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.

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

Really? Because the 2nd amendment specifically discusses the formation of a militia, with enough ambiguity that any armed citizen could be considered a member of it.

Frazzled wrote:
-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.

FEMA: Disaster relief in the interests of maintaining trade between states.

Social Security: Maintenance of the consumer base so as to to keep people alive and spending. Also promotes retirement, exciting the process of labor circulation.

Welfare: Maintenance of the workforce, which drive interstate commerce.

Frazzled wrote:
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.

What foreign burdens? You keep mentioning these things without describing what they actually are. We don't have formal alliance structures of the sort seen in the old BOP system, so I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

And that is the guise that has been used. Its false a nonsensical. Its like claiming its ok for me to spash your toy soldiers because GW didn't put a rule in saying I couldn't. We'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one.

We have troops and bases everywhere to defend our interests. Pull them out, close them up. Bring the Navy back to defend our coasts, the army back to defned our borders. There's no reason for us to be defending Europe, Asia, countries in the Middle East, etc. etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cairnius check your PM for something from another MOD on a different topic.

Cairnius wrote:

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.

Your wife is soft and weak. Anarcho-primitivsim is the only way to go.

dogma wrote:Really? Because the 2nd amendment specifically discusses the formation of a militia, with enough ambiguity that any armed citizen could be considered a member of it.

To be fair, doesn't it say "A well-regulated militia" or words to that effect? I'm too lazy to look it up myself but I believe it's specific enough so as to discount any rabble of armed citizens being called "a militia."


On this discussion between Frazzled and Dogma in general:

I think it is safe to say that the United States Government has grown way beyond the boundaries that the founders intended it to be within. The specifics may get irrelevant at this point. The founders were never in agreement, again to be fair, as to how much power the Federal government should have in the first place - but I don't believe that any of them would have looked at the current state of affairs and thought "This is how I wanted it to turn out."

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
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.

What foreign burdens? You keep mentioning these things without describing what they actually are. We don't have formal alliance structures of the sort seen in the old BOP system, so I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

Perhaps he means the burdens of economic relationship? I.E. we have to keep our oil interests safe, we have to keep our economic partners safe or prevent wars from breaking out which may threaten our interrelated economic systems...

Personally, I'm more of the isolationist myself. We should have pulled the troops home after World War II and sold the rest of the world the weapons to kill themselves if they wanted while keeping the best stuff for us. That's a half-facetious remark, btw.

The founders were very clear about involvement in foreign wars, and we stomped all over those provisions...and it's gotten us nothing but trouble. Fight if you must, come home when you can. Stomp the Nazis, come back home, if there are Nazis ever again we'll raise an army like we did before. If there's one thing America should never want for it'll be a bunch of its citizens who want to carry big guns and blow stuff up. We're good at that sort of thing...

Quasi isolationist aka a normal country not trying to police the world.

Agree. Its time we pull back and let the world fall apart around us.

That will save some money lol.

jp400 wrote:Agree. Its time we pull back and let the world fall apart around us.

That will save some money lol.

Are you saying that other countries are incapable of living w/o the United States around to keep them afloat? I knew we were good but I didn't know we kept the world alive.

If thats so I want some free freaking chocolate cheesecake or cake from some germanic language speaking country NOW OR THE WORLD GETS IT!!!

Frazzled wrote:
We have troops and bases everywhere to defend our interests. Pull them out, close them up. Bring the Navy back to defend our coasts, the army back to defned our borders. There's no reason for us to be defending Europe, Asia, countries in the Middle East, etc. etc.

We have bases everywhere to defend our interests; most of them don't have significant garrisons. And, while they aren't cheap, they also aren't anywhere near the largest component of the military budget. Their existence is largely driven by the military's tendency towards scenario-based strategic planning.

Cairnius wrote:
To be fair, doesn't it say "A well-regulated militia" or words to that effect? I'm too lazy to look it up myself but I believe it's specific enough so as to discount any rabble of armed citizens being called "a militia."

It depends on what definition of militia you want to use. It could reference anything from a body of men organized for the purpose of war (essentially part-time soldiers) to the whole of the service-eligible population. If you prefer the latter, then it isn't a huge leap to claim that the regulation of firearms is a tacit component of regulating the militia.

