Little Communists.

[RobDownSouth]

If you have nothing to say, why say anything at all?

Ishmael

It's never stopped you before, has it Ish?
Or AJ for that matter...
Or Miles for that matter...
Or Vetteman for that matter...
Or Amicunt for that matter...
Or Eyer for that matter...
Or Garbage Can for that matter...
Or Semen4Dogs for that matter...
Or Karen Kraft for that matter...

 

[Colonel Hogan]

1. Immediately Raise the Top Marginal Income Tax Rate to: 45% on income over 500,000 . The next rate to: 40% on income over 250,000 and the third rate to, 35% on income over 125,000. (Higher than it was during the Sacred Clinton Surplus years)

The Word of the Lord

2. Immediately repeal the Capital Gains tax - BUT treat capital gains as regular Income.

The Word of God

3. Eliminate the Cap on FICA taxation.

The Word of God

4. Eliminate Deductions for State/Local/City/County taxes paid.

The Word of God

5. Eliminate Deductions for Mortgage interest for those earning over 125,000.

The Word of God

6. Eliminate all Deductions for those earning over $500,000.

The Word of The Lord

7. Institute a 3% National Sales tax on all non-food goods and services.

The Word of God

8. Eliminate all Tax Subsidies for all Corporations and treat Corporations as individuals for tax payments.

The Word of God

9. Institute a 12% import tariff on all imported Goods, from any source.

The Word of God

10. Institute a 1% transaction fee on stock, Bond and commodity exchanges.

The Word of God


And let the money roll. With all that revenue (because according to our democratic contingent - taxes do not affect business or investment profits the GDP will GROW by leaps and bounds, jobs will appear like mushrooms on manure and we'll all dance on the streets paved with gold.

Can I have an Amen?

One of the problems with a global economy is that American corporations have to compete with foreign corporations and American labor has to compete with foreign labor happy to work for far less than what we would define as the "poverty level."

American business has amply demonstrated its willingness and ability to shed manufacturing jobs and embrace whatever tax shelters are available overseas. The same companies you want to hit with higher taxes did not hesitate to outsource minimum wage-staffed call centers to just about anywhere in Asia. Most of those jobs have already returned for customer service reasons that should have been obvious from the beginning, but it certainly didn't keep companies from trying.

That's not to say that your ideas are wrong, but that the laws of unintended consequences are always lying in wait to bite those who would be visionaries squarely in the ass.

 

[radepor]

...Free Trade Agreements, and others

No fault, no argument with your assertions.

However, I think all the Democrats. Laborites and others should rethink some things. For example, those who have worshipped at the alter of Bill Clintion should rethink who is/was their friend.

The exodus of U.S. manufacturing and jobs was a self-inflicted wound; a manufactured wound, in fact. Tax and other U.S. laws didn't just write themselves to the benefit of U.S. corporations who were tired of paying typical U.S. wages when they could get Asians to work for pennies.

I won't go so far as to say there was a conspiracy to undermine the U.S. Labor workforce - Jimmy Carter all but predicted such an outcome and was reviled for it - but I don't think "Globalization" just 'happened' all by itself either.

If you think it was just business, then I'm wrong. If you think there's a chance I'm right, then it was at least partially engineered meaning it can be at least partially reversed with the correct policies.

Can it? Should it?

One of the problems with a global economy is that American corporations have to compete with foreign corporations and American labor has to compete with foreign labor happy to work for far less than what we would define as the "poverty level."

American business has amply demonstrated its willingness and ability to shed manufacturing jobs and embrace whatever tax shelters are available overseas. The same companies you want to hit with higher taxes did not hesitate to outsource minimum wage-staffed call centers to just about anywhere in Asia. Most of those jobs have already returned for customer service reasons that should have been obvious from the beginning, but it certainly didn't keep companies from trying.

That's not to say that your ideas are wrong, but that the laws of unintended consequences are always lying in wait to bite those who would be visionaries squarely in the ass.

