[QUOTE=R3mix;27019884]This. Fuck the defense, all we need is a proper missile defense system, a proper-sized military, but for fucks sake. CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET OF 800$ BILLION A YEAR AND OVER. IT'S FUCKING OUR ECONOMY UP. I blame the baby boomers for the fact we won't have a fucking retirement pension.[/QUOTE]
I think we should have a system where in times of peace we have a small professional army and a large militia and we keep most of our carriers and aircraft in maintained storage. Then we flood the rest of the funding into military research focusing on technology that is both effective and easy to mass produce.
Then in times of great war, we can bolster the professional army with military members, bring all of our aircraft and carriers out of storage, and mass produce anything more we need.
It's just an idea, I'm no military specialist, but it looks legitimate to me.
[QUOTE=Billiam;27035310]I think we should have a system where in times of peace we have a small professional army and a large militia and we keep most of our carriers and aircraft in maintained storage. Then we flood the rest of the funding into military research focusing on technology that is both effective and easy to mass produce.
Then in times of great war, we can bolster the professional army with military members, bring all of our aircraft and carriers out of storage, and mass produce anything more we need.
It's just an idea, I'm no military specialist, but it looks legitimate to me.[/QUOTE]
While the strategy is sound, it wouldn't hold up in modern warfare, modern combat is simply too fast to hold back assets. Cold war sure, but not in a conflict where you can have a sizable enemy force go from Beijing to San Fransisco in as little as 3-4 days. You need to keep strategic military assets on standby at all times in this day and age, and if not on standby then in a state where they can achieve full combat readiness in a matter of days.
[QUOTE=Billiam;27035310]I think we should have a system where in times of peace we have a small professional army and a large militia and we keep most of our carriers and aircraft in maintained storage. Then we flood the rest of the funding into military research focusing on technology that is both effective and easy to mass produce.
Then in times of great war, we can bolster the professional army with military members, bring all of our aircraft and carriers out of storage, and mass produce anything more we need.
It's just an idea, I'm no military specialist, but it looks legitimate to me.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure the reason we have all these carriers out there is so we can get places with them, fast. You can't do that with them if we have a bunch in storage.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;27025586]Yeah because that was common knowledge.[/QUOTE]
it kinda is
[QUOTE=makingthatmaker;27030564]doucheking[/QUOTE]
He's right though, Social Security was never meant to last past the depression. The entire system is bascially destroyed and is only going to get worse as more and more Baby Boomers begin to retire. They're the larger part of our Population right now and every young person will be paying taxes holding up several previous generations. Its going to weigh us down heavily, you can see it start to crack in countries like Japan.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;27039458]While the strategy is sound, it wouldn't hold up in modern warfare, modern combat is simply too fast to hold back assets. Cold war sure, but not in a conflict where you can have a sizable enemy force go from Beijing to San Fransisco in as little as 3-4 days. You need to keep strategic military assets on standby at all times in this day and age, and if not on standby then in a state where they can achieve full combat readiness in a matter of days.[/QUOTE]
Days? Sure, if you're talking about light forces (light infantry, paratroopers) designed to handle contingencies rather than forces organized to defeat an well-organized enemy through combat. Maybe 3-4 days if an adversary learnt how to build a few dozen ships with nuclear rocket engines. Anything heavier would require heavy lift ships, taking up to a month to fully deploy in your choice of a theater for just a single division. Remember how long it took for the US to fully deploy its forces back in 1991? The issue of deployment time is still well around, regardless of the US military's "modernization" plans to cut off the fat.
The tempo of contemporary warfare is fast, but that speed will happen in other ways rather than the simple shifting of forces.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;27025653]The Baby Boomers took the wealth their parents broke their backs to create, and just tore into it like locusts without properly thinking it through, I really don't have any pity for them.[/QUOTE]
In a rare un-zeke-like move, I completely agree. In fact, I have a rather large amount of contempt for that generation since they pretty much single-handedly destroyed the world financial system.
