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.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I'm also with Stormrider on getting rid of the EPA. I recently read an article on how "green energy" is killing us, and its killing itself. Did you know there are actually two types of nuclear reactors in use in 1st world developed nations? The ones you hear about are only the first type, with all of their nasty, harmful nuclear winter causing waste. The second type actually produces power using the same nuclear principles as the first, but the fuel is the waste rods from the first type... the spent fuel from this second type is actually such a small amount, that apparently the number of drums used to store it in, could be carried in a standard pickup truck per month (this is a rough guess as i forgot the actual number). Also, the wind farms that Americans are so against (looking at you Kennedy!) placing off the coast, they are all over Germany, and really, they are not all that noticeable, they have very little impact on the "beautiful skylines" because they are most often placed in less populated farmlands, where wind is much more predictable and prevalent.

Yeah, I agree that the freakout over radiation and the worry over windfarms being unsightly is just absurd, and needs to go away. But that's not just a product of the EPA, and if you have the political will to remove the EPA than you certainly have the political will to change it's policies over nuclear energy and wind farms. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

To be honest, the idea that people would argue against having a body dedicated to environment protection in this day and age is just staggering.

@sebster, I think the problem isn't the system in the US, its more the BS thats involved. gak "diseases" like ADD, which were created to control nonexistent problems drive the profits of both doctors and pharmaceutical companies alike...

That's the system. Right now the system has massive incentives to over-prescribe medication, and that's a major part of what needs reform.

Not to mention the cultural differences of Europe and the US. By that I mean, at least in Germany, there are markets every saturday, where most people park the car and walk a great deal, while doing their daily shopping. In the US, you have people driving in a Semi truck for half a block to Walmart to get their McDonald's fix. Restaraunts, by and large are not chain owned in Europe (or I haven't seen nearly as many chains of sit-down, family restaraunts here), again, unlike the states where every town has an Olive Garden, TGIFridays, Red Lobster, etc. which all leads to the obesity epidemic that the US is faced with now.

My country, Australia, recently became on average fatter than yours. Yet we also have a healthcare system that delivers better results, and is much cheaper. Because we've got a healthcare system that is working much better than yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:To add to Sebster, I've wondered for some time if "US military-industrial complex" so to speak is in desperate need of reworking. The prices of weapons development and production are absurd in some areas with European countries able to produce weapons of similar or higher sophistication at fractions of our costs. I've done no dedicated research into the subject but I find myself questioning how our next generation SPG can have poorer performance than the most recent German model, and cost 5x as much (the cost ending in the weapons suspension and us continuing to use the M109 Paladin, which is a fine platfrom and still serviceable, but a similar problem exists in our jet fighter and naval development programs).

I've always known we waste massive amounts of money on redundant and pointless projects and programs (either through pork barrel or general fiscal stupidity) but I also wonder how much money can be saved by restructuring production and development.

I think there's huge savings to be made in . It's a pretty clear drain on the public purse when defence companies can form close relationships with congressmen, and begin forming deals to commit so much money to development projects, the jobs for which get neatly divided among the sponsoring congressmen. Anyone who dares challenge that gets hit with 'think of the troops' or similar nonsense.

At some point it becomes clear that what matters to those folk, profits and jobs in their home states, are not the things that should matter in a good defence budget - cost and effectiveness. So no wonder there's blowouts and tech projects that never produce anything valuable.


It's also an issue of scale. Right now one single US aircraft carrier group is equivalent, more or less, to the naval capacity of any other nation. And you have 11 carrier groups.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thedude wrote:I like the idea of privatised retirement but how do you handle the dramitic economic downturns (market corrections or whatever you wish to call them) that our economy is prone to and it's impact on savings. It seems to me someone could either invest in stable slow growth funds or more aggressive and volatile funds much as they do now. In scenario 1, there would not be nearly enough to sustain through retirement, especially with inflation, or in scenario 2 each generation would have to hope they can time set their retirment at a beneficial time in the market which we know very few can do successfully.

Over here, with most retirement funds we get a choice of five options, or thereabouts, ranging from most aggressive (speculative, high beta stocks, thought debt leveraging is explicitly banned) to least aggressive, basically term deposits. People typically invest in higher risk when they're younger, the greater return is worth the risk while you're still young and can potentially recover from a downturn. Later in life they shift towards less risky options - my fiance's parents are on the verge of retirement and they've basically got everything in term deposits.

In terms of how you deal with downturns? Well you deal, plain and simple. You accept that the market might knock 10% off your savings. It isn't great, but the alternative is to have a defined benefit fund, which always runs the risk of having less in assets than it owes in benefits, and running the risk of crashing in the ugliest possible manner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:My solution is simple: every division, agency, or branch of government gets a 10%, across-the-board budget reduction. If you can't perform your agency functions with that reduction, your agency gets terminated. If the problems aren't fixed, next year it's another 10%.

Not only do you get the benefit of actually reducing the cost of government (rather than just the growth), you also reduce the power of the government.

Among those of us who budget in the public sector for a living, it's called 'punishing the efficient'. Because not every government agency has waste in equal quantities. Many will actually be right against the wall, and struggling to provide services with what they've got.

The scariest thing about this idea is that every so often politicians come to power who think it actually works. It happened here in WA when our current government came to power, they demanded a 3% across the board cut. Education were able to cut their bureaucracy easily because they were bloated, but Community Services was already dependant on paying a low wage to people who were working vast amounts of unpaid overtime. Meanwhile Housing said the only way they could handle it was to build less housing... housing that was badly needed.

Everyone kind of stood about awkardly, with government unwilling to back down. In the end government just cut the horrendously bloated Department of Premier and Cabinet, made some superficial cuts in Education, then delayed some infrastructure and declared they'd made the 3% savings. They'd announced they'd keep making cuts each year, but funnily enough after the learning experience of the first time they never mentioned it again.

It's also an issue of scale. Right now one single US aircraft carrier group is equivalent, more or less, to the naval capacity of any other nation. And you have 11 carrier groups.

Hmmm. You know. I think we have room for another

In all seriousness though I've never understood the Navy's doctrinal obsession with maintaining a minimum 10 aircraft carriers. Honestly we could get by with 4, maybe five. Two in the pacific, one in the atlantic, and two free to float about as we please. This is especially true in a age where a few thousand dollars of cruise missile has the possibility of sinking billions of dollars of aircraft carrier.

EDIT: I can certainly appreciate the non-military value of the US Carrier's as massive humanitarian aid ships. The ability to rapidly deploy aid from the deck of a carrier certainly has its value. Maybe not billions of dollars, but some kind of value.

I must say I like how many intelligent people are on this forum.

Of course, the representatives and other members of the US government don't actually do their jobs, but still get paid. Otherwise, we would actually be fixing things rather than letting private interests drive the country into the bedrock.

