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.

inquisitor_bob wrote:

SonsOfLoki wrote:not much seeing as GW is based in the uk

Really?

The US restricts plenty of foreign goods such as beef when UK had Mad Cow Disease, chicken when the Avian Flu was rampant, and various other items.

You do realize that Congress can pass any legislations they want? You should look to Immigration law to see the drastic results of some of Congress' legislation. Even Habeas Corpus rights have been removed for immigrants if they commit a crime in the US. Under these new legislations the Dept of Homeland Security can hold an immigrant who was convicted of a crime in prison forever. It's worse than going to an actual jail. At least in a regular jail you know how long your sentence is and when you can get out.

So, what you’re saying is that access to toy soldiers will be restricted because the new government will want to control your thoughts. The evidence given for this are the breaches of civil rights of the previous administration. Is that it?

Because I’ll tell you right now, if they wanted to it would be easily within the powers of congress to restrict the import of toy soldiers, if that’s what they wanted to do. And there would be no meaningful political backlash, because we gamers are quite irrelevant.

But this has not happened, and will not happen, because there is no political will to restrict access to toy soldiers. There is no record of anyone attempting to restrict access to sci-fi and fantasy models. There is no debate proposing anything of the sort.

Luckily GW has the foundry in the US so the typical democrat 'the economy has gone lame' increase in import tarrifs means that GW can't use that as an excuse for prices going up.

gorgon wrote:

inquisitor_bob wrote:Under this administration the government will tell you what you can do and how you should think.

Because the current adminstration has been such a champion of privacy, free thinking and basic rights? The Rove-led propaganda that you're either for the Iraq war in every way and exactly as it's been conducted, or you're a terrorist-loving, U.S.-hating traitor got just a teeeeensy bit annoying.

I don't like being told how I should think either. But Bush and his people did plenty of that. It was hardly proper conservatism, if you ask me.

It's better to be inundated with propaganda than be legislated. You have a choice under the first scenario and no choice at all under the second.

Aka its better to have someone attempt to convince you its right, then have someone put a gun to your head and tell you its right, or else? I'd take that as a rule.

You'll have to give 40% of your army away to someone who can't afford it and/or has the ability to paint it!

And how exactly is the new adminstration going to legislate your thinking?

Look, there are some valid questions out there about Obama. I have mine too. But to hear some of the rhetoric coming from the right wing...well, maybe you'd feel better going off and building your arks.

The last eight years have been filled with all kinds of crazy $hit from an incompetent adminstration. Hell, no administration in our history has done more to roll back personal freedoms and expand the powers of the presidency. (Again, real conservatives should be ashamed of this.)

And guess what? We're still here, and with some work we'll get back on the right track.

Although I do feel awful for those people whose tax rate will go from 36% back to the old 39%. That's crazy stuff even from a Marxist!

Oy.

A tax of 39% on incomes over $250,000 will only affect about two or three percent of the population.

If its only to those over $250,000 of course...

dietrich wrote:You'll have to give 40% of your army away to someone who can't afford it and/or has the ability to paint it!

You know, if people needed toy soldiers to get by and my yearly purchases of toy soldiers
was the equivalent 250k+ USD, then sure. That guy without an army and without the means
to provide for troops for his young children is welcome to it.

Frazzled wrote:If its only to those over $250,000 of course...

Assuming the income distribution of the USA to be similar to the UK's (which it may not be, but it probably isn't wildly different) lowering the tax threshold to $125,000 would include only about 5% of the population.

Bush managed to double the US National Debt in 8 years. That is not sustainable particularly with the economy on its uppers. Either government spending must be reduced or taxes must be increased to help put this right.

The car companies are already lining up for some handouts. The banking crisis isn't resolved, and the airlines are going to be in trouble again soon. It's difficult to reduce military spending with two wars going on. Cutting Medicare for the elderly is an electoral deathtrap given the strength of the grey vote. Pork barrel reductions are always difficult. That leaves social programmes such as unemployment benefit, which as I understand it are already less than generous and are going to get called on more as the recession bites.

