9-9-9 : The APS debate

[Jamisjockey]

I still don't get why some of you don't take RP seriously.  
While I admire Cain's fortitude to step up and make a plan, reduce spending, and try and force the government into an income/spending box, I still am not sure that he doesn't see the government as a central planning tool.  
Ron Paul is wholly anti-central planning.  He also believes in trashing the 16th amendment.  The 16th Amendment is the only tool the Federal government has at its disposal to create the havoc it does.  Without that one little pesky amendment, the Federal government loses its ability to run ramshod over state and local governments, and over we, the people.
Take a gander at his positions
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
Tell me, which of them don't line up with the constitution, as written, 200 years ago?


The biggest support Cain gets for me is his beliefs in reducing the size of government, and reducing government regulations.  But if you boil down most of his other positions, he's not much different from the goodhair brothers. 

[MechAg94]

VAT and sales tax are not the same thing.  It is not just "whatever", they just are not the same thing.  A sales tax is paid at the retail level by the purchaser who sees the entire tax.  A Value Added Tax is more hidden.  It is paid at every level where value is added to the product.  The retail customer doesn't see it directly. 

I do like Ron Paul's answer when asked about what he would replace the current income tax with.  He suggested cutting spending until you don't need the income tax at all.  I haven't really changed my mind about him.  I would love to see him involved in an administration, but I'm not sure I want him as President.

I'm not sure I am for the 9-9-9 plan or not.  I would rather see it before with simply a flat income tax across the board with no sales tax.  Then we can talk about replacing it or eliminating it. 

Another idea might be some law or amendment to ban the progressive income tax.

[Tallpine]

he's the only candidate with a plan to simplify the tax code.

Doing away with it isn't simple 

[TommyGunn]

I would support a consumption tax - call it a national sales tax, VAT tax, whatever - ONLY if it completely REPLACED the income tax.

Anything that combines a NEW tax with a temporary reduction (and trust me, the reduction WILL be temporary!) in the income tax will not end well.

I don't know why Cain hasn't embraced the FAIR tax; it's not perfect, but it's a vast improvement over what we have now and seems to be very workable.
Quote: "But . . . but . . .  whut abouts my welfare check? They doesn't take nuthin' from dat now, and I'se a gunna hafta pay MO fo my beer and butts!"

Herman Cain HAS embraced the "fairtax;"  the 9-9-9 plan is only a stepping stone to the fairtax!

[longeyes]

I still don't get why some of you don't take RP seriously.  
While I admire Cain's fortitude to step up and make a plan, reduce spending, and try and force the government into an income/spending box, I still am not sure that he doesn't see the government as a central planning tool.  
Ron Paul is wholly anti-central planning.  He also believes in trashing the 16th amendment.  The 16th Amendment is the only tool the Federal government has at its disposal to create the havoc it does.  Without that one little pesky amendment, the Federal government loses its ability to run ramshod over state and local governments, and over we, the people.
Take a gander at his positions
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
Tell me, which of them don't line up with the constitution, as written, 200 years ago?


The biggest support Cain gets for me is his beliefs in reducing the size of government, and reducing government regulations.  But if you boil down most of his other positions, he's not much different from the goodhair brothers. 

Ron Paul is a victim of our telegenic-focused times.  If he were more Obi Wan Kenobi-like he'd have larger audiences.  Paul is a critical thinker and a true maverick in an era where people, even good ones, want pabulum and pandering.  He challenges America's sacred cows, fearlessly, and when you do that you can't expect to get more than the outlying ten per cent.  I think he will be proven to be right about just about everything, probably way too late to matter.

[Jamisjockey]

VAT and sales tax are not the same thing.  It is not just "whatever", they just are not the same thing.  A sales tax is paid at the retail level by the purchaser who sees the entire tax.  A Value Added Tax is more hidden.  It is paid at every level where value is added to the product.  The retail customer doesn't see it directly. 

I do like Ron Paul's answer when asked about what he would replace the current income tax with.  He suggested cutting spending until you don't need the income tax at all.  I haven't really changed my mind about him.  I would love to see him involved in an administration, but I'm not sure I want him as President.

I'm not sure I am for the 9-9-9 plan or not.  I would rather see it before with simply a flat income tax across the board with no sales tax.  Then we can talk about replacing it or eliminating it. 

Another idea might be some law or amendment to ban the progressive income tax.

And why do we need a Federal government that operates at a level it's required to collect income tax?
What does the Federal government do so much better that can't be done by the state and local governments? 

[roo_ster]

And why do we need a Federal government that operates at a level it's required to collect income tax?
What does the Federal government do so much better that can't be done by the state and local governments? 

Oppress us all equally.

[Jamisjockey]

Oppress us all equally.

This. 

I'm sure the counter argument is going to be national defense.  It always is.  But but but but we need to occupy dozens of countries around the world!  Otherwise, the terrists win!
Which is a full 1/4 of the federal budget. 

[makattak]

What does the Federal government do so much better that can't be done by the state and local governments? 

National Defense. Anything else, I'm fine with leaving it to the states and have the Federal Government as an arbiter of disputes. ("Louisiana is getting its smog on me!" "California, you are half the country away. You can't even see Louisiana from where you sit. Now shut up and eat your granola.")