 

[lustatopia]

1. Immediately Raise the Top Marginal Income Tax Rate to: 45% on income over 500,000 . The next rate to: 40% on income over 250,000 and the third rate to, 35% on income over 125,000. (Higher than it was during the Sacred Clinton Surplus years)

The Word of the Lord

2. Immediately repeal the Capital Gains tax - BUT treat capital gains as regular Income.

OK

The Word of God

3. Eliminate the Cap on FICA taxation.

The Word of God

4. Eliminate Deductions for State/Local/City/County taxes paid.

The Word of God

5. Eliminate Deductions for Mortgage interest for those earning over 125,000.

The Word of God

6. Eliminate all Deductions for those earning over $500,000.

The Word of The Lord

7. Institute a 3% National Sales tax on all non-food goods and services.

The Word of God

8. Eliminate all Tax Subsidies for all Corporations and treat Corporations as individuals for tax payments.

The Word of God

9. Institute a 12% import tariff on all imported Goods, from any source.

The Word of God

10. Institute a 1% transaction fee on stock, Bond and commodity exchanges.

The Word of God


And let the money roll. With all that revenue (because according to our democratic contingent - taxes do not affect business or investment profits the GDP will GROW by leaps and bounds, jobs will appear like mushrooms on manure and we'll all dance on the streets paved with gold.

Can I have an Amen?

But kbate... the money would not roll in!

Taxes and the economy are not a zero-sum game. Lower taxes and you leave more money in investors' pockets from which they can create new business opportunities and jobs and innovation with thus creating a larger economic pie from which to derive money through taxation. Investment drives invention drives job creation drive tax revenue.

Raise taxes as you propose and the economic pie atrophies because the government is sucking all the creativity out of the economy. What happens is the unintended consequences of bad economic policy.

High taxes will cause the amount of collectable taxes to fall, maybe not the first year, but as the economy declines and adjusts to the new rates, collection will decline.

1. tax cheating would go up
2. loop holes more vigorously sought and found
3. all money that could would flee overseas taking jobs, innovation and talent (brain drain) with it.
4. A vast illegal cash economy would be spawned over night
5. Our society would be vastly more criminalised. Boom time for the mob.
6. The stock market would crash, stocks move overseas and investment capital flee
7. End result, the poor are even poorer and the rich are even more disconnected from the society because they are now hiding wealth under mattresses instead of using it to create more wealth at home. The cost of government sky rockets as the poor need more welfare and policing....lose, lose, lose

Btw. Instituting an import tariff on all imported goods would violate dozens of international treaties and get the US thrown out of the WTO and censored at the UN. The resulting global trade war would lead to a second great depression (a punitive tariff caused the first great depression) It could also cause world war three with China as the leader of an anti-American coalition. This war could likely go nuclear. It would mean the end of our peaceful global economy....

If you want to raise tax revenues do so by cooperating with business to expand the economy and to do this you must lower taxes especially on those who innovate and use capital effectively. I understand it might be more satisfying to kick the shit out of the rich, but in the long run you have to decide if you really care about helping the national economy or just want to have a fleeting binge moment of class revenge.

In fact, the real rich you can't even touch, because the economy is global and wealth is totally liquid. They will slip through your drag net like water. You have to LURE them to your economy, not punish them for investing and making their home where they can be taxed.

All that you will catch and kill is all the small local businesses who provide the bulk of jobs on and off little main streets all over the country. The little people who scraped together a loan or small inheritance and built a modest business so connected to community it can't flee only die. That's a terrible crime that has been repeated through out history. But no one ever seems to learn from history, do they?

Your tax recipe would turn every town in America into Detroit. Think again.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Get rid of all state sales tax.
Get rid of the progressive income tax (federal, state)

Apply a universal Value Added Tax on all non-food, non-medical goods and services.

Set the rate to equal 2009 revenues.

The more the economy grows, the more the government gets to waste and screw around with.

No filing of anything by individuals or corporations every year. You pay as you go.

What would the rate have to be?

What do you think?

 

[kbate]

But kbate... the money would not roll in!

Taxes and the economy are not a zero-sum game. Lower taxes and you leave more money in investors' pockets from which they can create new business opportunities and jobs and innovation with thus creating a larger economic pie from which to derive money through taxation. Investment drives invention drives job creation drive tax revenue.