Get a plan that is long termed planned, and will benefit everyone in the long term. Instead of thinking of the we need money now. We need to progressively make money, for instance make china pay for the war repressions that they caused during the korean war, have country's that are not part of the UN pay fines to enter our country, tighten border security, and change new mexico too... .Old Mexico.
Merge parts of agencies, disband parts of the al-queda teams (the ones that aren't exactly needed)
cut spending, stop asking for more money from china,
raise taxes a bit.
purchase less into those stupid government programs that don't help.
Make a more better system of congress, that will not take months to reply. Get rid of the stupid Red fear combatant groups (yeah they still exist).

Sell parts of the navy to the british/australians/new zealanders/ main europe. Get rid of those stupid destroyers, and largerer battleships and replace them with aircraft carriers, sell off parts of the airforce planes to NATO allies. there ya go 1 trillion dollars there.

Stop funding Israel. (not joking)

Of course these aren't realistic hell what do i know i am 17.

Also make a unniversal free health care, fine big business that are running on a monopoly, make the rich pay more again. etc etc. etc.

I think the best option would be to start over. Go back to the way things worked at the signing of the Constitution (with the exception of the social progress we've made since such as suffrage, equal rights, etc. which doesn't have an economic impact anyway), and take it one step at a time until we have something that is fair, makes sense, and works.

Things I would do:

No federal taxes for households below the poverty line, teachers, medical professionals, military personnel, civil servants, police, firefighters, and small/privately-owned farms
'Middle Class' households (above poverty line, below ~250K USD/year) flat taxed at 20%
'Upper Class' households (above ~250k USD/year) progressively taxed so that the top ~5% of household incomes are at a 80-90% income tax rate (there have been periods of time, such as the period between World War 2 and the end of 'Nam when it was even higher than this... coincidentally that period saw some of the greatest economic growth and prosperity in the history of this country).
0% Small business tax rate (annual revenue less than ~$10 million USD)
0% Corporate tax rate, provided all profits are reinvested into the economy (in the form of R&D, corporate expansion, corporate donations, investment in stock exchange, or even end of year bonus to employees),
Otherwise corporations are taxed using household income system laid out above, using profits as basis for household income
End ALL agricultural subsidies.
Tax trust funds and estates.
Implement government regulation of legal compensation(I.E. there is a standardized government system for determining and awarding compensation as a result of a legal suit vs. arbitrary awards by judges. This will hopefully have an effect of reigning in frivolous legal actions, which will result in a drop in insurance costs)
Implement government medical insurance policy option (for healthcare/medical professionals not individual health insurance, this will work hand in hand with the regulated compensation to bring down the costs of healthcare, which is in part inflated by the high cost of insurance coverage for doctors and hospitals, etc. which is in turn aused by the aforementioned frivolous lawsuits, at the very least this will create competition which will help keep costs low).
Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all other social welfare programs.
Implement government health insurance option for retirees and households below poverty line (this policy will cover regular health screenings and emergency care ONLY, participants foreit the right to compensation from NON-CRIMINAL malpractice/negligence)
Implement legislation for privatized retirement plans/social security (legislation in the sense that it is untaxable, etc.)
Raise legal retirement age, to be re-evaluated every census by a board of medical professionals, to be based on life expectancy.
Raise TRICARE fees for the military (it hasn't been adjusted in years, and is really too good to be true in terms of health insurance)
Implement budget surplus refunds (I.E. - if the government runs a surplus, the excess funds are redistributed back to the population of the country at the end of the year in the form of a check, this does not go out to corporations or small businesses)
No more bailouts for big business, they adapt or die (if the economic issue is endemic and widespread such as the recent recession, then a bailout is instead issued to the national population similar in manner to the budget surplus refunds, the funds have to trickle up before they can trickle down)
Eliminate amtrak/other such regulation of the railroad industry, implement legislation which will allow for privatization with government oversight of safety and standardization
Eliminate and disband all political parties, implement legislation that elected and appointed government officials (and immediate families) forfeit all outside sources of income (in other words, they are taken care of by the government and by extension the people that elected them, no more stock market investments, corporate ownership, etc.)
Outlaw lobbyist organizations
Outlaw derivatives, future, and commodity exchanges (in other words, decentralized trading of commodities)

Hmm... just getting started...

Asherian Command wrote:We need to progressively make money, for instance make china pay for the war repressions that they caused during the korean war

In the scheme of things Korea wasn't that expensive a war, the payments would be made to the UN as it was a UN action, and China had fairly sensible reasons for fearing for it's border. Probably be fairer and more likely to make McCarthur's estate pay for the cost of the war once North Korea was pushed back of the 38th parallel

have country's that are not part of the UN pay fines to enter our country

That'd be Kosovo, who are a new country and still awaiting final recognition, Taiwan, who are playing funny buggers and being sad because no-one pretends they run China anymore, and the Vatican. I'm not sure it'd be a massive money earner, but I do like the idea of hitting the Vatican up for some cash.

Merge parts of agencies, disband parts of the al-queda teams (the ones that aren't exactly needed)

There is plenty of scope for restructure in intelligence and defence.

stop asking for more money from china

You don't actually ask for money from China, you put it out on the open market and whoever wants it buys it. China happens to be a big buyer, but actually the biggest buyer is private US companies (and weirdly enough the biggest domestic buyer of US government debt is... other parts of the US government - y'all have a weird system).

raise taxes a bit.

It would make a huge difference, but for a certain, highly vocal portion of the US, it remains considerably less acceptable than 'organ farm the unemployed'.

Sell parts of the navy to the british/australians/new zealanders/ main europe. Get rid of those stupid destroyers, and largerer battleships and replace them with aircraft carriers, sell off parts of the airforce planes to NATO allies. there ya go 1 trillion dollars there.

Please don't do that. Because we don't need them, but we'll buy them anyway. Then put them next to all those Abrams Mk1s and fighter jets we just bought, and don't know what to do with

Of course these aren't realistic hell what do i know i am 17.

Your answer was a hell of a lot more sensible than most efforts in this thread.

Also make a unniversal free health care, fine big business that are running on a monopoly, make the rich pay more again. etc etc. etc.

Socialist!

biccat wrote:
Very few agencies are "necessary." In fact, apart from defense, IRS, and the three primary branches (president, congress, supreme court), most of those are unnecessary. Even the IRS and defense departments aren't strictly necessary.

Necessity is contingent upon what is desired. Congress and the Supreme Court are necessary because we desire to adhere to Constitution. The Executive is necessary because we desire a government. Defense and the IRS are constitutive parts of the Executive, and really shouldn't be considered separately from it.

But, the point is that the inability of a given agency to reduce its budget does not indicate that its function is not necessary given a particular desire by either the voting public, or the government itself.

biccat wrote:
However, I wouldn't be the one determining if they can carry out their function, it would be their decision. If you spend too much and run up a debt, your branch gets cut. If you run out of cash halfway through the year and come begging to Congress, you get cut.

