? We make no pledge to Dear Leader or ruling party...

You perhaps begrudge us our republic?

I am yet to find an American who'd think the children's daily flag-worship remarkable in any way. But let me tell you that it's extraordinarily remarkable. I am not aware of evidence that even Third Reich or Stalinist USSR had this level of indoctrination and brainwashing for children. They sure as hell had indoctrination and brainwashing and it had its effects, but this did not come in a daily worship ritual for all school-going children.

I am opposed to USA's colonialism. From the outside, USA looks like a colonial empire.

[The USA] of course is a republic - so are almost all countries

Republic is just a word that does not describe anything because it is applicable everywhere.