Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Change I can believe in: Evidently they have decided one term is all they feel like having.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/2-Obama-officials-No-apf-2491158742.html?x=0&.v=7

2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up
2 Obama administration officials can't guarantee middle-class Americans won't see tax hike
By Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer
On Sunday August 2, 2009, 9:24 pm EDT
Buzz up! 782 Print
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.

As the White House sought to balance campaign rhetoric with governing, officials appeared willing to extend unemployment benefits. With former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan saying he is "pretty sure we've already seen the bottom" of the recession, Obama aides sought to defend the economic stimulus and calm a jittery public.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.

"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."

During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care -- promised without increasing the federal deficit -- must be paid for.

"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."

Selling that proposal, however, has proved tricky.

On Friday, the government released a report that suggested the worst recession in the United States since World War II appears on the verge of ending. The economy dipped only slightly in the second quarter of this year -- falling at a 1 percent annual pace, better than expected.

The president cautioned against instant turnaround, though.

"Well, as I've said, I think we maybe are beginning to see the end of the recession, but it's still going to be some time before we are seeing companies hiring again. That's usually the last thing that happens," Obama said in an interview with Univision that aired on Sunday.

"So I think we are still going to have a tough remainder of the year -- probably until next year -- but, you know, at least what we are seeing -- we've pulled back from the possibility of a depression. That's not the danger."

Many analysts think the economy is starting to grow again in the current quarter, setting up a long-awaited recovery.

"Most private forecasters -- and let's use their judgment -- suggest you're going to see unemployment start to come down maybe beginning in the second half of next year," Geithner said, adding those same economists predict positive growth during the second half of this year.

At the same time, Geithner and other administration officials are contemplating how to ask Congress to extend -- again -- unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in recent months. The proposal drew measured support from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., as long as the benefits are drawn from the already approved economic stimulus package.

"We need to take care of those who are unemployed, but we also need to make sure they get jobs," he said.

Those jobs, though, are still elusive. Greenspan said the economy is slowly coming back.

"Collapse, I think, is now off the table. We were teetering for a while," he said.

Greenspan said he doesn't think the Federal Reserve should be considering raising interest rates to ward off inflation, although he added that the Fed will have to rein in credit and raise rates at some point.

Obama's opponent for the presidency, Sen. John McCain, questioned whether the administration's actions will prove beneficial for the country.

"I think it's pretty clear, if you pump trillions of dollars into the economy, you will see some recovery," the Arizona Republican said while giving Obama credit for the improvement. "But the long-term consequences, I think, are going to be, unfortunately, devastating unless we do something about it."

Geithner and Greenspan appeared on ABC's "This Week." Summers appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBS's "Face the Nation." DeMint was interviewed on "Fox News Sunday." McCain spoke with CNN's "State of the Union."

So Frazz, given the mess that the US treasury is in what do you prescribe?

Revenue generation is the only way to get out of debt. Middle class will have to pay the piper on this one. It's what happens when you have expensive military. THe longer it stays in the field the more you need it paid for.

It's what we did in Canada to get our deficit down and decrease our debt. Worked fine till we got another Tory government. But it's a truth up here Tory Times are Tough Times.

For Obama and team the time to strike is now. Less then a year into the term. Get the pain out of the way. Outrage only lasts so long, in particular if results can be seen. Right now though following the end of the Bush administration it's going to take time to repair the damage to your economy. Reality is you can't pay for your government. You can't even pay for your military.

A costly and ongoing foreign war/occupation will drain the reserves of any nation. There is a need to finance it. If you don't well, your country breaks down. Expect moves by the Chinese in the next year which will cause economic devastation.
Here's the first:
http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/sdrs-a-new-world-reserve-currency-43011.aspx

Legalize marijuana and then pass the fat tax on unhealthy foods. Hell, tax people for being unhealthy/fat in general especially if healthcare comes.

Bush's taxcuts on the incredibly wealthy seems really stupid and conniving in hindsight; fix that as well.

Everyone would be too stoned to care about the other taxes and would give in to the unhealthy munchies and they themselves could eventually get far and give more money to the gov't!

efarrer wrote:So Frazz, given the mess that the US treasury is in what do you prescribe?

to quote Gremlins II:
"Yes, for all our clients we are recommending canned goods and shotguns."

