(06-03-2016 09:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why should we even care what Switzerland does?

because the angry old men on here love telling folks what to do...

(06-03-2016 10:50 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 09:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why should we even care what Switzerland does?

because the angry old men on here love telling folks what to do...

You know what. I've always suspected that the majority of conservatives on this forum are old.

There is no other logical explanation for the antiquity of some of their beliefs.

(06-03-2016 10:50 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 09:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why should we even care what Switzerland does?

because the angry old men on here love telling folks what to do...

lol

Quite the contrary

(06-03-2016 09:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why should we even care what Switzerland does?

Because it's good to be informed of new, untested systems being implemented in other countries?

(06-03-2016 11:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You know what. I've always suspected that the majority of conservatives on this forum are old.

There is no other logical explanation for the antiquity of some of their beliefs.

What is "old" to you?

(06-03-2016 11:26 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 11:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You know what. I've always suspected that the majority of conservatives on this forum are old.

There is no other logical explanation for the antiquity of some of their beliefs.

What is "old" to you?

Well I'm no spring chicken myself but I'm guessing the majority of conservatives on this forum are above 50 and the majority of "liberals" are under 50.

(06-03-2016 10:31 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 09:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And as for the Swiss military comments, we could learn a lot from them there, as well. They get more bang for their buck by having a relatively large portion of their military manpower in a reserve status--trained and ready and there if needed, but not occupying full slots on the payroll when not needed.

The difference is (IMO), the Swiss Military works almost entirely like the U.S. National Guard. There are relatively few if any (I believe) Switzerland military outposts at all anywhere in the world. Their military is mostly for defense only.

Exactly. We need a standing military to cover the power projection aspect of our defense and foreign policy. We have a need there that Switzerland and Sweden and Israel don't. Although one would reasonably conclude that Israel's survival needs match our projection needs in relative size and scope.

But we don't need hundreds of thousands sitting around with nothing to do in order to accomplish that. All that extra manpower accomplishes is to tempt a president to send it somewhere that he is pissed off with. And that has never ended well, particularly not whenever we have "limited" the scope of our involvement.

(06-03-2016 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 11:26 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  What is "old" to you?

Well I'm no spring chicken myself but I'm guessing the majority of conservatives on this forum are above 50 and the majority of "liberals" are under 50.

I do not fit your mold.

(06-03-2016 11:48 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 11:26 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  What is "old" to you?

Well I'm no spring chicken myself but I'm guessing the majority of conservatives on this forum are above 50 and the majority of "liberals" are under 50.

I do not fit your mold.

So you're a minority?

(06-03-2016 11:12 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 09:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why should we even care what Switzerland does?

Because it's good to be informed of new, untested systems being implemented in other countries?

......and chocolate. Don't forget the chocolate!!!!

There are some basic economic realities that most people just don't get.

If everyone gets $2500, that money has to come from somewhere. It comes from 'the economy'... and to replace it, 'the economy' has to price an additional $2500 in 'costs' into it. (unless you are running a federal budget surplus and the government decides to pay for it with that surplus)

If the government merely prints money (what we have done) then 'inflation' absorbs those costs... and what you used to be able to buy for $2500/mo now costs $5,000/mo. It doesn't happen overnight and it may not happen in every commodity, but the reality is that it most often happens in those things that you can't avoid buying... like food and water and energy... where 99% of the money spent by those who THINK they are benefitting the most from this goes.

In other words, the net impact is close to zero in terms of buying power... and it COULD even create 'shopping tourism' by its citizens to neighboring countries.

If this is really what someone wants to do (without commenting on the practicality or fairness of such a thing) then you need to fund it with specific and targeted taxes. At least in THAT regard, it is a straightforward 'theft' from one population and a 'gift' to another. While few would stop working as a result, I'm betting a lot of people just below that 'theft' target will decline to try and get ahead... which only creates more opportunity for the wealthy to do so. The wealth gap therefore likely widens anyway.

(06-03-2016 11:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Exactly. We need a standing military to cover the power projection aspect of our defense and foreign policy. We have a need there that Switzerland and Sweden and Israel don't. Although one would reasonably conclude that Israel's survival needs match our projection needs in relative size and scope.

But we don't need hundreds of thousands sitting around with nothing to do in order to accomplish that. All that extra manpower accomplishes is to tempt a president to send it somewhere that he is pissed off with. And that has never ended well, particularly not whenever we have "limited" the scope of our involvement.

This for the most part, you and I agree, Owl. I think we just disagree on how much extra man-power we do need. (Do I have a direct number? Nope..)

(06-03-2016 11:48 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 11:26 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  What is "old" to you?

Well I'm no spring chicken myself but I'm guessing the majority of conservatives on this forum are above 50 and the majority of "liberals" are under 50.

I do not fit your mold.

Neither do I

I was MORE conservative at 30 than I am at just over 50

(06-03-2016 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 11:26 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 11:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You know what. I've always suspected that the majority of conservatives on this forum are old.

There is no other logical explanation for the antiquity of some of their beliefs.

What is "old" to you?

Well I'm no spring chicken myself but I'm guessing the majority of conservatives on this forum are above 50 and the majority of "liberals" are under 50.

I'll be 34 at the end of the month

"Puros mocosos". A bunch of snod-nosed kids that think that they know it all.

(06-03-2016 05:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I was MORE conservative at 30 than I am at just over 50

That's because you are trying to get to heaven.

Nor do I.

Any way, Fitpud is the one with a child in college I believe. He must be old!!

(06-03-2016 07:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 05:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I was MORE conservative at 30 than I am at just over 50

That's because you are trying to get to heaven.

okay, that was funny