Recent Posts

postimg.org está caído.

Quase quase.

O tom irónico pode indicar que realmente você acha que faz um favor dando um extra e não assinando a carteira, porém na realidade você está também negando ela do FGTS, das contribuições ao INSS, aumentando o número de pessoas que são trabalhadores mas não tem planos de previdência e depois vocês mesmos vem a falar que a previdência está pronta pra falir e devemos mudar os parámetros. Nesta eu tendo a concordar com o voyager eu vou além: o estado deve proteger a estes trabalhadores que não tem outras opções de trabalho e sem entender sequer, entram num ramo que tirará as opções de aposentadoria. Claro que devemos garantir uma aposentadoria digna a estas pessoas. E o pior e que eu devo pagar por essa aposentadoria, quando quem devia ter feito os aportes som os empregadores junto com ela.

Em vermelho o argumento que eu não tinha nem notado nem lido na mídia antes.

By James Freeman
March 26, 2018 2:40 p.m. ET


Donald Trump is known for talking a big game, but on Russia he seems to be playing a bigger one. As disappointing as it was to learn last week that our President congratulated Russian President Vladimir Putin on his sham re-election, today’s news underscores an encouraging trend of the White House undermining Mr. Putin and his ability to threaten his neighbors. The Trump message is erratic but the policy appears to be consistent.

A statement this morning from White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders explains the latest action toward the Putin regime:

Today President Donald J. Trump ordered the expulsion of dozens of Russian intelligence officers from the United States and the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle due to its proximity to one of our submarine bases and Boeing . The United States takes this action in conjunction with our NATO allies and partners around the world in response to Russia’s use of a military-grade chemical weapon on the soil of the United Kingdom, the latest in its ongoing pattern of destabilizing activities around the world. Today’s actions make the United States safer by reducing Russia’s ability to spy on Americans and to conduct covert operations that threaten America’s national security. With these steps, the United States and our allies and partners make clear to Russia that its actions have consequences. The United States stands ready to cooperate to build a better relationship with Russia, but this can only happen with a change in the Russian government’s behavior.
The unconventional Mr. Trump appears to be responding just as an ally would hope. The Journal reports:

The coordinated moves come several weeks after the chemical attack in the English city of Salisbury on Sergei Skripal, a former Russian double agent, and his daughter. The two remain in critical condition.
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said, “The attack in Salisbury has shaken all of us in the European Union. For the first time after World War II chemical weapons have been used in the midst of Europe... We did not make the decision to expel Russian diplomats lightly. But the facts and the leads are pointing at Russia. The Russian government has so far not answered any of the open questions nor did it demonstrate any readiness to play a constructive role in investigating the attack.”
...In a briefing with reporters on Monday, senior U.S. administration officials described the poison attack as a reckless attempt by the Russian government to murder a British citizen and endanger others that amounted to an attack on the U.S.’s closest ally.
The New York Times notes that the American response to the U.K. attack follows U.S. action to counter Russian attempts to interfere in U.S. elections:

On March 15, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on a series of Russian organizations and individuals for interference in the 2016 presidential election and other “malicious cyberattacks,” its most significant action against Moscow until Monday.
As for last week’s phone call with Mr. Putin, Mr. Trump ought to follow the Reagan model and consistently employ the moral authority of the U.S. to deny illegitimate governments the respectability they crave. But this column must admit that the Friday evening commentary from the Journal’s Holman Jenkins is looking even better on Monday:

Don’t rule out the possibility that the White House leak that set the media aflame in foolish suppositions this week came from Mr. Trump himself. That would be the leak saying he ignored his staff’s advice not to congratulate Russian President Vladimir Putin on his sham election victory.
After all, who delights in letting us know that he defies the advice of his establishment advisers? Who believes and has told us repeatedly that his personal-relationship prowess is the solution to America’s toughest problems?
And who put the call to Mr. Putin on his schedule in the first place?
Russia under Mr. Putin is a waning international power with an economy smaller than Texas, and one that is perhaps even more reliant on high oil prices. The Trump administration has consistently enacted policies to encourage cheap petroleum.

The Trump White House also reversed an Obama policy and has begun selling arms to Ukraine to counter Russian aggression. And now Mr. Trump is standing with the Brits.

Mr. Putin is a menace to civilized society who didn’t even deserve a friendly phone call. The good news is that it seems to be just about all he’s getting out of Washington.

***

Acho mais provável que a lei mude para contabilizar só os anos aportados em cada gênero.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_spending_on_education_(%25_of_GDP)

Denmark 8.7 2012 [1]
Norway 6.9 2012 [1]
Finland 6.8 2012 [1]
France 5.9 2012 [1]
United Kingdom 5.6 2012 [1]
United States 5.6 2012 [1]
Austria 6 2012 [1]
Netherlands 6 2012 [1]
Switzerland 5.4 2012 [1]
Brazil 5.8 2012 [1]

Olha o que fizeram os últimos governos em investimento em educação
data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=BR
Essa curva vai cair.

Eu fui tras dá cita original pra ver se o Lynch mesmo disse isso... só fiquei reticente pelo comentário de "I put in twenty years in the business before..." eu não acreditaria nada em alguém que leva 20 anos pra entender isto.

A nota inteira não faz nenhum sentido, pelo lado Chinês: a China exporta menos do 2% da produção de aço para os EUA. Pelo lado Brasileiro: O brasil exporta minério para China e tem fornos parados na produção de aço, certamente não o importa. Pelo lado Argentino: a Techint já mudou á mais de um ano as plantas para os EUA.