Oh you mean for the economy?

* Everyone employed pays a 15% tax rate. No deductions.
* Personal corporations are dissolved.
* Corporations pay 1-5% income tax based on revenue. The only deductions are R&D/and capital investment expenditures made in the USA, which gets a double declining depreciation as incentive.
* Government expenditures (fed and state) are made only to US companies.
* Zero based government budget. Federal government only has authority to make expenditures on programs not related to the states in accordance with the 10th Amendment. Failure to have a balanced budget out side of war means the previous year's budget is used less 5% anually until back in budget.
* Fix the joke that is the legal system-loser pays but a lot of other things.
* Careful regulation of markets, but won't get into here due to busienss reasons.

Longer term
* Fix the education system. Everyone should have the same opportunity for a good education through undergraduate based on merit: not money, or ethnicity, or class. take the best options and ideas from all partioes and include competition but uniform funding. At the same time if you are not going to take advantage of that, then thats it for you -no other governemnt assistance ever-we'll decide if you should be able to breed in another discussion.
* Long term look at health care. Lets look at all the options out there. I don't want to be like the UK, but our system itself has problems. Lets take the time and use the good suggestions from all sides to build a better system than anyone else. We did it in the 1800s with public education. We can do it again for healthcare and education.
* Withdraw US forces from all locations except for a handful of force projector locations. Change our stance to officially neutral to all disputes except the war on terrorism.
* Legalize certain drugs or finish the war on drugs once and for all. Anyone remotely involved gets capped on public TV (prefer former to latter).
* Both countries vote on whether to annex Mexico.

Because of these ideas I should be rewarded with the island of Tahiti, and pronto!

efarrer wrote:Revenue generation is the only way to get out of debt. Middle class will have to pay the piper on this one. It's what happens when you have expensive military. THe longer it stays in the field the more you need it paid for.

A costly and ongoing foreign war/occupation will drain the reserves of any nation. There is a need to finance it. If you don't well, your country breaks down. Expect moves by the Chinese in the next year which will cause economic devastation.

America's finance woes have very little to do with the military. It's true that the money could have been better spent, but the current economic crisis didn't happen because America went to war with Iraq.

whitedragon wrote:

efarrer wrote:Revenue generation is the only way to get out of debt. Middle class will have to pay the piper on this one. It's what happens when you have expensive military. THe longer it stays in the field the more you need it paid for.

A costly and ongoing foreign war/occupation will drain the reserves of any nation. There is a need to finance it. If you don't well, your country breaks down. Expect moves by the Chinese in the next year which will cause economic devastation.

America's finance woes have very little to do with the military. It's true that the money could have been better spent, but the current economic crisis didn't happen because America went to war with Iraq.

The military spending makes up 20%of the fricking budget. The only current enemy spends less the 1/1000 of a percentage per soldier of what the US spends. The US navy is bigger then the next 13 navies combined and 11 of them are stable long term allies. Give me a break the military spending isn't a part of the problem.

The economic crisis isn't even what I was talking about. The crisis is just highlighting the problems that should have been evident to everyone a long time ago. If you borrow for a long time you will end up dead broke when you need it.

Cane wrote:Legalize marijuana and then pass the fat tax on unhealthy foods. Hell, tax people for being unhealthy/fat in general especially if healthcare comes.

Bush's taxcuts on the incredibly wealthy seems really stupid and conniving in hindsight; fix that as well.

Everyone would be too stoned to care about the other taxes and would give in to the unhealthy munchies and they themselves could eventually get far and give more money to the gov't!

Why should someone be taxed more for their body size? How about rather tax those that actually USE the healthcare system instead.
Just because someone is overweight, does not neccesarily mean they have health problems.
I have no problems with a price hike on unhealthy foods though, that would be fantastic. Make it cheaper to eat healthy and watch the waistlines of america shrink.

your not making it cheaper. You're making everything else more expensive.

You're going to tax people who use the healthcare system? You do know that eventually you will get sick and die right?

Something is terribly wrong with our country when a weapons system can cling to life even though the President, the (Republican) SecDef and the former Republican presidential candidate say we don't need it. They got it right by (finally) killing the F-22, but that decision would have been a no-brainer and a slam dunk if it wasn't for "jobs at stake"...and Senators in selected districts seeking re-election.