Raise taxes as you propose and the economic pie atrophies because the government is sucking all the creativity out of the economy. What happens is the unintended consequences of bad economic policy.

High taxes will cause the amount of collectable taxes to fall, maybe not the first year, but as the economy declines and adjusts to the new rates, collection will decline.

1. tax cheating would go up
2. loop holes more vigorously sought and found
3. all money that could would flee overseas taking jobs, innovation and talent (brain drain) with it.
4. A vast illegal cash economy would be spawned over night
5. Our society would be vastly more criminalised. Boom time for the mob.
6. The stock market would crash, stocks move overseas and investment capital flee
7. End result, the poor are even poorer and the rich are even more disconnected from the society because they are now hiding wealth under mattresses instead of using it to create more wealth at home. The cost of government sky rockets as the poor need more welfare and policing....lose, lose, lose

Btw. Instituting an import tariff on all imported goods would violate dozens of international treaties and get the US thrown out of the WTO and censored at the UN. The resulting global trade war would lead to a second great depression (a punitive tariff caused the first great depression) It could also cause world war three with China as the leader of an anti-American coalition. This war could likely go nuclear. It would mean the end of our peaceful global economy....

If you want to raise tax revenues do so by cooperating with business to expand the economy and to do this you must lower taxes especially on those who innovate and use capital effectively. I understand it might be more satisfying to kick the shit out of the rich, but in the long run you have to decide if you really care about helping the national economy or just want to have a fleeting binge moment of class revenge.

In fact, the real rich you can't even touch, because the economy is global and wealth is totally liquid. They will slip through your drag net like water. You have to LURE them to your economy, not punish them for investing and making their home where they can be taxed.

All that you will catch and kill is all the small local businesses who provide the bulk of jobs on and off little main streets all over the country. The little people who scraped together a loan or small inheritance and built a modest business so connected to community it can't flee only die. That's a terrible crime that has been repeated through out history. But no one ever seems to learn from history, do they?

Your tax recipe would turn every town in America into Detroit. Think again.

Prove it.


All you are doing is spouting the Republican Party's anti-tax points, many of which are based on false premises to begin with and which have, coupled with their penchant for overspending - left the government with unsustainable debt, low taxes and no growth.

 

[kbate]

Get rid of all state sales tax.
Get rid of the progressive income tax (federal, state)

Apply a universal Value Added Tax on all non-food, non-medical goods and services.

Set the rate to equal 2009 revenues.

The more the economy grows, the more the government gets to waste and screw around with.

No filing of anything by individuals or corporations every year. You pay as you go.

What would the rate have to be?

What do you think?

Wouldn't work, wouldn't even be close. Foreign purchases would increase and the exodus of jobs would continue to non-VAT states. The government can't operate and corporations laugh as the consumers in the U.S. pay VAT on items they made in China with materials bought from Burma.

 

[kbate]

That's not to say that your ideas are wrong, but that the laws of unintended consequences are always lying in wait to bite those who would be visionaries squarely in the ass.

That's why I cut everything else in the second post (which you happily ignore).

The tax increases - without the 10 year limit and the massive spending reduction plan - would be destructive to the nation.

We can always limp along with the idea that the Bush tax cuts were the reason for the economic growth between 2003 and 2006 - but I'd go with Fed action keeping interest at 0% as the real motive force.

So, I'm going for a strong dollar, no debt and less government in the end.

 

[Liar]

One of the problems with a global economy is that American corporations have to compete with foreign corporations and American labor has to compete with foreign labor happy to work for far less than what we would define as the "poverty level."

American business has amply demonstrated its willingness and ability to shed manufacturing jobs and embrace whatever tax shelters are available overseas. The same companies you want to hit with higher taxes did not hesitate to outsource minimum wage-staffed call centers to just about anywhere in Asia. Most of those jobs have already returned for customer service reasons that should have been obvious from the beginning, but it certainly didn't keep companies from trying.

That's not to say that your ideas are wrong, but that the laws of unintended consequences are always lying in wait to bite those who would be visionaries squarely in the ass.

Indeed.