So if the State Department were to fire everyone but the Secretary of State, who then took the budget allocated to the State Department and proceeded to spend the fiscal year on a "diplomatic mission" in the South of France you would have no role in determining whether or not the function of the State Department was being carried out?

That's hyperbole, of course, but if you're not actually going to make determinations about what it is to carry out the function of a particular agency, then you aren't placing an incentive of efficiency. Rather, the incentive is for each agency to operate at bare minimum of functionality, and so minimize annual operating costs, while using the remainder of their budget for discretionary spending; say, in the form exorbitant pay scales and benefits packages for their skeleton crew of employees.

And if you are going to make determinations about what it is for each agency to carry out its function, then it, again, seems odd that you wouldn't simply start hacking away at agencies you didn't consider necessary in the first place. After all, that's no less politically feasible than simply hacking away at every agency, and probably a good deal more so.

biccat wrote:
Right now, the incentive for every agency is to spend as much of their budget as possible, promise to pay more, and beg from Congress for even more next year. This would change the balance, so the incentive is to save money.

Right, there is an incentive for every agency that is not Constitutionally mandated to justify its existence in order to obtain funding. That doesn't go away simply because your criteria requires a series of 10% cuts (individual agencies can do budgetary math too). Agencies will still spend as closely to their allocated limit as possible, that marginal spending would simply take the form of end loaded discretionary allocations; like infrastructure.

dogma wrote:Necessity is contingent upon what is desired. Congress and the Supreme Court are necessary because we desire to adhere to Constitution. The Executive is necessary because we desire a government. Defense and the IRS are constitutive parts of the Executive, and really shouldn't be considered separately from it.

Ah, no, you're not only wrong here, but since this underlies much of the rest of your post, those points are wrong as well.

Necessity is not contingent on desires. There are certain elements of a government that are required to function. Defense (for obvious reasons), IRS (for acquisition of revenue), Legislature (for budgeting and lawmaking), Executive (carrying out the law and running the government) and Judicial (as neutral arbiters of the law).

Although, if under your definition breathing isn't necessary unless we desire to keep living, then you might have a point.

dogma wrote:So if the State Department were to fire everyone but the Secretary of State, who then took the budget allocated to the State Department and proceeded to spend the fiscal year on a "diplomatic mission" in the South of France you would have no role in determining whether or not the function of the State Department was being carried out?

Right.

The job wouldn't get done, so I (as the Chief Executive) would remove the Secretary of State and appoint a new SoS. You do understand that there are two parts here, right? One is fiscal responsibility and the other is the inherent authority of the Executive to appoint heads of departments. I had assumed that such was known by basic civics, but I probably should have been more explicity. And you'll note, there's actually no less of an incentive to do this right now.

The rest is, again, based on a flawed assumption.

dogma wrote:Right, there is an incentive for every agency that is not Constitutionally mandated to justify its existence in order to obtain funding.

There is an incentive to justify their existence to a group of political hacks. And their interest isn't in reducing the budget, it's in reelection. Generally achieved through more spending.

sebster wrote:Everyone kind of stood about awkardly, with government unwilling to back down. In the end government just cut the horrendously bloated Department of Premier and Cabinet, made some superficial cuts in Education, then delayed some infrastructure and declared they'd made the 3% savings. They'd announced they'd keep making cuts each year, but funnily enough after the learning experience of the first time they never mentioned it again.

This doesn't refute that the proposal would work, it simply reinforces the idea that people are resistant to change. You were asked to be fiscally responsible, but instead you "stood around awkwardly" not doing anything and eventually the other side backed down.

Under my plan, such an agency would find itself dissolved in fairly short order.

Oh man, you got Dogma on my thread again...

biccat wrote:
Necessity is not contingent on desires. There are certain elements of a government that are required to function. Defense (for obvious reasons), IRS (for acquisition of revenue), Legislature (for budgeting and lawmaking), Executive (carrying out the law and running the government) and Judicial (as neutral arbiters of the law).

As I said, Defense and Revenue collection are functions of the Executive, they aren't independent entities, not even in the US. Additionally, its certainly possible to run a state, albeit only a small states, without any meaningful form of material defense, and government has certainly existed without any form of compulsory revenue collection.

As for the Legislature and the Judiciary, there are forms of government which require neither; certain types of aristocracy and feudalism are both good examples. In these cases the distinction between legislative, judicial, and executive authority breaks down because the whim of decision is essentially left to the Executive alone.

biccat wrote:
Although, if under your definition breathing isn't necessary unless we desire to keep living, then you might have a point.

Correct. Breathing is only necessary if you want to live.

biccat wrote:
Right.

The job wouldn't get done, so I (as the Chief Executive) would remove the Secretary of State and appoint a new SoS. You do understand that there are two parts here, right? One is fiscal responsibility and the other is the inherent authority of the Executive to appoint heads of departments. I had assumed that such was known by basic civics, but I probably should have been more explicity. And you'll note, there's actually no less of an incentive to do this right now.

Second, that's contradictory. The only way you can determine whether or not the requisite job is being done is if you, the chief executive, determine what it means to do the job. You can't claim the job isn't being done, and then say that you have no role in determining whether or not that is the case. Remember, my initial criticism was that the across the board budget cut was a waste of time given that, ultimately, you are going to determine whether or not a given agency is doing its job, and therefore whether or not it is fulfilling its function given the allocated budget.

This isn't a matter of simply replacing the department head, as I said that was a hyperbolic example. Its a matter of whether or not you, as the executive, serve as the ultimate determinant of whether or not agency X is performing its function given the amount of money being allocated. You claimed that you had not role in that process, and now you're claiming otherwise, I'm not sure which you are actually advocating.

biccat wrote:
The rest is, again, based on a flawed assumption.

As I've already stated,, the elements of a functioning government are only necessary if you want a functioning government in the first place. Further, the way in which you want your government to function is going to determine what your government requires in order to function and, as I indicated above, that isn't necessarily the sum of those elements you have listed.

biccat wrote:
There is an incentive to justify their existence to a group of political hacks. And their interest isn't in reducing the budget, it's in reelection. Generally achieved through more spending.

Sure, and your proposal doesn't change

biccat wrote:
This doesn't refute that the proposal would work, it simply reinforces the idea that people are resistant to change. You were asked to be fiscally responsible, but instead you "stood around awkwardly" not doing anything and eventually the other side backed down.

Under my plan, such an agency would find itself dissolved in fairly short order.

No, they were asked to cut their budgets by 3%, which is not the same thing as being fiscally responsible. Fiscal irresponsibility can entail making extraneous budget cuts.

dogma wrote:No, they were asked to cut their budgets by 3%, which is not the same thing as being fiscally responsible. Fiscal irresponsibility can entail making extraneous budget cuts.