The V-22 Osprey is another joke. It was in development for what, 20 years? Wiki says the program cost $27 billion as of 2008, and will probably cost another $27 bil before the program ends. The best nugget in there? Dick Cheney tried to eliminate the thing 20 years ago when he was SecDef but got overruled by Congress. Yeah, Dick Cheney, that bleeding heart and enemy of the military.

This stuff happens time and time again, and for whatever reason, the average American just shrugs and doesn't care as billions go down the drain. You know who first warned about the "military-industrial complex"? That commie fairy Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Thats nothing. IIRC, we still have the WWI, yes World War One honey subsidy.

Doesn't Health and Human Services represent an even larger slice of the budget than the Department of Defense, however?

If we're going to start arguing for slashes in budget lines due to amount of expenditures we're making a slippery slope for ourselves...and do any of us really want to try and argue what the DOD budget should be versus what it is?

Honestly, I should just stop voting. America's problems are systemic. They have nothing to do with political parties, they have to do with our system of laws. The foundation of the Republic is based upon principles which were fine for the late 18th century but don't seem to be working in the 21st. Hell, even when the Republic was founded half the founders couldn't agree with the other half as to precisely how much power the federal government should have...if they couldn't figure it out decisively back then when they laid out the framework, how are we ever going to figure it out now that we're hamstrung by that same framework?


My wife is an anarchist. She doesn't believe in authority at all. I took some time to actually listen to her one day rather than ridicule her ideas. I can only speak to how she describes it, and I cannot tell you which theorists she read or which books she learned from, and she is admittedly a massive idealist in my eyes; but she basically describes anarchy as taking personal responsibility for your communities rather than relying on someone else to keep the peace. It's inclusion, it's local government, it's true "power to the people."

When I was in my early 20's I used to believe in having a weak Federal government, just to keep them out of our business.

When I was in my early 30's I used to believe in having a strong Federal government, having lost faith in State governments and the plethora of different laws and statutes and primary and secondary school curricula they had. I thought that all law ought to be Federal so that what was legal in Mass. was legal in Oregon and what was illegal in one state wasn't legal anywhere else and vice versa.

Now, as I head into my late 30's I am beginning to believe that I want as little government as I can get, period. I don't trust the people who seek political office. I believe that anyone intelligent enough to have the mental capacity to get the job done right AND someone moral and ethical enough to be able to govern in the best interests of the people would never, ever seek the job out because they're smart enough to realize what a massive cock-up government is and how impossible it is to govern morally and wisely when you have so many dullards you have to work through in order to get anything done.

Everywhere I look in government I see corruption, waste, and nepotism. I see the governors segregated from the governed. I see regional interests vying for national powers. It's all just inefficient and stupid, and in the end it just comes down to what it always comes down to in human society - the people in charge are there because they want to be in charge, and shame on us for ever believing otherwise.

Every once in a while you might get an idealist into office through happenstance or luck who might work their way up to the highest heights...but in the end they will always be dragged down to earth by the sheer bulk of power-hungry egomaniacs who comprise the vast bulk of any government.


Something else my wife said to me once...nations don't spontaneously come out of the ground. A bunch of people take control, say that "This area within these borders" belongs to them, they raise an army to defend it, and that's how we get nations.

Imagine if you removed Federal governments across the globe...what would happen? Would we start breaking down into little regional governments at first, and then start getting smaller and smaller in our political alliances?

Would that necessarily be such a bad thing, to have power decentralized, held in small groups directly by those affected, and to have the direct and immediate ability to oust a government the second it massively screwed up? Accountability, in other words?

One can argue that the more technological and complex our world society becomes the more Federal systems of government are required for it to operate at all...but then doesn't that potentially raise the question of when we can become too technological and complicated for our own good?


In the end, I always wind up breaking political discussions down like this into pure theory and perhaps solipsism because I believe the following statements are true:

1) Power is never ceded. It is taken.

2) To exercise power, you have to either become a member of the power-wielding class or provide something the power-wielding class wants.

So - everyone here can make their suggestions as to how to fix this or that, but in the end it's all solipsism. "Raising the level of discourse" does nothing - exercising political power makes changes.

You have a choice: either run for political office, or come up with the financial means to own a politician to get your issue on the agenda, and then hope that you can buy enough other politicians to get what you want done.