But since said businesses shed manufacturing jobs and embrace whatever tax shelters are available overseas now, would hitting them with taxes (or indeed cutting them further) really change the playing field all that much?

I'd volunteer the answer is no, and that other factors are way more relevant for whether businesses will invest resources and keep and create jobs in the country or not. Political stability, accessible credit, functioning infrastructure. And I don't just mean roads, power grids and such - rather things like high capacity private distributon services for goods, non volatile financial institutions for transactions, low crime and corruption rates...

Granted, I'm not big corp. Just a small company with so far 4 employees in the US. But that's what I'm most interrested in, and what made the US and W Europe a better place to than E Europe and South Africa, where we also do business.

You do have a bucketload of those things to offer businesses. But you run the risk of eroding it, along with crumbling roads and bridges.

 

[Powertone]

It's never stopped you before, has it Ish?
Or AJ for that matter...
Or Miles for that matter...
Or Vetteman for that matter...
Or Amicunt for that matter...
Or Eyer for that matter...
Or Garbage Can for that matter...
Or Semen4Dogs for that matter...
Or Karen Kraft for that matter...

Duke would kick your ass

and get with the program , RobSwallows . I'm whitePowersemen from this point forward says RoryN

 

[Powertone]

speaking of indoctrination

here's a toe tapper from '08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That's why I cut everything else in the second post (which you happily ignore).

The tax increases - without the 10 year limit and the massive spending reduction plan - would be destructive to the nation.

We can always limp along with the idea that the Bush tax cuts were the reason for the economic growth between 2003 and 2006 - but I'd go with Fed action keeping interest at 0% as the real motive force.

So, I'm going for a strong dollar, no debt and less government in the end.

I ignored your second post because I didn't see it as particularly relevant to my specific criticisms of your first post. But as long as you brought it up.....

A complete phase out of Social Security and Medicare? To be replaced by what? I've never heard even the most miserly, wing nut Republican advocate that!

Secondly, I'm always suspicious of anyone suggesting a "60%" cut of, say, the Defense Department. How did you come up with that percentage? Are you targeting weapons systems over personnel numbers? R & D? One service branch over the others? At least a little more detail is appropriate here to indicate that you've adequately thought the matter through.

Finally, the idea of running every single administrative decision through Congress rather than the specific agency is simply not practical. How about giving Congress veto power over specific areas of administrative decisions and rule making as a more workable compromise?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

No fault, no argument with your assertions.

However, I think all the Democrats. Laborites and others should rethink some things. For example, those who have worshipped at the alter of Bill Clintion should rethink who is/was their friend.

The exodus of U.S. manufacturing and jobs was a self-inflicted wound; a manufactured wound, in fact. Tax and other U.S. laws didn't just write themselves to the benefit of U.S. corporations who were tired of paying typical U.S. wages when they could get Asians to work for pennies.

I won't go so far as to say there was a conspiracy to undermine the U.S. Labor workforce - Jimmy Carter all but predicted such an outcome and was reviled for it - but I don't think "Globalization" just 'happened' all by itself either.

If you think it was just business, then I'm wrong. If you think there's a chance I'm right, then it was at least partially engineered meaning it can be at least partially reversed with the correct policies.

Can it? Should it?

Globalization was largely an outgrowth of revolutionary advances in communication, the relaxation of dictatorial control over economic markets in countries like Russia and China, and the improved access to education and acquisition of new skills within the Third World. Much of that advancement was inevitable and much (like the opening of China to the rest of the world) was relentlessly pursued by governments in search of larger and more lucrative markets and as a method to reduce cultural tensions that could explode into military conflict.

America is, at the very least, a tad nervous about economic engineering in terms of punitive tariffs or anything that smacks of restricting trade. There is some feeling that similar restrictive policies were a relevant factor in the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The fact that Globalization was, in many respects, "just business" does not contradict your suggestion that it cannot be intelligently managed with the correct economic policies. But history seems to tell us that implementing those policies at just the right time and in the proper measure is a delicate exercise that is more art than science.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Indeed.