[Jamisjockey]

National Defense. Anything else, I'm fine with leaving it to the states and have the Federal Government as an arbiter of disputes. ("Louisiana is getting its smog on me!" "California, you are half the country away. You can't even see Louisiana from where you sit. Now shut up and eat your granola.")

And we need a giant standing army and war industry for what exactly?  Besides projecting our bully pulpit around the world, empire building, and supporting puppet regimes?

[makattak]

And we need a giant standing army and war industry for what exactly?  Besides projecting our bully pulpit around the world, empire building, and supporting puppet regimes?

Si vis pacem, para bellum. 

[Jamisjockey]

Si vis pacem, para bellum. 

Great in theory.  But instead, since the inception of this country, war has simply been treated as a method of profiteering. 


"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
General Smedly Butler, USMC


The visible defense budget is nearly 1 trillion dollars.  $1,000,000,000,000.00
It costs us as much as Social Security does.


Is there incentive, and could an arugment be made to keep some kind of standing military, well trained and ready to defend America?  Yes.  But at what expense?  We do not need bases in dozens of other countries.  We do not need a huge naval fleet. 

[makattak]

Great in theory.  But instead, since the inception of this country, war has simply been treated as a method of profiteering. 


"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
General Smedly Butler, USMC


The visible defense budget is nearly 1 trillion dollars.  $1,000,000,000,000.00
It costs us as much as Social Security does.


Is there incentive, and could an arugment be made to keep some kind of standing military, well trained and ready to defend America?  Yes.  But at what expense?  We do not need bases in dozens of other countries.  We do not need a huge naval fleet. 

And what in my post suggests I do not believe we could cut back on the amount spent on the military. (We probably disagree on how much less, but I'm sure we can both agree on "less.")

I didn't argue for the status quo. I argued that Defense is one of the few legitimate purposes of the Federal government. You seemed to suggest National defense should be left to state and local governments. (I don't think that you did, but you did not include defense as a purpose for the Federal government.)

[MicroBalrog]

There are some very very important aspects of defense that are probably best handled locally.

[lupinus]

I don't know why Cain hasn't embraced the FAIR tax; it's not perfect, but it's a vast improvement over what we have now and seems to be very workable.
Quote: "But . . . but . . .  whut abouts my welfare check? They doesn't take nuthin' from dat now, and I'se a gunna hafta pay MO fo my beer and butts!"

I direct your attention to the section labeled Phase 2

http://www.hermancain.com/999plan

[Jamisjockey]

I think we disagree firstly on how the federal government funds the DoD.  Im also of the opinion that the national gaurd is the modern militia, and should be relied upon more. Of course, just pulling troops home from the dozens of large bases around the world would save hundreds of billions. 

[HankB]

. . .  Im also of the opinion that the national gaurd is the modern militia, and should be relied upon more . . .

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.

Jamis or George . . . Jamis or George . . . I think I'll agree with George on the militia.

Though we might draw the line a bit differently, Jamis has a point on our overseas military commitments . . .

[roo_ster]

Great in theory.  But instead, since the inception of this country, war has simply been treated as a method of profiteering. 


"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
General Smedly Butler, USMC


The visible defense budget is nearly 1 trillion dollars.  $1,000,000,000,000.00
It costs us as much as Social Security does.


Is there incentive, and could an arugment be made to keep some kind of standing military, well trained and ready to defend America?  Yes.  But at what expense?  We do not need bases in dozens of other countries.  We do not need a huge naval fleet. 

Ah, the old "war profiteering" plaint.  Usually the tool of lefties.  Quaint to see it given present-day .mil expenditures as a portion of GDP.

Butler is proof that even CPUSA conspiracy nuts can be brave.  Not exactly the guy to go quoting, though.

I don't have much of a problem with going into dunghill countries and knocking heads when they run around expropriating the property of American citizens or otherwise threaten out interests.  Heck, in those days sending in the jarheads was considered low-profile and no big whoop.  Things were not thought to be truly serious until the Army was tossed into the mix.  It is the lingering for decades that is the problem.

Jamis or George . . . Jamis or George . . . I think I'll agree with George on the militia.

Though we might draw the line a bit differently, Jamis has a point on our overseas military commitments . . .

Yep, Ntl Guard != Militia in any way, shape, or form.

[roo_ster]

I think we disagree firstly on how the federal government funds the DoD.  Im also of the opinion that the national gaurd is the modern militia, and should be relied upon more. Of course, just pulling troops home from the dozens of large bases around the world would save hundreds of billions. 

Yeah, not so much.  If regular Army officers are in their chain of command and their top officer is not their governor, they are not militia.  Orvil Faubus was taught the error of tis notion a while back.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

9-9-9 would mean about 17% sales tax here.
It would be interesting, might do a lot of good for the country... but if (as is likely) it brings in more revenue than they expect, they will again spend like drunken sailors, and thus jack up rates a little more.

It's interesting to look at the Bahamas and their 1-2% property taxes (and nothing else) and wonder how they do it. Majority African and 98% literacy.