Running for office sounds easier...but then you have to play by the rules of the game or else get isolated and become ineffectual...in essence, you have to give up most of what you wanted to do when you ran for office in the first place in order to get SOME of what you wanted done, done...but if we're reached a point in our nation's development where the system itself is corrupt and rotten and we need something else then we return to the first proposition...and America is nowhere near that state of affairs which is required to convince enough people of the need to start over again to get them working together towards those ends with all the hardships and sacrifice that entails.

Things just aren't that bad yet.


In the end we still have it pretty damned good here in America considering that we're a completely disorganized muck of various cultural and racial and political identities who rarely have anything in common with each other en masse...we're never going to be a homogeneous population like you see in Scandinavia where the government takes care of its people because there is no "othering" and the government IS of the people.

We're never going to be a nation that really takes true social responsibility to educate our children and provide health care to all because the legacy of Ralph Waldo Emerson looms large and the myth of meritocracy is too powerful in too many circles...and we will never agree on what all those children should be taught and what level of health care everyone needs, and how much they should pay for it.

Conversations like these can be fun, but count your blessings ladies and gents that you have access to the internet and the free time to espouse your beliefs on it. In doing so you are marking yourselves as members of a very small fraction of the human population of the planet Earth who have the privilege to do so, and a lucky fraction at that.

/pontification off

P.S. I will count my blessings now for having a job where I can feth off and compose posts like this and get paid outrageous sums of money for it.

Frazzled wrote:
* Everyone employed pays a 15% tax rate. No deductions.

Flat tax? Really?

Frazzled wrote:
* Government expenditures (fed and state) are made only to US companies.

How do you define a US corporation in the information age? Are they simply based in the US, or is the majority of their manufacturing in the US?

Frazzled wrote:
* Zero based government budget. Federal government only has authority to make expenditures on programs not related to the states in accordance with the 10th Amendment. Failure to have a balanced budget out side of war means the previous year's budget is used less 5% anually until back in budget.

The 10th Amendment is a joke, and you know it. The enumerated powers allow Congress to do pretty much whatever they want. Except maintain the Air Force, because it isn't specifically mentioned.

Frazzled wrote:
* Withdraw US forces from all locations except for a handful of force projector locations. Change our stance to officially neutral to all disputes except the war on terrorism.

So, change nothing, cool.

Military spending on weapons systems is political or personal, and just a touch professional. The amount of money generated for individual states by the creation of these things is immense and congressman fight hard for them. That isn't necessarily wrong as they are looking out for their state (which is their job) but it certainly can lead to myopic vision at times. Sometimes it is also just as simple as not liking something, like Cheney. He could say it is the cost but there were/are other things that cost the same or more. Maybe he thought Haliburtun should have been involved or liked another bid that didn't win and so wanted to see it go. Point being that it isn't as simple as warloving people versus hippies, there are a myriad of factors at play. There is money, jobs, and reelection to consider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cairnius wrote:So - everyone here can make their suggestions as to how to fix this or that, but in the end it's all solipsism.

Could you please explain this a little more as I'm not sure how solipsism is fitting into your argument.

Cairnius wrote:
Now, as I head into my late 30's I am beginning to believe that I want as little government as I can get, period. I don't trust the people who seek political office. I believe that anyone intelligent enough to have the mental capacity to get the job done right AND someone moral and ethical enough to be able to govern in the best interests of the people would never, ever seek the job out because they're smart enough to realize what a massive cock-up government is and how impossible it is to govern morally and wisely when you have so many dullards you have to work through in order to get anything done.

Thank you, Ozymandias.

Cairnius wrote:
Everywhere I look in government I see corruption, waste, and nepotism. I see the governors segregated from the governed. I see regional interests vying for national powers. It's all just inefficient and stupid, and in the end it just comes down to what it always comes down to in human society - the people in charge are there because they want to be in charge, and shame on us for ever believing otherwise.

Why would someone who didn't desire authority ever possess authority?

Cairnius wrote:
Every once in a while you might get an idealist into office through happenstance or luck who might work their way up to the highest heights...but in the end they will always be dragged down to earth by the sheer bulk of power-hungry egomaniacs who comprise the vast bulk of any government.