Spending cuts are not going to be easy, so increasing taxation looks like the way to go. It's realistic to increase taxes on the richest people, because they have got the money.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If its only to those over $250,000 of course...

Assuming the income distribution of the USA to be similar to the UK's (which it may not be, but it probably isn't wildly different) lowering the tax threshold to $125,000 would include only about 5% of the population.

Respectfully, thats not accurate for the US. Thats definitely middle class range for two income families.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If its only to those over $250,000 of course...

Assuming the income distribution of the USA to be similar to the UK's (which it may not be, but it probably isn't wildly different) lowering the tax threshold to $125,000 would include only about 5% of the population.

Respectfully, thats not accurate for the US. Thats definitely middle class range for two income families.

If both partners were earning $70K each the combined income would be in the $125K bracket but individually they would both fall in the lower tax bracket and not pay any more tax.

At least that's how it would work in the UK. Is income taxation done at the family level in the USA?

In the US of A, you can file Single But Married for both or jointly/Married. If you file as a couple, you get hit with the marriage penalty which GWB once talked about. A couple making $125,000 per year combined pays more in tax than if one makes $125,000 and files Single But Married and the other makes zero and doesn't file. In general, you're better off filing separate Single tax returns, but if they're a big difference in income and/or depending on the State income tax laws, you may be ahead to file Married. For 5 years, my wife and I filed separate Single returns, last year, we got a better deal filing as Married.

Regardless of election results, the Tau will still be very, very silly.

Now that a non tau has become leader of the empire, the tau now believe that affirmative action to allow the other races within the empire to have quarantined university places should be dumped because it proves that anyone, anywhere (with a bucket load of money and the media on your side) can even become president of the Tau....

Tau. Snigger.

Might makes right. Military budget cuts only serve to make the greater good slightly less good, right? So, it's logically evil to have a smaller military... I think I understand this Texas logic now. That's why the US backs Israel instead of... anyone else. That's why people get upset over military spending cuts. It makes you less GOOD to have less people with guns. Because you're only good if you're right.

I completely understand now, thank you.

inquisitor_bob wrote:It's better to be inundated with propaganda than be legislated. You have a choice under the first scenario and no choice at all under the second.

What legislation are you talking about? Why are you inventing things to be worried about?

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Tau. Snigger.

Might makes right. Military budget cuts only serve to make the greater good slightly less good, right? So, it's logically evil to have a smaller military... I think I understand this Texas logic now. That's why the US backs Israel instead of... anyone else. That's why people get upset over military spending cuts. It makes you less GOOD to have less people with guns. Because you're only good if you're right.

I completely understand now, thank you.

I'll put it into historical context for you...Clinton wanted a smaller military so we ended up with cuts in the mil bidget. He then turned around and started the "do-more-with- less" mantra. We ended up not fighting wars but participating in "police actions" or UN directed peace keeping.

Somalia, Former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Haiti, Africa and dozens of smaller contingencies. Not to mention Operations SOUTHERN and NORTHERN WATCH. We also ended up with DESERT THUNDER and DESERT FOX campaigns against Saddam during his time.

All done with a smaller military and smaller budget. We were stretched thin then and now we have two wars and numerous side contigencies to support and are stretched thin doing it. A cut in the mil budget at this time will seriously hamper our ability to capitalize on gains and make it harder to reach strategic goals. Then we still have the UN using us as their 911 heavy lifting boys.

It's got nothing to do with a Texas/Texan mindset. I remember serving during that time and it sucked. People...good people got forced out of the military in order to ensure what money was available could be used to maintain equipment and programs. That's what will happen again in order to maintain enough money to fund the new weapons systems aquisitions.