[Jamisjockey]

It is the lingering for decades that is the problem.

My point exactly, and where I differ from Smedly on his points about war profiteering.

 

Jamis or George . . . Jamis or George . . . I think I'll agree with George on the militia.

Though we might draw the line a bit differently, Jamis has a point on our overseas military commitments . . .

We are no longer a nation of doers.  While it would be dandy to know that I could rely on my neighbor to pick up a rifle and hold the line, it is not the case.  The states have built up a part-time soldier force known as the National Gaurd, though.  With a better prepared national gaurd, and a smaller standing army, IMHO, we could face off against actual threats just as effectively as we can now.  Are they actually the militia? No.  The National Gaurd has replaced the true militia in this country.

[HankB]

. . . The states have built up a part-time soldier force known as the National Gaurd, though.  With a better prepared national gaurd, and a smaller standing army, IMHO, we could face off against actual threats just as effectively as we can now.  Are they actually the militia? No.  The National Gaurd has replaced the true militia in this country.

Hint: your argument might be more compelling if you were to spell "Guard" correctly . . .   

[longeyes]

And what in my post suggests I do not believe we could cut back on the amount spent on the military. (We probably disagree on how much less, but I'm sure we can both agree on "less.")

I didn't argue for the status quo. I argued that Defense is one of the few legitimate purposes of the Federal government. You seemed to suggest National defense should be left to state and local governments. (I don't think that you did, but you did not include defense as a purpose for the Federal government.)

What good is a trillion-dollar military we either won't use strategically--where the real threats lie--or that we use to further dubious ends orchestrated by people who do not represent the interests of the American people as a whole?  We just spend eight years "liberating" Iraq and now we are about to turn it over to Iran.  We have been in Afghanistan for ten years--good poppy crop this year, I hear.

[roo_ster]

My point exactly, and where I differ from Smedly on his points about war profiteering.

Michael Yon has been going on along that vein for a while, while some of the more cheerleading types speak ill of him for doing so.

The project was funded by USAID and implemented by Central Asia Development Group (CADG).  The cost of the project was $139,948 from January to September 2010.  If all costs are included, bets are on that a single trip by Marines in their Ospreys to Zaranj will cost multiples of that amount, and little will have been achieved other than some tea time.  Using the military for this sort of nation-building is like outfitting the US Postal service with helicopters to deliver postcards.  Stamps would cost a thousand dollars and moms would quickly tire of having helicopter hurricanes blowing the kids off their bikes.  Likewise, we would not deploy the postal service to hunt Taliban.  The military can actually succeed in nation-building, but at tremendous expense while obligating the military for years on end.

The war has reached its military apogee.  We are looking for a way to land that doesn’t include crashing.  We must face the reality that building Afghanistan to any level of modernity will require a century.

Whenever someone derides you for not supporting nation building in Astan, remind them that Haiti has more literacy, paved roads, and GDP per capita and Astan.  Then remind them that the USA occupied Haiti for 20 years and Haiti became civilized and joined the ranks of somewhat impoverished but improving and striving nations was still a sink of barbarism, superstition, and horrific factional violence afterwards.  Just as it was before we occupied them.

[RevDisk]

Yeah, not so much.  If regular Army officers are in their chain of command and their top officer is not their governor, they are not militia.  Orvil Faubus was taught the error of tis notion a while back.

Ayep.  They're not the militia if they can be called up to federal duty without the permission of their state.  And this is definitely the case. 

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109-364

Authorized the Prez to call up the Guard and completely overrides the Governor.

The National Defense Authorization Act 2008 Pub.L. 110-181

PARTIALLY replaced some provisions of Pub.L. 109-364.  Basically, it changed nothing except that Congress has to declare a war or emergency first.  Also, it made the DoD the owner of the National Guard Bureau.


That said, our national defense should be in the hands of the NG.  Our national offense should be in the hands of the DoD.

Anyone that thinks the NG wouldn't perform national defense better than the RA is more wrong than not.  NG is much more likely to know the local terrain and personnel than the RA.  NG has a LARGE motivation to do the job.  Shorter lines of supply, shorter deployment distance, etc.  Decentralized command structures would be nearly impossible to completely kill, but inter command structure communication is reasonably decent.  It'd be better, except the DoD is not kosher with it for obvious reasons.  And they basically have identical training, real world combat experience, equipment, etc.  Sure, Rangers or regular SF units would be better trained for direct warfare than XYZ Transportation Company.  OTOH, there are five regular Army active duty and two Army National Guard Special Forces groups.  So yea, the NG does have plenty of SF units as well.

It'll never happen.  1) Politics.  2) Pork.  3) It'd be too effective for too little cash.


Then again, maybe I'm just bitter because the DoD stole my state's A-10 Warthog squadron.  We're left with the 193rd Air Special Operations Wing (Electronic Warfare) in Middletown and the 171st Air Refueling Wing in Pittsburgh.  Probably just someone offered a better bribe for the pork.  Others liked to think folks down in DC was nervous that Pennsylvania has the largest number of soldiers under state control (15,000 members), and wanted to make sure we had no air superiority or CAS capacity.  Wishful thinking, but still funny.

*snort*