Cairnius wrote:
I think it is safe to say that the United States Government has grown way beyond the boundaries that the founders intended it to be within. The specifics may get irrelevant at this point. The founders were never in agreement, again to be fair, as to how much power the Federal government should have in the first place - but I don't believe that any of them would have looked at the current state of affairs and thought "This is how I wanted it to turn out."

That may be, but I'm not one to consider the intent of the founders particularly relevant to modern times.

Cairnius wrote:
The founders were very clear about involvement in foreign wars, and we stomped all over those provisions...and it's gotten us nothing but trouble.

When you define your legitimate area of influence as an entire hemisphere its very difficult to consider any aversion to foreign wars (which is itself a highly ambiguous concept.) as anything beyond a semantic dodge.

Frazzled wrote:Local government is great.

Agreeing with Fraz... it burns! Must stop - ohh Fraz's fiscal policy, that'll solve the problem.

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

Flat tax policies have bankrupted a few South American countries. Problem is that if you set the flat tax rate low enough so that the poor aren’t starving, you can’t raise enough to pay for the most basic level of government (police & the law, roads & utilities, military & emergency services). This is always answered with saving money by cutting government waste, which always ends up meaning ‘do nothing and watch deficit blow out’ or ‘cut essential services like road maintenance’.

Either way, flat taxes aren’t just bad because they’re unfair, they’re bad because they will lead to economic disaster.

* Personal corporations are dissolved.

SO what if a person wants to start their own business, but limit liability so that if the business doesn’t work they won’t lose their home? The answer is that they shouldn’t start a business, shouldn’t employ people?

* 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.

But businesses have wildly varying levels of revenue compared to profit. Many manufacturing and retail business that work on economies of scale make little profit per unit, relying on quantity over quality. Other companies rely on very high value added models, where lower quantities are sold but there is a high mark up on goods.

Right now, two businesses might both gross $10 million. The first might be a supermarket, where making that $10 million gross will produce COGS, rent and wages in the $9 or $9.5 million range. Right now the $500,000 the owner takes home is taxed, which makes sense because that’s what he earns. The second might be an engineering firm, where $10 million gross would only produce $6 million in wages and consultancies. Right now the $4 million the owner takes home is taxed, which makes sense because that’s what he earns.

But under your proposal you ignore the idea that generating a dollar in revenue can take anywhere from 5c to 95c in costs. So despite the fact that the supermarket owner is only taking home $500,000 in profit while the engineering firm owner is taking home $4 million, you tax them each the same.

Ahtman wrote:

jp400 wrote:Agree. Its time we pull back and let the world fall apart around us.

That will save some money lol.

Are you saying that other countries are incapable of living w/o the United States around to keep them afloat?

Yes, Yes I am... Just off the top of my head I can name 4 countries that if we pull out of right now they would self-destruct. On top of that, how many countries wouldnt be what they are today without the US pump priming there pathetic governments coffers.

jp400 wrote:Yes, Yes I am... Just off the top of my head I can name 4 countries that if we pull out of right now they would self-destruct. On top of that, how many countries wouldnt be what they are today without the US pump priming there pathetic governments coffers.

And without the oil and mineral wealth of the rest of the world what would the US be?

Without the markets of other wealthy nations where would the US services sector be?

Shockingly, the world is very inter-dependant. Your jingoism is just going to have to come to terms with that.

jp400 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Are you saying that other countries are incapable of living w/o the United States around to keep them afloat?

Yes, Yes I am... Just off the top of my head I can name 4 countries that if we pull out of right now they would self-destruct. On top of that, how many countries wouldnt be what they are today without the US pump priming there pathetic governments coffers.

I'm disagreeing that the world would fall apart w/o the US, not that some countries couldn't use a helping hand. Of course even with our help some countries have had trouble; it isn't as if our mere presence is a shining beacon of hope and justice wrought o'er the land.

sebster wrote:Shockingly, the world is very inter-dependant. Your jingoism is just going to have to come to terms with that.

No way, are you serious? My god, you should tell someone! I'm kidding of course because there are people who don't know this. A huge part of US Foriegn Affairs is based on wanting to trade and making it safe to do so. We need the trade. We long for it, achingly and with tenderness in our hearts and money in our hands. We want to take foriegn business out for nice dinner, maybe some wine and a movie and try to get to second base.