I recall an anecdote from a member of the "deficit commission" (paraphrasing):

"Every agency representative came into the room and told us two things. First, that the deficit was a serious problem that needed to be addressed. Second, that we should increase their funding."

Which is exactly the problem sebster related. It is easy for the other guys to cut spending, but it's hard for us. I'm sure that every agency says the same thing.

So either you take a "scalpal" approach and suddenly become overwhelmed in minutia (the "too big/too small" problem), or you take a cleaver approach and cut expenditures across the board. We're currently mired in the scalpal approach, and it's obviously not working.

If it only took an hour of negotiation to trim a billion dollars from a budget, it would take two months, working 24 hours a day, to reduce the budget deficit to zero.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Necessity is not contingent on desires. There are certain elements of a government that are required to function. Defense (for obvious reasons), IRS (for acquisition of revenue), Legislature (for budgeting and lawmaking), Executive (carrying out the law and running the government) and Judicial (as neutral arbiters of the law).

As I said, Defense and Revenue collection are functions of the Executive, they aren't independent entities, not even in the US. Additionally, its certainly possible to run a state, albeit only a small states, without any meaningful form of material defense, and government has certainly existed without any form of compulsory revenue collection.

As for the Legislature and the Judiciary, there are forms of government which require neither; certain types of aristocracy and feudalism are both good examples. In these cases the distinction between legislative, judicial, and executive authority breaks down because the whim of decision is essentially left to the Executive alone.

To give an example of what many people could consider redundant organizations would be like.. the NSA and the CIA. By and large they do the same thing, collect and act on intelligence, with the ultimate desire of securing the nation in ways that the uniformed armed services legally or morally cannot.

I think that some people would lump the FBI into the same category, because there are state agencies for policing, etc. however, I think that the FBI does alleviate some of the issues that can occur when a crime is committed by the same person across multiple states (such as the inevitable jurisdiction arguments)

Here's a suggested solution from Bill Maher, have the rich start paying taxes again:

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=233845226635712

So its worth putting on a bi figure order to a US supplier once the money runs out - will be a lot cheaper.

No, because there won't be a US Post Office to send the models to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No, because there won't be a US Post Office to send the models to you.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:To give an example of what many people could consider redundant organizations would be like.. the NSA and the CIA. By and large they do the same thing, collect and act on intelligence, with the ultimate desire of securing the nation in ways that the uniformed armed services legally or morally cannot.

Actually they do to separate things. Comparing the CIA to the NSA is akin to comparing the Army to the Navy. Yes. Both want to defend the nation. But the means, tools, techniques, and skill sets they need are different (granted as with many similar organizations there is overlap). The NSA and CIA are really only separate because the modern intelligence system is simply too big to be handled under a single organization. It would be too large to effectively administrate.

I think that some people would lump the FBI into the same category, because there are state agencies for policing, etc. however, I think that the FBI does alleviate some of the issues that can occur when a crime is committed by the same person across multiple states (such as the inevitable jurisdiction arguments)

The FBI and state agencies are different. State agencies only have authority within their states. The FBI has authority in ALL states. The real redundancy is that ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) and the FBI are separate organizations. They actually do do a lot of the same things with the same means and skill sets. ATF is a leftover from an era that no longer exists and I'd argue is no longer a relevant organization.

What about the Tennessee River Valley Authority Police?

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Necessity is not contingent on desires. There are certain elements of a government that are required to function. Defense (for obvious reasons), IRS (for acquisition of revenue), Legislature (for budgeting and lawmaking), Executive (carrying out the law and running the government) and Judicial (as neutral arbiters of the law).

As I said, Defense and Revenue collection are functions of the Executive, they aren't independent entities, not even in the US. Additionally, its certainly possible to run a state, albeit only a small states, without any meaningful form of material defense, and government has certainly existed without any form of compulsory revenue collection.

As for the Legislature and the Judiciary, there are forms of government which require neither; certain types of aristocracy and feudalism are both good examples. In these cases the distinction between legislative, judicial, and executive authority breaks down because the whim of decision is essentially left to the Executive alone.

To give an example of what many people could consider redundant organizations would be like.. the NSA and the CIA. By and large they do the same thing, collect and act on intelligence, with the ultimate desire of securing the nation in ways that the uniformed armed services legally or morally cannot.

I think that some people would lump the FBI into the same category, because there are state agencies for policing, etc. however, I think that the FBI does alleviate some of the issues that can occur when a crime is committed by the same person across multiple states (such as the inevitable jurisdiction arguments)

Am I the only person in the world that can make a distinction between the NSA and CIA? Yes, there is an overlap in their functions, IMO reducing or eliminating the overlap would be a good move, but the NSA and CIA fulfill different roles. The NSA is a SIGINT (signal intelligence) based organization, while the CIA is a HUMINT (human intelligence). The training and organization required to fulfill these functions are distinct and different, combining them into a single organization wouldn't necessarily be the best move.

Now, as LordofHats said, ATF and FBI could be rolled into one and it wouldn't really hurt anything, especially when you consider that ATF and FBI often end up butting heads because cases often fall under the jurisdiction of both... okay I dont actually know if thats true, its just how it happens in the movies. Never really been interested in the law enforcement side of things.

BrassScorpion wrote:Here's a suggested solution from Bill Maher, have the rich start paying taxes again:

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=233845226635712

Dude, I swear, all you do is post stuff about Bill Maher. Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That aside however, here's what I would suggest

- Legalize weed and tax the living hell out of it.
- Eliminate tax loopholes that allow multi-billion dollar corporations such as GE to get away with paying zero taxes.
- Withdraw from all foreign wars.
- Sell half the navy.
- turn the Great Plains region into the world's largest windfarm.
- tax the gak out of oil and gas.
- sell advertising space on the whitehouse and the capital, and on members of congress.
- convert Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico into ginormous solar panels.
- legalize prostitution and tax it 80%.
- tax the hell out of viagra. This works in conjunction with the above point.
- Return to a feudalistic society
- tax fast food. Knowing the dietary habits of the general populace, this has the potential to be the largest source of revenue since income tax.

Kilkrazy wrote:What about the Tennessee River Valley Authority Police?

Them too.

Though, I would support a return of the CCC. Get all these dang kids of the street and get um work'n on beautifying nature for better commercial opportunities And the Highway system could use all the labor to fix it up, especially in my state which seems to not care too much about the roads.

LordofHats, you wouldn't happen to be from Illinois,would you? I swear they have the worst roads in this country.

And whats with everyone wanting to sell off chunks of the Navy? First off, large chunks of it are unsellable due to the hightech crap in them which is protected by congressional mandate. Second, who would buy them? The Chinese are the only ones who would be willing to throw a decent amount of money at them, and I assure you they are the last people on Earth we would want to sell them to. The UK/France/Australia/New Zealand/Germany/NATO couldn't afford them, let alone operating and maintenance costs.

