What the heck is BIBGIV? It's how America should do war.
Brutal In Battle, Gracious In Victory.
Wars are not won when the army on the other side is defeated; it is won when the will for war has been crushed. Right now, the US is trying to "win the hearts" of people by tip-toeing instead of fighting and the rules of engagement are costing American lives. I do not apologize when I say that when we're at war, WE SHOULD ACT LIKE WE ARE AT WAR. We should crush everything that is thrown at us and, just as importantly, after the war, we do whatever we can to help build a new government that won't repeat the mistakes of the prior government.
This gives two impressions:
1) When the American military is heading your way, if you don't surrender, you will die.
2) Everyone will know that once hostilities are over, America will take the lead in helping rebuild the country.
And if, after hostilities have ended, we see a guerrilla style insurgency, we again go into aggressor mode and crush it. We have to make sure that the potential enemies of America see not just mercy, they must see our might.
For too long, we've tried to seek acclaim from our enemies while on the battlefield and, while we shouldn't directly target civilians, if those civilians are actively housing combatants, they should expect to pay that price.
The civilians say "We do it because they will kill us," but guess what? That's not our problem; this is your country. Take control of it or we'll do it for you. I'm tired of American soldiers dying for a political reason that never works. When was the last time you saw people from the left congratulate us when we risk our soldiers' lives in order to make it softer for the enemy? When was the last time the UN recognized it? Never. We are unnecessarily spilling American blood when it's not necessary. Does anyone think that we are making friends by showing weakness? Grow up. We are the remaining super-power and need to start acting like it, instead of "just another nation".
We're not. We're America.
Let's start acting like it.
Taxes
Yeah, taxes. I'm going to make this short because I don't have a lot of time. Basically we pass the following Constitutional Amendment because I don't trust the government with taxes:
The IRS and all accompanying agencies shall be dissolved and a 12.5% federal sales tax shall take its place. This rate cannot be raised more than .5% in any twelve month period and can only be changed by a vote of 65% or greater in both Houses of Congress and must also be signed by the President.
A new flat income tax shall be imposed on all income made in the United States of America at a permanently fixed rate of 1% of gross personal income without exception or deduction. This flat income tax is not eligible for change under any circumstances.
This flat tax shall take place the calendar year following its passage and shall remain in effect unless and until changed by Constitutional amendment.
BTW, I'd also like to see something talking about earmarks but wouldn't want to turn this into the second coming of the 14th amendment. The bottom line is that federal spending should be limited to spending authorized by the tenth amendment. States can build bridges on non-interstate highways and build museums to Roy Orbison or whatever.
The IRS and all accompanying agencies shall be dissolved and a 12.5% federal sales tax shall take its place. This rate cannot be raised more than .5% in any twelve month period and can only be changed by a vote of 65% or greater in both Houses of Congress and must also be signed by the President.
A new flat income tax shall be imposed on all income made in the United States of America at a permanently fixed rate of 1% of gross personal income without exception or deduction. This flat income tax is not eligible for change under any circumstances.
This flat tax shall take place the calendar year following its passage and shall remain in effect unless and until changed by Constitutional amendment.
BTW, I'd also like to see something talking about earmarks but wouldn't want to turn this into the second coming of the 14th amendment. The bottom line is that federal spending should be limited to spending authorized by the tenth amendment. States can build bridges on non-interstate highways and build museums to Roy Orbison or whatever.
Social Security/Medicare Fix
We have an unsustainable $38 TRILLION commitment with the current Social Security and Medicare plans. The problem with the current programs is that they cover everyone. Why not make Social Security/Medicare, et al like food stamps? You would have simple qualifications to qualify for Social Security/Medicare:
1) You must be 65 or older AND:
2) You can make no more than 25% above poverty level (about $18,200 for a family of two) OR:
3) Are disabled to the point it prohibits employment
Now, we have a sustainable designed to help the needy.
There has to be a transition to a fix this large, so if you are 50 or older, you would have two options:
1) Stay in the current system with current system payouts (which are quite weak)
2) Choose the 35-49 option.
35-49 Option:
You would receive what you have paid into Social Security in one lump sum. No interest gained, just what you have paid into the system. You can then invest in a 401K or some other option. These new retirement options would be named to you and would be transferred when switching jobs and would remain active even during times of unemployment (you would just not pay into them during that time). The bottom line is that personal investments tend to give much higher returns than the Social Security system; that's why rich people don't invest in government bonds other than as a diversification option. What about the few whose returns don't give back more? Easy; if they NEED it, Social Security is there.
If you are under 34, you will continue to pay into the system, but unless you are poor or disabled at 65, you would pay into a 401K instead of to the government. And since the Social Security/Medicare burden has been lightened, so will the taxes.
Taxes. Hmmm, that's my next post.
1) You must be 65 or older AND:
2) You can make no more than 25% above poverty level (about $18,200 for a family of two) OR:
3) Are disabled to the point it prohibits employment
Now, we have a sustainable designed to help the needy.
There has to be a transition to a fix this large, so if you are 50 or older, you would have two options:
1) Stay in the current system with current system payouts (which are quite weak)
2) Choose the 35-49 option.
35-49 Option:
You would receive what you have paid into Social Security in one lump sum. No interest gained, just what you have paid into the system. You can then invest in a 401K or some other option. These new retirement options would be named to you and would be transferred when switching jobs and would remain active even during times of unemployment (you would just not pay into them during that time). The bottom line is that personal investments tend to give much higher returns than the Social Security system; that's why rich people don't invest in government bonds other than as a diversification option. What about the few whose returns don't give back more? Easy; if they NEED it, Social Security is there.
If you are under 34, you will continue to pay into the system, but unless you are poor or disabled at 65, you would pay into a 401K instead of to the government. And since the Social Security/Medicare burden has been lightened, so will the taxes.
Taxes. Hmmm, that's my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)