Also I'm not really sure who you are referring to as jingoistic. I mean I've jingled occasionally, and once or twice jangled, but i don't think I've ever jingo'd.

Ahtman wrote:...it isn't as if our mere presence is a shining beacon of hope and justice wrought o'er the land.

But Johny Win said its so!

Ahtman wrote:Also I'm not really sure who you are referring to as jingoistic. I mean I've jingled occasionally, and once or twice jangled, but i don't think I've ever jingo'd.

Your jingoism is a title of office, like your regency. If you'd been raised properly in a God fearing monarchy you'd know this.

I'll argue my points in person, but its not prudent for me to do so via this forum. I will say my first position in banking involved lots of S corps and other entities. It made me sick, the amount of millionaires who were running their expenses through their businesses, to the extent I was paying-IN TOTAL- more taxes than they and their businesses were. Its a major scam. If you say it you would grab a pitchpork. I'd better stop on this topic and the corporate taxation item.

I can discuss the budget side and flat tax.
On personal note, I should clarify and say I am ok with a graduated tax structure. I'm, more interested in: 1. no deduction nonsense; 2. EVERYONE PAYS SOMETHING. Alternatively, if you don't pay, you don't vote.

To the point of advocates of massive military involvement and alliances, bases et al. How exactly is it that we have to have it, but Europe, Japan, Brazil, China, and India don't?

Frazzled wrote:To the point of advocates of massive military involvement and alliances, bases et al. How exactly is it that we have to have it, but Europe, Japan, Brazil, China, and India don't?

Exactly my point, why do we need to be so actively aggressive and frankly "knight on a shining horse" when the rest of the world seems to have grown out of that teenage like frame of mind. The amount of money that could be saved on the military is really quite amazing, especially when you compare that to the deficiencies of the rest of our national "programs" if you may.

I think we're in some agreemnt here.
I'm not for starving the military by any means, but for pulling them back from guarding the world's walls. Except for Afghanistan, bring them home.

If war were a PR campaign the U.S. lost the race a long time ago... .

er what?

Really Frazzled?

The U.S. has had a lot of wars and engagements that have earned them a pretty unlikable reputation the world throughout. We seem to fight to fix problems outside of our country than in it.

No literally, please clarify your statement. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

If war were a PR campaign the U.S. lost the race a long time ago... so there is really no reason for us to keep an international military involvement plan in effect. Of course we need not pull out of all matters entirely, but we should be trying to approach international situations with a bit more caution, to put it simply. The whole deal with the defense station outside of Russia is on of these situations, although there could be merit behind it, it does seem quite offensive to the Russians given our history.

Apologies for being unclear.

I see you're saying race and PR and that threw me.

In general we are in agreement. Our activities in Bosnia, Kosova, protecting South Korea, Europe, and helping after innumerable natural and manmade disasters don't seem to have helped us. So its best to admit we're just evil, pull back and act like every other country.

When Japan and Germany sends troops or provides a nuclear shield we'll join in. When they don't, when the rest of the "enlightened civilized" world doesn't then there's clearly no need for us boors to do so either. After all they are more enlightened than we are.

Wrexasaur wrote:If war were a PR campaign the U.S. lost the race a long time ago... so there is really no reason for us to keep an international military involvement plan in effect. Of course we need not pull out of all matters entirely, but we should be trying to approach international situations with a bit more caution, to put it simply. The whole deal with the defense station outside of Russia is on of these situations, although there could be merit behind it, it does seem quite offensive to the Russians given our history.

The KGB would(will?) smile to hear this.

Frazzled wrote:I'll argue my points in person, but its not prudent for me to do so via this forum. I will say my first position in banking involved lots of S corps and other entities. It made me sick, the amount of millionaires who were running their expenses through their businesses, to the extent I was paying-IN TOTAL- more taxes than they and their businesses were. Its a major scam. If you say it you would grab a pitchpork. I'd better stop on this topic and the corporate taxation item.