But since said businesses shed manufacturing jobs and embrace whatever tax shelters are available overseas now, would hitting them with taxes (or indeed cutting them further) really change the playing field all that much?

I'd volunteer the answer is no, and that other factors are way more relevant for whether businesses will invest resources and keep and create jobs in the country or not. Political stability, accessible credit, functioning infrastructure. And I don't just mean roads, power grids and such - rather things like high capacity private distributon services for goods, non volatile financial institutions for transactions, low crime and corruption rates...

Granted, I'm not big corp. Just a small company with so far 4 employees in the US. But that's what I'm most interrested in, and what made the US and W Europe a better place to than E Europe and South Africa, where we also do business.

You do have a bucketload of those things to offer businesses. But you run the risk of eroding it, along with crumbling roads and bridges.

Good post.

You make a good point about how much the playing field might not change.

I would only caution us all not to underestimate the ability of other countries to make the necessary advancements in the other critical factors you list. There is no better example of this, imho, than China. Look at where they came from and how quickly they made the journey. They're certainly not perfect in terms of some of the advantages you point out. But they may be one of the best examples to other ambitious countries as to what may be "just good enough."

 

[Liar]

Good post.

You make a good about how much the playing field might not change.

I would only caution us all not to underestimate the ability of other countries to make the necessary advancements in the other critical factors you list. There is no better example of this, imho, than China. Look at where they came from and how quickly they made the journey. They're certainly not perfect in terms of some of the advantages you point out. But they may be one of the best examples to other ambitious countries as to what may be "just good enough."

Indeed. That's what drained the West as a manufacturing realm. From Japan and Hong Kong, to Taiwan, S Korea and finally China. The pull of low wages was always strong, once the friction of bad business environment didn't chafe too much, the exodus was inevitable.

To be noted though, is that at least China did it with big government. Big, big, big government. They built a business friendly environment thru iron fist capitalism by party.

The philosophy in the US seems to be the opposite. That busines friendly environment is the natural state of things, and the less anyone tries the more awesome it will become. I'm not so sure.


ETA: Why do I start every other post with "Indeed" lately? Gotta stop, I sound like a cartoon fop.

 

[HermesVoice]

DOE doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

Ishmael

But ... but ... you said before that "Just as the government controlled the speed limit on the nations highways ... so to does the Dept. of Ed. do so with the nations schools."

 

[HermesVoice]

Indeed.

But since said businesses shed manufacturing jobs and embrace whatever tax shelters are available overseas now, would hitting them with taxes (or indeed cutting them further) really change the playing field all that much?

I'd volunteer the answer is no, and that other factors are way more relevant for whether businesses will invest resources and keep and create jobs in the country or not. Political stability, accessible credit, functioning infrastructure. And I don't just mean roads, power grids and such - rather things like high capacity private distributon services for goods, non volatile financial institutions for transactions, low crime and corruption rates...

Granted, I'm not big corp. Just a small company with so far 4 employees in the US. But that's what I'm most interrested in, and what made the US and W Europe a better place to than E Europe and South Africa, where we also do business.

You do have a bucketload of those things to offer businesses. But you run the risk of eroding it, along with crumbling roads and bridges.

Globalization was largely an outgrowth of revolutionary advances in communication, the relaxation of dictatorial control over economic markets in countries like Russia and China, and the improved access to education and acquisition of new skills within the Third World. Much of that advancement was inevitable and much (like the opening of China to the rest of the world) was relentlessly pursued by governments in search of larger and more lucrative markets and as a method to reduce cultural tensions that could explode into military conflict.

America is, at the very least, a tad nervous about economic engineering in terms of punitive tariffs or anything that smacks of restricting trade. There is some feeling that similar restrictive policies were a relevant factor in the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The fact that Globalization was, in many respects, "just business" does not contradict your suggestion that it cannot be intelligently managed with the correct economic policies. But history seems to tell us that implementing those policies at just the right time and in the proper measure is a delicate exercise that is more art than science.

Two thoughtful posters in a thread of utter nonsense.

Thanks to both of you.

 

[kbate]

I ignored your second post because I didn't see it as particularly relevant to my specific criticisms of your first post. But as long as you brought it up.....