[editline]28th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swilly;27041744]He's right though, Social Security was never meant to last past the depression. The entire system is bascially destroyed and is only going to get worse as more and more Baby Boomers begin to retire. They're the larger part of our Population right now and every young person will be paying taxes holding up several previous generations. Its going to weigh us down heavily, you can see it start to crack in countries like Japan.[/QUOTE]
Actually, most developed countries have a decently-functioning social security system because they understand that social security requires higher taxes and are willing to pay them.
The first of many generations that saw social security as their entire retirement plan, rather than a small amount of additional income that was never designed to last this long.
And I do agree with cutting the defense budget. The easiest way to do that is withdraw our troops from other countries and UN aid missions. That will allow us to save a decent amount of money, will stop many of the idiots on this forum from calling the US an empire builder, and would allow us to shore up the defenses needed at home, such as guarding our borders and replacing the middle school dropouts that make up the TSA.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;27039644]Pretty sure the reason we have all these carriers out there is so we can get places with them, fast. You can't do that with them if we have a bunch in storage.[/QUOTE]
Does the US really need a third of the world's carriers deployed at one time?
[editline]29th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;27039458]While the strategy is sound, it wouldn't hold up in modern warfare, modern combat is simply too fast to hold back assets. Cold war sure, but not in a conflict where you can have a sizable enemy force go from Beijing to San Fransisco in as little as 3-4 days. You need to keep strategic military assets on standby at all times in this day and age, and if not on standby then in a state where they can achieve full combat readiness in a matter of days.[/QUOTE]
Maybe if we checked out of a few more major conflicts and did more of that drone bombing shit we could afford to place our primary assets in the most vital areas of the world, and defend our borders with reservists and militia or something.
I don't know I'm trying my hardest. :smith:
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27041268]it kinda is[/QUOTE]
This only effects the US, so anyone outside the US likely has never heard of it.
[QUOTE=Billiam;27035310]I think we should have a system where in times of peace we have a small professional army and a large militia and we keep most of our carriers and aircraft in maintained storage. Then we flood the rest of the funding into military research focusing on technology that is both effective and easy to mass produce.
Then in times of great war, we can bolster the professional army with military members, bring all of our aircraft and carriers out of storage, and mass produce anything more we need.
It's just an idea, I'm no military specialist, but it looks legitimate to me.[/QUOTE]
Your idea is great, there's a problem with it though as Canuhearme? said. It wouldn't hold up in modern warfare. Problem is, everyone these days has missiles, etc. In today's society we need to be ready in any moment ever since 9/11 because of the terrorists. Hence the reason the United States has missile defense set up all around the world too. Personally, your idea is good, but on a domestic-state level.
Consider this idea, what if we made the National Guard the State Army, per sey. By placing yourself into the "State Army" you're also signing up for the United States Army too though in times of war somewhere on the globe. So, this way the State is the only one that pays for the taxes to the army, but there's a Federal Regulation on how much they get payed, etc., which congress would inevitably pass.
So, that might be a money saver right there, and we can have our weapons on all 50 states, well look at that now, we have our entire country defended by every inch in case of warfare, and we don't need to deploy the US Airforce in case of another 9/11 repeat. We simply have the State Army right there, ready to deploy.
Now, getting to your case about focusing on technology, it sounds like a good idea, easy to produce, being able to produce in masses, and is both effective, but do we really need more weapons in today's society? As a center-left political view person, I would really like to end all the hostility in the world, and try to make peace with other countries. Producing weapons at masses is only going to end up like Soviet Russia. And look what happened there.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;27047787]This only effects the US, so anyone outside the US likely has never heard of it.[/QUOTE]
I'm Dutch and even I knew it. Baby boomers aren't US exclusive you know.
[QUOTE=Billiam;27047139]Does the US really need a third of the world's carriers deployed at one time?
[editline]29th December 2010[/editline][/quote]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Influence_of_Sea_Power_upon_History][b]Yep[/b][/url]. If you've got time pull up a chair and read the open source versions of this book.