If you want to save money on our defense budget, get rid of the Marines. Only a 29 billion dollar savings, but when you consider that they fulfill largely the same function as the Army these days, they are the most 'redundant' of the branches (although still very useful).

chaos0xomega wrote:LordofHats, you wouldn't happen to be from Illinois,would you? I swear they have the worst roads in this country.

Pennsylvania bud. Even the toll roads are crap in some spots.

And whats with everyone wanting to sell off chunks of the Navy? First off, large chunks of it are unsellable due to the hightech crap in them which is protected by congressional mandate. Second, who would buy them?

You can always strip the super secret bits out and sell hulls. I'd be that an aircraft carrier could be converted to a freighter, tanker, or even as I've pointed out find a use as a humanitarian aid vessel whenever the US Navy is done with it. But yeah, who would buy them is a good question. I don't think there's much of a market for 100,000 tons of super carrier outside of the military.

If you want to save money on our defense budget, get rid of the Marines. Only a 29 billion dollar savings, but when you consider that they fulfill largely the same function as the Army these days, they are the most 'redundant' of the branches (although still very useful).

The Marines fill a very necessary role (close support with the Navy). Were they removed, the Army/Navy would then need funds allocated to it for an entirely new training program and support. We wouldn't save much at all. I would propose that the Marines really don't need their own mini-airforce and mini-fleet though. Honestly, the Marines culture also provides a usefulness. When you need someone to just charge in head on and beat someone senseless with raw power, you send the US Marine Corp (and there are indeed situations where just that is needed). Their doctrine and mentality really lends a lot to the Marines in the area of frontal assault. The Army could do the same job, the ability of the Marines in this field is well recognized in the US military.

biccat wrote:This doesn't refute that the proposal would work, it simply reinforces the idea that people are resistant to change. You were asked to be fiscally responsible, but instead you "stood around awkwardly" not doing anything and eventually the other side backed down.

The standing around awkwardly element didn't happen because 'people are resistant to change'. That's just you throwing in a 2c management term to explain away a very simple thing - certain departments had core operations that were already underfunded and they simply didn't have a magical 3% of waste they could cut without hurting services.

Other departments didn't just have 3%, they had 10 or 20% that could be cut. So we had a mandate from government that would have been terrible to follow, and we just had to wait for government to realise it couldn't cut Community Services or Housing without an immediate impact on services, but it could cut Premier & Cabinet and Education by a whole lot, and along with some delay in infrastructure projects they had their 3%.

The 'standing around awkwardly' phase was waiting for government to quietly manoeuvre itself into a position where it could entirely redesign its program to cut waste where there actually was waste and still claim everything went like they said it would.

Under my plan, such an agency would find itself dissolved in fairly short order.

You would be rewarding the agencies with areas of waste they can easily cut, and punishing agencies that have already worked to cut waste on their own initiative. As I said before, this is called 'punishing the efficient'.

It's even worse in your case because you're threatening to close down agencies that don't have 10% to give up, which means you would be literally 'punishing the efficient'.

And you'd be doing it because you've got some ideological assumption that because it is government, there must be waste. Going wandering into a business with no idea how it really works, but some assumption of how things must be and calling for a sweeping changed on how you think things must work is called terrible management. Government is no different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:"Every agency representative came into the room and told us two things. First, that the deficit was a serious problem that needed to be addressed. Second, that we should increase their funding."

Which is exactly the problem sebster related. It is easy for the other guys to cut spending, but it's hard for us. I'm sure that every agency says the same thing.

No, the problem I related is quite different.

Thing is, everyone is going to believe their budget needs to be expanded. That is just human nature. But that's only a fraction of the story. Reality does enter the picture. We can bring in quantitative measures of efficiency, compare with other countries and across time periods, and with the private sector, and get a very clear idea of who has excessive bureaucracy, and who has poor core processes.

We're currently mired in the scalpal approach, and it's obviously not working.

You're not mired in any approach right now. The idea that there's been any real, substantive effort to control budget expenditure in the US is fantasy.

I challenge everything you said regarding the marines. The Marines don't fulfill any function that is still relevant to the Navy. The Navy trains its own personnel to conduct VBSS operations (something that the Marines should be doing), has its own spec ops when things get too hot for them to handle (SEALS), and handles its own shipboard security. The only ole Marines still perform for the Navy is shore protection at port facilities, but even then its only at domestic ports/bases, when a Navy destroyer pulls into port into a Thai port, the Navy handles it themselves.

And of course as you said, the Marines don't need a mini-airforce/navy, but they justify it with their marines take care of their own/expeditionary mindset. The Army has its own expeditionary forces, its own (rotary wing) air support, and it has its own little fleet of landing craft/amphibious vehicles just in case they ever need to land on a contested shoreline again. There is no function provided for by the Marines that isn't already provided for by another segment of the military, with the exception of V/STOL aviation. As for the Marine culture, I know plenty of guys in the Army and plenty of guys in the Marines. The only difference in the Culture is that almost EVERY Marine is borderline psychotic (because every Marine is trained as an infantryman first and foremost), while only the actual trigger pullers are in the Army. You strip away the uniforms and any kit that might identify you by service branch, and there isn't much difference between a Soldier or a Marine (or even an Air Force ROMAD/TACP for that manner).

chaos0xomega wrote:LordofHats, you wouldn't happen to be from Illinois,would you? I swear they have the worst roads in this country.

And whats with everyone wanting to sell off chunks of the Navy? First off, large chunks of it are unsellable due to the hightech crap in them which is protected by congressional mandate. Second, who would buy them? The Chinese are the only ones who would be willing to throw a decent amount of money at them, and I assure you they are the last people on Earth we would want to sell them to. The UK/France/Australia/New Zealand/Germany/NATO couldn't afford them, let alone operating and maintenance costs.

It isn't about making money from selling off aircraft carriers. I don't know where you got that from.

It's about reducing operational costs, and you can save a huge amount of money by simply having less carrier fleets. Building less new generation support craft with no real operational role. Having less top of the line fighter aircraft with no-one to fight.

chaos0xomega wrote:I challenge everything you said regarding the marines. The Marines don't fulfill any function that is still relevant to the Navy. The Navy trains its own personnel to conduct VBSS operations (something that the Marines should be doing), has its own spec ops when things get too hot for them to handle (SEALS), and handles its own shipboard security. The only ole Marines still perform for the Navy is shore protection at port facilities, but even then its only at domestic ports/bases, when a Navy destroyer pulls into port into a Thai port, the Navy handles it themselves.