It's got nothng to with might makes right. I do believe that a strong Democarcy is built on the foundations of a strong Military. The US is at war right now and cutting our money in order to somehow punish the military for doing what it's trained to do is ridiculous.

The last people who want to fight are the military. We are the last tool of diplomacy, period. You don't join the military and not know what will be expected of you. Your job is to break things and kill people. We go where we are told and follow orders because we gave a solemn oath to "support and defend" and to "follow the orders of those appointed over us".

Look man I've been on three deployments so far and looking at my fourth in the next few months. It's what I and my brothers/sisters in arms do and are trained to do. All we ask is that our government gives us the support we need to carry out the mission(s) given to us by that very same government.

I have been lucky enough to serve in a few UN/multi-national deployments and have always been impressed with the Brits/Aussies/Kiwis/Canucks/Germans/Danes/Estonians/Spaniards/Italians/French/Japanese/Moldovans/Iraqis and Afghans...well you get the picture. It isn't just a Texas thing about might makes right or good in this Texan's opinion. It's got everything to do with ordering the military to perform a specific task and then tying their hands behind their backs and saying "go finish what was started."

The historical perspective of the 90s was that having won the Cold War, the big traditional type of forces like armoured divisions would not be needed so much as before.

The UK's forces are suffering from underfunding because our government insists on spending billions on super-high-tech fighters and the like while neglecting relatively cheap, basic equipment and forces like infantry, light armoured vehicles and helicopters which are what we really need to fight the kind of wars we find ourselves in.

Military budget cuts are not a problem if they are done correctly. The problem is, as Ace mentioned, that most of the time they aren't. Certain things, like heavy armor, are becoming more and more obsolete as the weapons which can defeat their protection are becoming more ubiquitous. Others, like nuclear attacks subs, have been fairly redundant for some time. Yet in almost all cases projects are approved to modernize these out-dated segments of the military without regard to strategic reality.

The mindset here is that, so long as we have the weapons, we can find the people. This wouldn't necessarily be an issue were it not for the fact that, as weapon systems grow more complex, the training necessary to effectively use them grows more rigorous. The all volunteer army is a long forgotten thing of the past. We live in the era of a professional military, and sweeping budget cuts are not the way to promote that. Unfortunately, there are really only two groups in the American electorate. Those who want military budget cuts, and those who don't. There is no nuance to the issue because most people are deeply ignorant in the ways of modern warfare.

That said, if people want the military budget to remain untouched, then they will have to submit to higher taxes. Reagan made this idea anathema to the public by continuing to pump money into the armed services despite his tax cuts. The prosperity that resulted has created a popular illusion that the defense budget is necessary to the well-being of the economy, while social programs are not. This could not be further from the truth. Certainly a strong military makes for favorable trade agreements, but the temporal age of Cold War Imperialism is long gone. Economics now supersede force as the primary determiner of leverage; a world of free flowing capital is one in which state 'ownership' is increasingly irrelevant.

If the military budget is too big they just need to shut down the star gate for a few years.

Sure it bought us iphones, the hadron collider and dancing robots but the military need weapons, not dancing robots....

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:If the military budget is too big they just need to shut down the star gate for a few years.

Sure it bought us iphones, the hadron collider and dancing robots but the military need weapons, not dancing robots....

Not until I get my very own life sized Daishi Battle Mech (with parts and appropriate support.) Then I will be more than happy to let them cut the budget. I would even settle for my very own Stormblade tank and 10 years worth of parts and ammunition. Or if I had too I would love an assignment to Canberra as an mil attache.

This gets into a whole host of military-industrial complex-type issues. Honestly, I don't trust anyone on either side at any level when it comes to military spending. Add funding and it'll be spent the wrong way. Cut funding and the wrong things will get cut. Just seems certain people always benefit while the taxpayers and servicemen lose out.

Everyone's probably familiar with the history behind the Bradley, but have you heard of the Sergeant York? Read down a bit and it gets pretty good. I remember reading about this system back in the '80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York