A complete phase out of Social Security and Medicare? To be replaced by what? I've never heard even the most miserly, wing nut Republican advocate that!

Secondly, I'm always suspicious of anyone suggesting a "60%" cut of, say, the Defense Department. How did you come up with that percentage? Are you targeting weapons systems over personnel numbers? R & D? One service branch over the others? At least a little more detail is appropriate here to indicate that you've adequately thought the matter through.

Finally, the idea of running every single administrative decision through Congress rather than the specific agency is simply not practical. How about giving Congress veto power over specific areas of administrative decisions and rule making as a more workable compromise?

Why shouldn't congress have to be accountable for regulations? If it's important enough to be law, it is important enough for our congress to be on record as having voted for it. Changing a president and an appointed head of an agency should not be a game changer for regulatory apparatus.



Which part of "Phase Out" is confusing you? The idea is to end the programs and replace them with nothing, but to KEEP them running for 25 years with decreasing benefits to allow those who are basically fully vested - to receive benefits and for those who are not yet 40 - to have time to invest for their own retirement and medical plan.


Why suspicious? I've posted what I'd like to do with the military in several threads and my best guess is that costs could drop 50-70%. But for the basics:

A. Withdraw from NATO. Thank you mission accomplished.
B. Repatriate all foreign based troops.
C. Combine Marine Corps with the Army into "Ground Command"
D. Combine all Aviation into Air Force (army, marine, naval and current air force)
E. Combine all Naval forces into Sea Force
F. Create, "Space Command" for missiles, drones, satellite, etc.
G. Redefine missions: Protect United States and Territories. Punish any who would attack United States or Territories.

So, bring them home. Trim and cut the forces into a smaller but very lethal military with the mission of protecting our nation rather than enforcing Pax Americana across the globe. Build a few Virginia Submarines (or the next generation) for sea control. Cut to 6 total carrier groups. Stop the interservice competition for different aircraft. More destroyers - fewer carriers.

And finally - no more 'nation building'. If you attack the United States - doctrine will be to smash your country - it's roads, bridges, infrastructure, military and then to come home and train for the next time. Hardship for the enemy? Yes, too bad.

 

[Saint Peter]

Why shouldn't congress have to be accountable for regulations? If it's important enough to be law, it is important enough for our congress to be on record as having voted for it. Changing a president and an appointed head of an agency should not be a game changer for regulatory apparatus.



Which part of "Phase Out" is confusing you? The idea is to end the programs and replace them with nothing, but to KEEP them running for 25 years with decreasing benefits to allow those who are basically fully vested - to receive benefits and for those who are not yet 40 - to have time to invest for their own retirement and medical plan.


Why suspicious? I've posted what I'd like to do with the military in several threads and my best guess is that costs could drop 50-70%. But for the basics:

A. Withdraw from NATO. Thank you mission accomplished.
B. Repatriate all foreign based troops.
C. Combine Marine Corps with the Army into "Ground Command"
D. Combine all Aviation into Air Force (army, marine, naval and current air force)
E. Combine all Naval forces into Sea Force
F. Create, "Space Command" for missiles, drones, satellite, etc.
G. Redefine missions: Protect United States and Territories. Punish any who would attack United States or Territories.

So, bring them home. Trim and cut the forces into a smaller but very lethal military with the mission of protecting our nation rather than enforcing Pax Americana across the globe. Build a few Virginia Submarines (or the next generation) for sea control. Cut to 6 total carrier groups. Stop the interservice competition for different aircraft. More destroyers - fewer carriers.

And finally - no more 'nation building'. If you attack the United States - doctrine will be to smash your country - it's roads, bridges, infrastructure, military and then to come home and train for the next time. Hardship for the enemy? Yes, too bad.

I like this.

You have my vote.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Why shouldn't congress have to be accountable for regulations? If it's important enough to be law, it is important enough for our congress to be on record as having voted for it. Changing a president and an appointed head of an agency should not be a game changer for regulatory apparatus.



Which part of "Phase Out" is confusing you? The idea is to end the programs and replace them with nothing, but to KEEP them running for 25 years with decreasing benefits to allow those who are basically fully vested - to receive benefits and for those who are not yet 40 - to have time to invest for their own retirement and medical plan.