And of course as you said, the Marines don't need a mini-airforce/navy, but they justify it with their marines take care of their own/expeditionary mindset. The Army has its own expeditionary forces, its own (rotary wing) air support, and it has its own little fleet of landing craft/amphibious vehicles just in case they ever need to land on a contested shoreline again. There is no function provided for by the Marines that isn't already provided for by another segment of the military, with the exception of V/STOL aviation. As for the Marine culture, I know plenty of guys in the Army and plenty of guys in the Marines. The only difference in the Culture is that almost EVERY Marine is borderline psychotic (because every Marine is trained as an infantryman first and foremost), while only the actual trigger pullers are in the Army. You strip away the uniforms and any kit that might identify you by service branch, and there isn't much difference between a Soldier or a Marine (or even an Air Force ROMAD/TACP for that manner).

Just out of curiosity, do you have any time in service, or is your knowledge of the Marines based off second hand hearsay. I ask because of your comment about almost all Marines being borderline psycotic. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

chaos0xomega wrote:I challenge everything you said regarding the marines. The Marines don't fulfill any function that is still relevant to the Navy. The Navy trains its own personnel to conduct VBSS operations (something that the Marines should be doing), has its own spec ops when things get too hot for them to handle (SEALS), and handles its own shipboard security. The only ole Marines still perform for the Navy is shore protection at port facilities, but even then its only at domestic ports/bases, when a Navy destroyer pulls into port into a Thai port, the Navy handles it themselves.

The Navy does not have sufficient amphibious assault troops (The current operational goal of the Marines). These days the military actually gets critics pointing fingers at it for deploying Marines as if they were the Army, a role that doctrinally, they're not suited for. The Army is a sledgehammer combined with a swiss army knife. The Marine corp is more of a butchers knife with some nice accessory attachments.

And of course as you said, the Marines don't need a mini-airforce/navy, but they justify it with their marines take care of their own/expeditionary mindset.

I get why the Marines have it, their essentially their own miniature combined arms force, solely capable of operating on their own outside of the support of the other branches to an extent. I just don't see the point of such a force anymore. Their amphibious ability is valuable, but why they need their own fleet and air force I question, especially since they're attached to the Navy, who provides both.

The Army has its own expeditionary forces, its own (rotary wing) air support, and it has its own little fleet of landing craft/amphibious vehicles just in case they ever need to land on a contested shoreline again.

But doctrinally the Army is not an organization specialized in amphibious assault. For a nation with no land boarders with real enemies (frankly a country with only two land boarders in general that is likely to constantly see its forces projected overseas), having a large dedicated force able to assault from the sea is very useful. The Army is not on its own capable of this role (not in its present structure). None of the standing Army divisions are able to operate as a dedicated amphibious forces. They can do it, but it's not a task that they were primarily designed for.

The only difference in the Culture is that almost EVERY Marine is borderline psychotic (because every Marine is trained as an infantryman first and foremost),

I've known marines too. They seemed perfectly sane to me.

You strip away the uniforms and any kit that might identify you by service branch, and there isn't much difference between a Soldier or a Marine (or even an Air Force ROMAD/TACP for that manner).

I'd question your friends more carefully. As a group, the Marines have a spirit and a level of morale unique to themselves in the US military. We could always incorporate the Marines into the Army, but I think doing so risks eliminating the esprit de corps that has been built by the Marines for 200 years. The mentality of a marine is very different from that of an Army soldier. Not psychotic, but more aggressive for sure, and dare I say, with that special mix of crazy in just the right amount that gives them the ability to go in and get certain types of jobs done that could render other troops less effective.

EDIT: I use crazy in the above case, in the same sense that it takes a certain kind of 'crazy' to jump out of a perfectly good airplane, although the airborne are an organization that, as much as I love them, the usefulness in modern warfare can easily be called into question.

It isn't about making money from selling off aircraft carriers. I don't know where you got that from.

It's about reducing operational costs, and you can save a huge amount of money by simply having less carrier fleets. Building less new generation support craft with no real operational role. Having less top of the line fighter aircraft with no-one to fight.

I never said anything about aircraft carriers... I said Navy, which features a lot of ships other than carriers, although I agree with you on all points.

Relapse wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:I challenge everything you said regarding the marines. The Marines don't fulfill any function that is still relevant to the Navy. The Navy trains its own personnel to conduct VBSS operations (something that the Marines should be doing), has its own spec ops when things get too hot for them to handle (SEALS), and handles its own shipboard security. The only ole Marines still perform for the Navy is shore protection at port facilities, but even then its only at domestic ports/bases, when a Navy destroyer pulls into port into a Thai port, the Navy handles it themselves.

And of course as you said, the Marines don't need a mini-airforce/navy, but they justify it with their marines take care of their own/expeditionary mindset. The Army has its own expeditionary forces, its own (rotary wing) air support, and it has its own little fleet of landing craft/amphibious vehicles just in case they ever need to land on a contested shoreline again. There is no function provided for by the Marines that isn't already provided for by another segment of the military, with the exception of V/STOL aviation. As for the Marine culture, I know plenty of guys in the Army and plenty of guys in the Marines. The only difference in the Culture is that almost EVERY Marine is borderline psychotic (because every Marine is trained as an infantryman first and foremost), while only the actual trigger pullers are in the Army. You strip away the uniforms and any kit that might identify you by service branch, and there isn't much difference between a Soldier or a Marine (or even an Air Force ROMAD/TACP for that manner).

Just out of curiosity, do you have any time in service, or is your knowledge of the Marines based off second hand hearsay. I ask because of your comment about almost all Marines being borderline psycotic. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes I do have (very limited) time in service. The comments about borderline psychotic wasn't meant to be taken literally, cool your jets.

The Navy does not have sufficient amphibious assault troops (The current operational goal of the Marines). These days the military actually gets critics pointing fingers at it for deploying Marines as if they were the Army, a role that doctrinally, they're not suited for. The Army is a sledgehammer combined with a swiss army knife. The Marine corp is more of a butchers knife with some nice accessory attachments.

The Army can run the full spectrum of operations that the Marines can, and more. The Navy doesn't need amphibious troops, the Army can handle it and we're a joint force anyway, the branches are only responsible for training and equipping forces these days, employment is the responsibility of a combatant commander which is more often than not an Army officer.

I get why the Marines have it, their essentially their own miniature combined arms force, solely capable of operating on their own outside of the support of the other branches to an extent. I just don't see the point of such a force anymore. Their amphibious ability is valuable, but why they need their own fleet and air force I question, especially since they're attached to the Navy, who provides both.

Its a holdover from the Cold War/pre-Goldwater Nichols Act, back in the day each military branch was responsible for planning and executing its own operations independent of the other branches. I.E. -the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines would each plan, execute, and evaluate their own campaigns independently of one another. The Joint Chiefs were there to 'deconflict' these operations, giving operational oversight of some areas to the different branches of service, so that you wouldn't have the Navy attempting strike missions on a target that the Air Force was going to carpet bomb 30 minutes later. That structure required the Marines (because of the necessities of fighting in an expeditionary environment) to be able to completely support themselves with organic support units. The other branches could be expected to deliver support (naval gunfire/air support primarily), but this was on an 'on-call' basis rather than a permanent solution to the problem the Marines would face fighting in a frontier setting away from the 'front-lines'/the rest of the force.