What happens when the idealist doesn't share your ideals? Is he then a power-hungry egomaniac?

Cairnius wrote:
Something else my wife said to me once...nations don't spontaneously come out of the ground. A bunch of people take control, say that "This area within these borders" belongs to them, they raise an army to defend it, and that's how we get nations.

No, that's wrong. The concept of a nation has nothing to do with control, only cultural commonality.

Cairnius wrote:
Imagine if you removed Federal governments across the globe...what would happen? Would we start breaking down into little regional governments at first, and then start getting smaller and smaller in our political alliances?

Why would that happen? Why wouldn't humanity simply repeat the process of generating progressively larger identity constructs?

Cairnius wrote:
One can argue that the more technological and complex our world society becomes the more Federal systems of government are required for it to operate at all...but then doesn't that potentially raise the question of when we can become too technological and complicated for our own good?

Perhaps you'd like a New Science?

How to fix the economy without screwing the middle class...

Death Taxes on the ultra-wealthy. Set a high cap (say, 5 million per decendent) that is tax free. Anything over that when you die goes back to the government at a high rate, say, 75%.

After all, it is society that has enabled someone to accumulate that much personal wealth. Once you are dead, you don't need it anymore. Society benefits when it rewards those who come up with exceptional ideas. Society benefits very little from the spoiled decendents of those people. I'm willing to support the lifestyle of someone like Bill Gates, because he actually did something that has added value to society. I see no reason why society should support the likes of Paris Hilton.

Furthermore, close up all the loopholes that allow the ultra-wealthy to get away with paying less taxes than anyone else. This, of course, applies to the above as well.

My wife is an anarchist. She doesn't believe in authority at all.

YOu have multiple points of interest to discuss but this came at me. This is not meant as an insult AT ALL, but i've found people who believe that have never been in a chaotic situation.

Local government is great. Thats not anarchy. Thats libertarianism in the time of limited government.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
* Everyone employed pays a 15% tax rate. No deductions.

Flat tax? Really?
-Yep. Everyone has to share a little of the pain. Now this could be graduated slightly, but the key factors are: 1) Everyone pays something; 2) No deductions.

Frazzled wrote:
* Government expenditures (fed and state) are made only to US companies.

How do you define a US corporation in the information age? Are they simply based in the US, or is the majority of their manufacturing in the US?
-Good point. US domicile and head quarters or 75% of work done here.

Frazzled wrote:
* Zero based government budget. Federal government only has authority to make expenditures on programs not related to the states in accordance with the 10th Amendment. Failure to have a balanced budget out side of war means the previous year's budget is used less 5% anually until back in budget.

The 10th Amendment is a joke, and you know it. The enumerated powers allow Congress to do pretty much whatever they want. Except maintain the Air Force, because it isn't specifically mentioned.
-Actually it doesn’t. It was only a joke after union armies marched south. The Federal government has no place in, well most of the things it does at this point. Unless the federal system is put back in place there will never be a balanced budget again as Congress will never give up its power.

Frazzled wrote:
* Withdraw US forces from all locations except for a handful of force projector locations. Change our stance to officially neutral to all disputes except the war on terrorism.

So, change nothing, cool.
-Incorrect. One base in Europe. One base in Asia. One base in the Middle East. No NATO, SEATO, SK troops, promise to defend Japan, Eastern Europe, Israel etc. etc. etc. We are neutral. We can be involved politically, but not with billions of dollars and US lives.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:How to fix the economy without screwing the middle class...

Death Taxes on the ultra-wealthy. Set a high cap (say, 5 million per decendent) that is tax free. Anything over that when you die goes back to the government at a high rate, say, 75%.

After all, it is society that has enabled someone to accumulate that much personal wealth. Once you are dead, you don't need it anymore. Society benefits when it rewards those who come up with exceptional ideas. Society benefits very little from the spoiled decendents of those people. I'm willing to support the lifestyle of someone like Bill Gates, because he actually did something that has added value to society. I see no reason why society should support the likes of Paris Hilton.

Furthermore, close up all the loopholes that allow the ultra-wealthy to get away with paying less taxes than anyone else. This, of course, applies to the above as well.

I'd be extremely ok with that.

efarrer wrote:So Frazz, given the mess that the US treasury is in what do you prescribe?