[quote]Maybe if we checked out of a few more major conflicts and did more of that drone bombing shit we could afford to place our primary assets in the most vital areas of the world, and defend our borders with reservists and militia or something.
I don't know I'm trying my hardest. :smith:[/QUOTE]
The US already has its old Cold War holdovers in Germany, Japan, Diego Garcia and elsewhere for that and the Military Sealift Command's Maritime Prepositioning Fleet isn't going anywhere. Where do you think the most likely contingency that is most likely to involve US interests going to happen?
[QUOTE=kaven;27034250]30% seems somewhat resonable.
Unless you have a lot of bullshit extra taxes.[/QUOTE]
Actually it's a progressive tax, with the limit on how much you can get taxed at around ~35% IIRC
[QUOTE=Aide;27019060][URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101228/ap_on_bi_ge/us_retirement_crisis"]Source - yahoo news[/URL]
These next 19 years will define our federal budget. We can most likely expect 1 of 2 things. Possibly never seen retirement or bigger budget for social security and Medicare.
I for one don't ever expect to see retirement because of the fact of baby boomer's.[/QUOTE]
OP, you don't know what you're talking about. Social security is [B]solvent [/B](meaning that it won't start leaking money) until 2039. Even then, all we have to do is raise the retirement age for non-manual laborers to 67 from 65 in 2072 and it'll be completely solvent for the foreseeable future. Social security is not a big a deal as most people would have you believe.
[QUOTE=Jewsus;27061938]OP, you don't know what you're talking about. Social security is [B]solvent [/B](meaning that it won't start leaking money) until 2039. Even then, all we have to do is raise the retirement age for non-manual laborers to 67 from 65 in 2072 and it'll be completely solvent for the foreseeable future. Social security is not a big a deal as most people would have you believe.[/QUOTE]
You can't cash an IOU. Social Security is said to be solvent because of all the assets it has in the form of receipts from Congress from the past 30 years.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;27025653]Social Security wasn't meant to last the Great Depression, instead it survived because people grew used to using it and became reliant upon it.[/QUOTE]
Or because its a good idea to not have people starve
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27067246]Or because its a good idea to not have people starve[/QUOTE]
jeez that's some weird thinking you got there
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;27067300]jeez that's some weird thinking you got there[/QUOTE]
What, it helps the disabled and people who cant get jobs. Without it a lot of people would have a much worse life.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27067344]What, it helps the disabled and people who cant get jobs. Without it a lot of people would have a much worse life.[/QUOTE]
i was being sarcastic u_u
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;27067370]i was being sarcastic u_u[/QUOTE]
sorry since There are like 3 guys who already said they hate social security I thought you might be one as well.
[QUOTE=Ridge;27067209]You can't cash an IOU. Social Security is said to be solvent because of all the assets it has in the form of receipts from Congress from the past 30 years.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. How does that conflict in any way with my perhaps oversimplified explaination of the debt commission's findings on social security.
And this is why I already have $7,000 in retirement [I'm 20]
I don't understand how people can miss the fact that putting money in the retirement account is a GOOD THING. I put 10% of every paycheck into the account and live no less comfortably. It's called social security because it is there to protect you, not completely support you.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;27068366]And this is why I already have $7,000 in retirement [I'm 20]
I don't understand how people can miss the fact that putting money in the retirement account is a GOOD THING. I put 10% of every paycheck into the account and live no less comfortably. It's called social security because it is there to protect you, not completely support you.[/QUOTE]
To some people taking 10% would not let them live comfortably.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27067344]What, it helps the disabled and people who cant get jobs. Without it a lot of people would have a much worse life.[/QUOTE]
That's not how social security works you dolt.
[editline]30th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;27068366]And this is why I already have $7,000 in retirement [I'm 20]
I don't understand how people can miss the fact that putting money in the retirement account is a GOOD THING. I put 10% of every paycheck into the account and live no less comfortably. It's called social security because it is there to protect you, not completely support you.[/QUOTE]
Actually, you have given your parents $7,000 in retirement funds. Then your kids will pay in to yours. It is the only way the government can even hope to keep up with the payments that will be made in the next decades.