These days they don't need it, but as I understand it, Congress has mandated the Structure of the Marines to include 3 Air Wings (part of a protective measure passed in an attempt to keep the Marines from being disbanded following WW2), so those assets remain where they are, the Marines are glad to have them, and very few are seriously willing to openly question the Marines on the subject, because the Marine Corps propaganda machine (rivaled only by those of authoritarian dictatorships (Harry Truman said it himself)) has convinced America that it is an apple pie institution.

But doctrinally the Army is not an organization specialized in amphibious assault. For a nation with no land boarders with real enemies (frankly a country with only two land boarders in general that is likely to constantly see its forces projected overseas), having a large dedicated force able to assault from the sea is very useful. The Army is not on its own capable of this role (not in its present structure). None of the standing Army divisions are able to operate as a dedicated amphibious forces. They can do it, but it's not a task that they were primarily designed for.

No, its not specialized in amphibious assault, but that didn't stop it from making a mess of the Germans on D-Day, the largest amphibious assault in history, which, btw, didn't have a single Marine hitting the beaches. The Army also participated in amphibious operations in the pacific, and even had a few units hit the beaches at Inchon (which was commanded by an Army officer, btw). In fact, the Army has conducted more amphibious landings than the Marine Corps has. The Army divisional structure you speak of is also outdated, they use the BCT structure these days, which are very well suited to conducted amphibious ops (in fact the structure was devised to allow for rapid deployment in an expeditionary setting). Hell, IIRC, the JHSV program (join high speed vessel) which started life as an Army program, was designed for rapid and efficient transport of a BCT from ship to shore in a contested environment.

I've known marines too. They seemed perfectly sane to me.

Figure of speech, same as how you used crazy in your next quote.

I'd question your friends more carefully. As a group, the Marines have a spirit and a level of morale unique to themselves in the US military. We could always incorporate the Marines into the Army, but I think doing so risks eliminating the esprit de corps that has been built by the Marines for 200 years. The mentality of a marine is very different from that of an Army soldier. Not psychotic, but more aggressive for sure, and dare I say, with that special mix of crazy in just the right amount that gives them the ability to go in and get certain types of jobs done that could render other troops less effective.

EDIT: I use crazy in the above case, in the same sense that it takes a certain kind of 'crazy' to jump out of a perfectly good airplane, although the airborne are an organization that, as much as I love them, the usefulness in modern warfare can easily be called into question.

I really don't see any difference between the Marines I know and the Army Infantry, Armor, and Artillery guys I know. They all have a same mentality, espirit de corps, and pride (especially the Army Rangers I know). The difference, again, is that in the Marines this mindset virtually extends to the entire organization, while in the Army it is more occupational and limited to the fighters and not the accountants, maintainers, and desk jockeys.

No, its not specialized in amphibious assault, but that didn't stop it from making a mess of the Germans on D-Day, the largest amphibious assault in history, which, btw, didn't have a single Marine hitting the beaches.

Multiple errors on D-Day, and the near failure to take the Omaha beach head actually helped save the Marine Corp by emphasising the need for a dedicated amphibious assault force. The entire corp was busy in WWII in the Pacific, where I'd argue they were needed more than in the ETO given the nature of the Pacific campaign. Really, we probably could have used more Marines in WWII so that we could send some to ETO (of course, at this time the Marines as a dedicated amphibious force wasn't fully realized yet. That happened after the war).

This is compounded by the nature of a modern army. Machinery, techniques, and skill sets have become highly specialized, making cross training more difficult. We can train everyone to assault amphibiously, but if we want a dedicated unit, which would increase the efficiency of a force conducting such an operation, we really need a dedicated unit. In WWII, we could train an Infantry division to assault amphibiously equal to the Marines. But the techniques and equipment of a modern such operation are too complex (not to mentioned Expensive) to allow such a practice to happen again.

Now, we can certainly integrate one into the Army, but it won't save much money. We'd need to raise the new force. I'd also argue this would not help much. An amphibious assault needs to be conducted in VERY close consort with naval forces, which is why the Marines function as part of the Navy past a certain point. Ideally, the Marines would lead such an assault or operate as the lynchpin something they are more suited for than any Army unit.

Also, Inchon may have been commanded by MacArthur, but that doesn't mean much. The primary troops involved were Marines, and MacArthur easily had more experience in the amphibious than anyone else in the US military at the time. He ran the pacific war in WWII, and the Marines don't get to operate at higher command levels in the same way as Army commanders because of their integration with the Navy (it doesn't help that in the Army-Marine tug of war, the Army pulls more weight in higher command levels EDIT: It also has a much larger pool of general officers to choose from for such purposes and operations usually don't consist simply of an amphibious assault). MacArthur also has the benefit of being the commander of the Korean war at the time.

The Army divisional structure you speak of is also outdated, they use the BCT structure these days, which are very well suited to conducted amphibious ops

I'm talking about the BCT. It has no elements integral to the structure of army combat groups to facilitate amphibious assaults (Or high responsiveness for that matter). The capability to assault from sea for the Army comes from outside the combat element, and the concept of an amphibious assault falls outside the realm of half the Army divisions.

Hell, IIRC, the JHSV program (join high speed vessel) which started life as an Army program, was designed for rapid and efficient transport of a BCT from ship to shore in a contested environment.

One can have a combat force dedicated to a task while still having others capable of performing it. And all of the Army's JHSV's are Navy now. This really goes back to the constant back and forth between the Army and the Marines over who should have what capability. The two overlap in the area of amphibious capability, but the Army is not dedicatedly capable of it, and we need such ability to project force. The Marines fill that roll.

I see no real reason to disband them. We'd save no money. New divisions would have to be raised in the Army or Navy to do what the Marines do or reorder existing forces.

Figure of speech, same as how you used crazy in your next quote.

Moving on then

The difference, again, is that in the Marines this mindset virtually extends to the entire organization,

And that has a great deal of usefulness. It hints at a stronger sense of loyalty to the organization than found in the Army, part of why the Marines are so useful as a dedicated assault force.

LordofHats wrote:

No, its not specialized in amphibious assault, but that didn't stop it from making a mess of the Germans on D-Day, the largest amphibious assault in history, which, btw, didn't have a single Marine hitting the beaches.

Multiple errors on D-Day, and the near failure to take the Omaha beach head actually helped save the Marine Corp by emphasising the need for a dedicated amphibious assault force. The entire corp was busy in WWII in the Pacific, where I'd argue they were needed more than in the ETO given the nature of the Pacific campaign. Really, we probably could have used more Marines in WWII so that we could send some to ETO (of course, at this time the Marines as a dedicated amphibious force wasn't fully realized yet. That happened after the war).