Closing down all internet forums, chatrooms etc etc. The amount of actual work that's get done instead would fix the global economy in a week.

probably...

reds8n wrote:

efarrer wrote:So Frazz, given the mess that the US treasury is in what do you prescribe?

Closing down all internet forums, chatrooms etc etc. The amount of actual work that's get done instead would fix the global economy in a week.

Inflation is the issue here, printing more money only makes it worse. I think that we should close the mint down for a good week and have everyone across the nation burn the denomination of money they have.

Seeing as though there's a billion or so people in the country there would be at least 1 billion dollars burnt up, making the remaining printed money worth more.

Frazzled wrote:
-Actually it doesn’t. It was only a joke after union armies marched south. The Federal government has no place in, well most of the things it does at this point. Unless the federal system is put back in place there will never be a balanced budget again as Congress will never give up its power.

That's not even remotely true.

Enumerated Powers wrote:
Section 8: The Congress shall have power

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

That covers pretty much everything the Feds have their fingers in.

Frazzled wrote:
-Incorrect. One base in Europe. One base in Asia. One base in the Middle East. No NATO, SEATO, SK troops, promise to defend Japan, Eastern Europe, Israel etc. etc. etc. We are neutral. We can be involved politically, but not with billions of dollars and US lives.

That's not how power projection works, Fraz. That also isn't how neutrality works. Read up on English diplomatic history; especially the period of 'Glorious Isolation'.

That's "splendid" isolation actually. But the point still stands.

justliketosayimentionthateverytimethiscomesupTAKETHATALEVELHISTORYTEACHER !

"Glorious isolation " is your saturday nights.

When America is neutral bad things happen to europe. I think that we should be as interfering as possible in foreign affairs.

I want secret agents to kick ahmenijad in the nards, boycott tea in england, run around naked in Russia, slaughter cows in india, make a roller coaster in north korea that Kim Jong Il cannot ride due to height regulation, and massacre penguins in front of their penguin families. This will protect europe and the world from bad things. Get to it people, chop chop.

Please show me where regulation of firearms is a federal power. How about environmental regulation, social security, OSHA, welfare, FEMA, education, blah blah blah...

Yea it is how force projection works, or most specifically the costs of foreign burdens.

Education is state, gun laws are state, etc, etc.

Thats my point. The federal government actually has very limited powers. But the Supreme Court has expanded those powers. Disagree with the Supreme Court and the 82nd Airborne shows up.

Frazzled wrote:Please show me where regulation of firearms is a federal power.

Here.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Frazzled wrote:
How about environmental regulation, social security, OSHA, welfare, FEMA, education, blah blah blah...

Inter-state commerce.

Frazzled wrote:
Yea it is how force projection works, or most specifically the costs of foreign burdens.

No, it isn't. When you deploy military forces they need a place to stay in theatre. This leads to local bases, which quickly become pre-positioned depots in the event of renewed hostilities. Ranged strike technology has done a lot to compensate for the necessity of foreign deployments, but certainly not enough to to cut back our coverage to one base per continent.

Lets save money and downgrade the military! That will solve ALL out problems!!!

Kevlar is so 90's and spendy, lets switch back to the steel plate that wont stop 7.62x39...

Abrams tanks are also spendy, and why should we use em? Lets kill production of them and use all those fancy Sherman/M60 tanks just sitting around infront of public buildings.... Oh wait...

You know what? Same with The Air Force.... We dont need so stinking VTOL or fancy Next Gen Fighters! Lets keep useing the damn Hueys and switch back to prop fighters, its all about the weapon loadout right!?!?

Speaking of weapons, Ammo is spendy as all hell right now and automatic fire just eats it up. Lets switch back to the 1903 Springfields and be done with it.

Smart Bombs are spendy, so we are switching back to a rear gunner throwing a grenade out the back of the plane ala WW1 Style to save money.

Speaking of Bombs, the ICBM program is really really spendy, So lets not only scrap that project but sell the Nukes to make back some profit. Its not like M.A.D has stopped any wars right????

Our Soldiers are overpaid also. All they do is deploy everywhere in the world and rape and pillage. Less then 25k a year while deployed is waaaaaaaaaaay too much money. Hell if we were not cutting back money a damn robot could do their job. Lets pay them 10k a year and be done with it. Everything is paid for in the military so that should be profit in the pocket .... Hooah!








Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dogma.......

Thats talking about the Militia, not about regulation of non-military Firearms.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Please show me where regulation of firearms is a federal power.

Here.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That doesn't have jack to do with the right to bear arms.

Frazzled wrote:
How about environmental regulation, social security, OSHA, welfare, FEMA, education, blah blah blah...

Inter-state commerce.
-These don't have anything to do with interstate commerce. FEMA is interstate commerce? Social security is interstate commerce? Welfare is interestate commerce? Hogawash
and nonsense.

Frazzled wrote:
Yea it is how force projection works, or most specifically the costs of foreign burdens.

You need bases for force projection for all those nice foreign burdens. I agree Dogma, but you can fix that by eliminating the foreign burdens.
No, it isn't. When you deploy military forces they need a place to stay in theatre. This leads to local bases, which quickly become pre-positioned depots in the event of renewed hostilities. Ranged strike technology has done a lot to compensate for the necessity of foreign deployments, but certainly not enough to to cut back our coverage to one base per continent.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:

Speaking of weapons, Ammo is spendy as all hell right now and automatic fire just eats it up. Lets switch back to the 1903 Springfields and be done with it.

quote]

Wait does this mean there will be a bunch of surplus 1903s laying about again. Happy happy joy joy!

Frazzled wrote:

My wife is an anarchist. She doesn't believe in authority at all.

YOu have multiple points of interest to discuss but this came at me. This is not meant as an insult AT ALL, but i've found people who believe that have never been in a chaotic situation.

Local government is great. Thats not anarchy. Thats libertarianism in the time of limited government.

I'm pretty sure I've responded to her along the same lines...again, I wish I knew what she was reading that "officially" set forth these designations, but according to her "anarchy" as a political theory is decidedly not "chaos," which is what most of us tend to think of it as.

Even libertarianism is still "government," unless I'm mistaken. According to her, anarchy is an utter absence of "government" as we understand it, but this doesn't mean that everything is chaotic as a result. In whatever anarchist theory she's read and which is informing her argument, in the state of anarchy each person is personally responsible for themselves and it's assumed that reasonable people are all going to come together to enforce certain states of affairs within that reason.

For instance, feel free to run around naked as a jaybird while painting yourself pink and screaming at the top of your lungs down the street, as long as you are not ALWAYS in the street screaming as that may get disruptive, and with the foreknowledge that at some point the town may get tired of it and do something about it...but you're given the freedom to make the call yourself as to whether it's worth it or not to take that risk. Depends on how important running around naked while painting yourself pink and screaming is, I suppose.

I believe the idea is that people, as a whole, will always choose to have order over chaos when given a choice - the difference between anarchy and government is that in the former state of affairs it is literally the people themselves who create the order and thus give up none of their self-determination or will in the process, and in the latter state of affairs someone else creates the order FOR you but in the process you give up a portion of your self-determination to get it.

She has zero interest in geekery message forums else I would get her to come present her argument herself...but I think that's the jist of it.

The reason why I identified her as an idealist before proffering her idea is specifically due to her idea that people if given freedom would eventually band together to form order rather than a single ruffian with a bunch of guns doing it for everyone else, and on his or her terms and no one else's.

Local government can be just as corrupt as everything else...but I have to say, I'll take corruption that I can keep an eye on over corruption so far removed from me that I have no idea how it works. In the town where I live, a good 30% of the citizens check the "Other" box on Census forms and write in "Italian-American" in the space there. It's that Italian around there.

The Mafia is just about everywhere. We have plenty of cash-only businesses and restaurants which look like places barely keeping up the pretense of being whatever sort of business or restaurant they are meant to be...it's actually pretty comical. Word has it that they have their hands in just about all the politics that goes on around there.

But - we have zero street crime. None. The police blotters are empty. The crime is organized, and whatever dirty business is ostensibly taking place is kept quiet. They're so entrenched in the area that I don't even think they have to deal drugs to make their money.

So, when I'm out eating in the area, I raise a glass to the Mafia. God bless 'em. They're corrupt, they're dirty, but they keep the crime quiet and thus the property values high, where I live anyway. Local corruption is something I can deal with.

When it's taking place in Washington, to the tune of trillions of dollars? That I am not so comfortable with.