Also, you'd be better served to put in the minimum to social security and then putting the remainder of the 10% in a savings account or CD, where it will actually accrue interest and become worth more in the long run. When you give it to the government, they will only give you exactly what you paid in (assuming they can), and are not paying any interest for the loan you are giving them.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27042605]
Actually, most developed countries have a decently-functioning social security system because they understand that social security requires higher taxes and are willing to pay them.[/QUOTE]
Except for the missing old people and the dead ones that are registered as still alive? But I see you're point, they can at least fund these guys without taking much issue until much later. If that happened in the States, they're would be an epic trial and lots of politicos arguing.
[QUOTE=Ridge;27089223]Actually, you have given your parents $7,000 in retirement funds. Then your kids will pay in to yours. It is the only way the government can even hope to keep up with the payments that will be made in the next decades.
Also, you'd be better served to put in the minimum to social security and then putting the remainder of the 10% in a savings account or CD, where it will actually accrue interest and become worth more in the long run. When you give it to the government, they will only give you exactly what you paid in (assuming they can), and are not paying any interest for the loan you are giving them.[/QUOTE]
Base on his post, I thought that $7,000 was in an account separate from Social Security.
[QUOTE=R3mix;27019884]This. Fuck the defense, all we need is a proper missile defense system, a proper-sized military, but for fucks sake. CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET OF 800$ BILLION A YEAR AND OVER. IT'S FUCKING OUR ECONOMY UP. I blame the baby boomers for the fact we won't have a fucking retirement pension.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Every dime spent on the military is purely inflationary. The military creates a ton of people who are getting paid but produce no goods, which causes "too much money chasing too few goods".
It's a big part of why we are where we are.
[editline]31st December 2010[/editline]
Also Bush pretty much blew all the cash in the Social Security trust fund in about the first 6 months of the Iraq war.
This was after Clinton had built it back up after the first Bush pissed it all away too.
Not that I like Clinton, he was into unnecessary wars too.
[editline]31st December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=R3mix;27051052]Your idea is great, there's a problem with it though as Canuhearme? said. It wouldn't hold up in modern warfare. Problem is, everyone these days has missiles, etc. In today's society we need to be ready in any moment ever since 9/11 because of the terrorists. Hence the reason the United States has missile defense set up all around the world too. Personally, your idea is good, but on a domestic-state level.
[/QUOTE]
What? We need missile defense systems to protect ourselves from a small group of people who are practically using medieval technology? We don't need a military bigger than every other military combined.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27091951]Yes. Every dime spent on the military is purely inflationary. The military creates a ton of people who are getting paid but produce no goods, which causes "too much money chasing too few goods".
It's a big part of why we are where we are.[/quote]
You mean things like weapons, technology (without military funding, we would have no space program, no microwave ovens, no internet, and many other things your entire life is dependent on)
[quote][editline]31st December 2010[/editline]
Also Bush pretty much blew all the cash in the Social Security trust fund in about the first 6 months of the Iraq war.
This was after Clinton had built it back up after the first Bush pissed it all away too.
Not that I like Clinton, he was into unnecessary wars too.[/quote]
Bull shit. Congress has been stealing from the Social Security pool for decades. It has been a source of funding that they use without making it look like they are spending as much. It's playing the books, same as many private corporations do.
[quote][editline]31st December 2010[/editline]
What? We need missile defense systems to protect ourselves from a small group of people who are practically using medieval technology? We don't need a military bigger than every other military combined.[/QUOTE]
Jesus this is the problem with a lot of you. You don't think for the future. You are living in the now. You DO realize there are threats outside of the Taliban, right? China and Russia are gearing up for war. Countries like Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and others have nuclear weapons, or the ability to get them soon, and are constantly on the brink of being overrun by radicals who have no qualms with dying, as long as they can nuke some western city in the process.
Just because the hot topic threat doesn't use much in the way of technology doesn't mean that we should pretend there is no other threat, and only look out for the one front and center.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