This is compounded by the nature of a modern army. Machinery, techniques, and skill sets have become highly specialized, making cross training more difficult. We can train everyone to assault amphibiously, but if we want a dedicated unit, which would increase the efficiency of a force conducting such an operation, we really need a dedicated unit. In WWII, we could train an Infantry division to assault amphibiously equal to the Marines. But the techniques and equipment of a modern such operation are too complex (not to mentioned Expensive) to allow such a practice to happen again.

Now, we can certainly integrate one into the Army, but it won't save much money. We'd need to raise the new force. I'd also argue this would not help much. An amphibious assault needs to be conducted in VERY close consort with naval forces, which is why the Marines function as part of the Navy past a certain point. Ideally, the Marines would lead such an assault or operate as the lynchpin something they are more suited for than any Army unit.

Also, Inchon may have been commanded by MacArthur, but that doesn't mean much. The primary troops involved were Marines, and MacArthur easily had more experience in the amphibious than anyone else in the US military at the time. He ran the pacific war in WWII, and the Marines don't get to operate at higher command levels in the same way as Army commanders because of their integration with the Navy (it doesn't help that in the Army-Marine tug of war, the Army pulls more weight in higher command levels EDIT: It also has a much larger pool of general officers to choose from for such purposes and operations usually don't consist simply of an amphibious assault). MacArthur also has the benefit of being the commander of the Korean war at the time.

I'm not sure this is accurate. Everything I know about the Marines tells me that there is no specialized widespread training in amphibious operations. The Expeditionary Warfare School (formerly Amphibious Warfare School) trains only officers in expeditionary warfare techniques, tactics, strategy, logistics, etc. The only real widespread training Marines receive in conducting amphibious ops is when they conduct an amphibious FTX/FEX (field training exercise or field exercise, different names for different branches). In fact, the Marines ran their first brigade level amphibious training exercise in the past ten years at the start of this year, so it really wouldn't be that difficult to qualify the Army to the same standard of the Corps at all (look up 'Bold Alligator' for more info).

As for Inchon, X Corps (the unit which hit the beach there) was made up of the 1st Marine Division and the 7th Army Division. Again, the Army has a long history of conducting amphibious ops. The only real difference was that the Marines were the first wave in, but the beach was still contested when the Army started arriving.

I'm talking about the BCT. It has no elements integral to the structure of army combat groups to facilitate amphibious assaults (Or high responsiveness for that matter). The capability to assault from sea for the Army comes from outside the combat element, and the concept of an amphibious assault falls outside the realm of half the Army divisions.

You standard MEU is the same thing. The amphibious capability (with the exception of a number of Amphibious Assault Vehicles) comes from the Navy and is not organic to the MEU itself . Eliminating the Corps would pretty much be as simple as sticking existing BCT's onto amphibs. You might need to bring in Navy/Air Force pilots to fly some of the fixed wing/tiltrotor aircraft, but most of the rotary wing assets are not beyond the skill and training of army aviation. A slight reorganization of some BCTs might be needed to better optimize them for the mission, but considering that the Army is still reorganizing them anyway, its not like you would be incurring a serious added cost. An infantry BCT should fit with no issues, but is not optimal for the mission because it lacks heavy armor. A Stryker brigade probably wouldn't fit, but I don't have specific numbers. A Heavy Brigade could fit, but it would be a really tight squeeze, but would be the closest thing to optimal in the existing structure. The best option, IMO, would be to make a fourth classification of the Infantry BCT (currently there is air assault, airborne, and light/motorized): Amphibious, and transfer in a few abrams (which the Army would have 600 more of after the dissolution of the Corps.

One can have a combat force dedicated to a task while still having others capable of performing it. And all of the Army's JHSV's are Navy now. This really goes back to the constant back and forth between the Army and the Marines over who should have what capability. The two overlap in the area of amphibious capability, but the Army is not dedicatedly capable of it, and we need such ability to project force. The Marines fill that roll.

I see no real reason to disband them. We'd save no money. New divisions would have to be raised in the Army or Navy to do what the Marines do or reorder existing forces.

The Marines are only 'dedicated' to it because they are the ones that get parked on amphibs. You put (a portion of) the Army in that position and they would be just as dedicated. As stated before, large scale/widespread amphibious training is not something the Marines have conducted very often this past decade. You would in actuality save tons of money by eliminating the Corps. I don't doubt that a additional BCT's would have to be raised, but the equipment would already be there, leftover from the Corps, and you would eliminate the redundancy of having a completely separate parallel command structure and all the senior officers, etc. that comes with it. Likewise you integrate the air component of the Corps into the Navy/Air Force and you would save on the separate command structure, logistics facilities, etc. that come with that.

Besides that, the vast majority of the defense establishment says we'll probably never have to take a contested shoreline again on a large scale, and most expeditionary assaults (including those staged by the Marines to establish a beachhead, helos flew marines in behind the 'front' and then heavier equipment was brought in by boat to link up with them) occur by air anyway, which the Army happens to be particularly good at (and in fact TRAINS the marines in...). Do we need to maintain an entirely separate branch of military in order to preserve a capability that they themselves don't practice and haven't practiced in decades, when we can do almost/just as well by letting the Army handle it? In fact, the EFV (expeditionary fighting vehicle) program was killed. Unless something miraculous happens, the Marines aren't going to have an amphibious assault vehicle at all in the near future... and thats actually entirely fine, since the Navy doesn't want to conduct that kind of amphibious operation any longer. Aside from its ridiculous price tag, the EFV's major failing is that anti-ship missile technology evolved considerably since the programs inception. Originally it was intended to deliver marines to the shore from beyond the range of coastal defenses, some 25 miles or so. Now pretty much every non-failed state has coastal defenses/anti-ship missiles that can deny us access from 50-100 miles away. The Marines themselves have acknowledged that any future amphibious assault will primarily occur from the air, with heavier equipment being brought in later by boat once it was secured, hence the lack of well decks on the America Class amphibs. So I ask again, why continue to preserve something that they themselves are not seriously interested in preserving? The Army are much better versed at air assault ops than the Marines, and are much better equipped/organized to do it.

And that has a great deal of usefulness. It hints at a stronger sense of loyalty to the organization than found in the Army, part of why the Marines are so useful as a dedicated assault force.

I disagree. The marine mindset/ethos is a lot like the Space Wolves in Prospero Burns (yes, I did just make that analogy). The 'ferociousness' for lack of a better term is an act/institution wide psyop thats been going on since their creation. In function, motivation, and morale they really are no different than the Army, all that separates the two is a uniform and tradition. Perhaps once, long ago (well before my time) this was different, but in an all volunteer military a lot of the advantages that would be gained by such a culture are lost.