Why suspicious? I've posted what I'd like to do with the military in several threads and my best guess is that costs could drop 50-70%. But for the basics:

A. Withdraw from NATO. Thank you mission accomplished.
B. Repatriate all foreign based troops.
C. Combine Marine Corps with the Army into "Ground Command"
D. Combine all Aviation into Air Force (army, marine, naval and current air force)
E. Combine all Naval forces into Sea Force
F. Create, "Space Command" for missiles, drones, satellite, etc.
G. Redefine missions: Protect United States and Territories. Punish any who would attack United States or Territories.

So, bring them home. Trim and cut the forces into a smaller but very lethal military with the mission of protecting our nation rather than enforcing Pax Americana across the globe. Build a few Virginia Submarines (or the next generation) for sea control. Cut to 6 total carrier groups. Stop the interservice competition for different aircraft. More destroyers - fewer carriers.

And finally - no more 'nation building'. If you attack the United States - doctrine will be to smash your country - it's roads, bridges, infrastructure, military and then to come home and train for the next time. Hardship for the enemy? Yes, too bad.

I like this.

You have my vote.

Agreed, although it would take dictatorial powers to accomplish even a small portion of what she would intend to do.

Kbate for Supreme Leader?

 

[Saint Peter]

Agreed, although it would take dictatorial powers to accomplish even a small portion of what she would intend to do.

Kbate for Supreme Leader?

Our system is broken. Make kbate the Supreme Leader. Cut the fat. Cut the fighting. Cut the bullshit.

I think most of America would get behind her.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Our system is broken. Make kbate the Supreme Leader. Cut the fat. Cut the fighting. Cut the bullshit.

I think most of America would get behind her.

I can get with that program, even if it's only for the view.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Why shouldn't congress have to be accountable for regulations? If it's important enough to be law, it is important enough for our congress to be on record as having voted for it. Changing a president and an appointed head of an agency should not be a game changer for regulatory apparatus.

We may be arguing about two different things. Based on the following example, you tell me if we are or are not.

The United States Forest Service, the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management are three separate government agencies charged with the management and regulatory authority over three distinct categories of public lands. Within that authority each agency decides appropriate recreational activities and the specific management of those activities on the lands under their jurisdiction.

As a former whitewater enthusiast, I can tell you that that particular recreational activity is not only managed inequitably between agencies, but within a single agency as well. The river access plan for the Colorado River within Grand Canyon National Park has been particularly controversial among private river users vs. commercial river running companies. The cost impact to private users is substantial. A properly equipped private party can run the river for less than $600 or $700 for out of pocket expenses. Commercial concessionaires charge at least $2,000 for the same trip. Permits are limited to prevent over crowding on the river and designated camp sites. For those who care, this is a really big fucking deal.

Of course, 99.99% of America doesn't care, which would also probably include 100% of Congress who wouldn't know which end of a canoe to point downstream.

Is this really the kind of hair splitting you want Congress to adjudicate via legislation for every single regulatory decision by every single agency of the federal government?

I do not. I would much rather they devote more attention to the details of the obviously bigger fish they have to fry. If they don't have the time to read the new healthcare law before final passage, I don't see any gain in having them pretend to have examined the "burning issue" of river access in the Grand Canyon for no other purpose than to present the illusion of accountability.

I hope you agree. Otherwise, you are suggesting a plan that is as unreasonable and impractical as requiring the United States Supreme court to give a full appellate review of every single criminal and civil verdict handed down by every District Court in the nation.

Sure, you can get nine justices or a few hundred legislators to vote on any issue. But if you expect a substantive review of the issues as the rational basis for a vote (and what would be the point otherwise?), you are advocating a process that simply cannot be accomplished. It's patently ridiculous to believe differently.

Which part of "Phase Out" is confusing you? The idea is to end the programs and replace them with nothing, but to KEEP them running for 25 years with decreasing benefits to allow those who are basically fully vested - to receive benefits and for those who are not yet 40 - to have time to invest for their own retirement and medical plan.