Dude, I know. My first job was in tax, and it was for a dodgy firm. I did my little undergraduate bit to assist some very rich clients pay next to no tax. But I don't think the answer is in complete reaction the other way, creating a simplistic system that doesn't make any attempt to recognise what people action take home each week.

I don't think deduction allowances are the primary concern, though. I'd be more concerned about the various legal bodies that can be created to provide tax shelters.

To the point of advocates of massive military involvement and alliances, bases et al. How exactly is it that we have to have it, but Europe, Japan, Brazil, China, and India don't?

China are doing it. Look at the investment and military projection they're developing to protect oil supplies from the mid-east. The funds and support needed by Sri Lanka to finally defeat the Tamils came from China and it was provided because of China's strategic interest in port in Sri Lanka.

But the US certainly could slash military expenditure without limiting force projection or overseas involvement. The recent cuts to the Raptor program are a good example.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'll argue my points in person, but its not prudent for me to do so via this forum. I will say my first position in banking involved lots of S corps and other entities. It made me sick, the amount of millionaires who were running their expenses through their businesses, to the extent I was paying-IN TOTAL- more taxes than they and their businesses were. Its a major scam. If you say it you would grab a pitchpork. I'd better stop on this topic and the corporate taxation item.

Dude, I know. My first job was in tax, and it was for a dodgy firm. I did my little undergraduate bit to assist some very rich clients pay next to no tax. But I don't think the answer is in complete reaction the other way, creating a simplistic system that doesn't make any attempt to recognise what people action take home each week.

I don't think deduction allowances are the primary concern, though. I'd be more concerned about the various legal bodies that can be created to provide tax shelters.

I think we're on the same page Sebbie. Its one proposal but the purpose is in conjunctionwith your statement.

To the point of advocates of massive military involvement and alliances, bases et al. How exactly is it that we have to have it, but Europe, Japan, Brazil, China, and India don't?

China are doing it. Look at the investment and military projection they're developing to protect oil supplies from the mid-east. The funds and support needed by Sri Lanka to finally defeat the Tamils came from China and it was provided because of China's strategic interest in port in Sri Lanka.

But the US certainly could slash military expenditure without limiting force projection or overseas involvement. The recent cuts to the Raptor program are a good example.

halonachos wrote:make a roller coaster in north korea that Kim Jong Il cannot ride due to height regulation

Most amusing thought I have come across all day. Props.

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;

Actually, that's just for the militia.

Here's the kicker, you know how schools ban firearms, drugs, tobacco, etc? Well turns out that they don't have to just because the feds say they have to. There was a court case against the government because they arrested someone who brought a firearm to a school(I forget the cases name, I think its the ringo case or something). Now why oh why do all of our public schoolsban firearms, etc, because the fed gives them funding if they play along.

Why do some states have concealed weapon permits and others don't, why is the driving license age different in some states, why are there different grading scales and programs, and why on earth do different states have different tax rates? Because the feds don'treally run much. They have the F.B.I and military, but militias are state run. As are paramedic services, law enforcement, and firefighter services.

Frazzled wrote:
I'd have to disagree, not on their amount of spending, but what they are doing with it. So far their major international efforts have consisted of threatening Taiwan with thousands of missiles and some small anti pirate efforts. They're not leaping out to patrol, heck they're not even reigning in NK.

Don't forget the quasi-colonization of East Africa.

Frazzled wrote:
Again, where is Europe, Japan, Brazil, India-why just the US, and sometime UK/Australia (you guys do a lot)? Why just us?

Again, you're massively over-estimating the strain that our foreign deployments place on our budget, and our soldiers. The majority of the bases you're objecting to are pre-positioning depots staffed by a small contingent of solider and maintained by local employees. We certainly don't need them all, about 200 of them could be closed tomorrow with minimal effect, but the amount of passion you seem to have for this issue doesn't align with its actual weight.

halonachos wrote:
Actually, that's just for the militia.

And, as I said earlier in this thread, the word militia can refer to anyone eligible for service.

halonachos wrote:
Because the feds don'treally run much

Really? Well that's good to know. I guess all those Republicans preaching on about the evils of big government were just making it all up.

halonachos wrote:
...but militias are state run.

No, they aren't. The states appoint officers, and provide for training, but the standards to which that training must adhere are created by Congress.