I can see the logic in phasing out Social Security and making individuals ultimately responsible for their own retirement. Healthcare is a whole different animal. The de facto healthcare services distribution vehicle within the United States is invariably linked to one's employment. Given enough younger, healthier employees compared to older, less healthy workers, a company health plan has sufficient actuarial diversity to make that plan profitable to the provider and marginally affordable to all company workers.

Not so once those workers retire. Most people over aged 65 can be divided up between the sick, sicker and sickest. The age range and the range between those of good health and poor health is narrowed considerably. The risk pool has suddenly become shark infested and one which insurance carriers are loathe to wade into. And even if they did, any such seniors' only plan would be prohibitively expensive.

Shutdown Medicare, and grandma won't have to worry about government "death panels." She's condemned already.

Why suspicious? I've posted what I'd like to do with the military in several threads and my best guess is that costs could drop 50-70%. But for the basics:

A. Withdraw from NATO. Thank you mission accomplished

Without arguing the specifics of NATO, do you recognize the legitimacy of going to the defense of an ally and fighting alongside them even though our country has not been attacked? Is that a reasonable foreign policy commitment to make in advance of any hostilities? Is it a legitimate proactive investment in our own national security? Ever?

B. Repatriate all foreign based troops.

Who did you have in mind? Prisoners in GITMO?

Repatriation of POWs typically occurs when a war has concluded and there is no longer any "motherland" for whom the prisoner can return to fight for or be supplied by.

The "war on terror," or more precisely the "war on multi-national Islamic Jihad" presents unique challenges in terms of when the war will be concluded or which nation might next harbor and support enemy combatants.

Until those challenges are adequately resolved in favor of the United States' long term security, repatriation of enemy combatants looms as being dangerously premature -- as has already been demonstrated by various repatriated Jihadists returning to combat against us.

C. Combine Marine Corps with the Army into "Ground Command"
D. Combine all Aviation into Air Force (army, marine, naval and current air force)
E. Combine all Naval forces into Sea Force
F. Create, "Space Command" for missiles, drones, satellite, etc.
G. Redefine missions: Protect United States and Territories. Punish any who would attack United States or Territories.

Essentially, this has already been done, but the "consolidation" took place on a geographical basis rather than an individual "force" basis. In fact, we once had a Space Command which was a "unified combatant command" which is defined as "composed of forces from at least two Military Departments and has a broad and continuing mission."

Currently, we have six multi-force unified combatant commands based on geographic theaters they are tasked to opperate within along with three "functional" unified combatant commands that can be directly attached to or deployed in support of the geographic commands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Combatant_Command

You advocate the consolidation of military commands based on the environment they operate in (air, land and water). The Pentagon simply goes one step further and acknowledges the existence of all three environments in the larger geographic areas under the specific unified combatant command authority.

Under your plan, helicopters supporting ground troops in a specific action would require the coordination of two separate service branches. What if they don't agree on the best course of action or coordination? The current command structure ensures resolution of that stalemate through a single chain of command.

I have no way of knowing which organizational plan would be cheaper or if the cost could even be proven, but since national security is what I'm buying, I think I'll go with the generals.

And finally - no more 'nation building'. If you attack the United States - doctrine will be to smash your country - it's roads, bridges, infrastructure, military and then to come home and train for the next time. Hardship for the enemy? Yes, too bad.

FWIW (and I suspect you will find it worth very little), however poorly we have attempted 'nation building' in the past, it was usually attempted out of a motivation NOT to have to go in and destroy a nation later. That is why we are fighting the Taliban now, and attempting to build the capability of Afghani forces to maintain their own defense eventually.

It is an attempt to save lives and property in the long term. Condemn or support each effort on its merits, but at least give our military under the command of the last two Presidents that benevolent presumption.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

What evidence do you have that it's being taught in schools? Oh yeah, you haven't.

And it all seems pretty reasonable to me.

Nor will he offer any evidence.

 

[Phelia]

I am not going to read or respond intelligently to any of this, but I wanted to mention that I think the thread title would make and awesome NBC primetime sitcom. I'd watch the shit out of that.