Actually, the Internet was developed under a DARPA program (originally called ARPANet). The WWW was from a European consortium of scientists.

As for the militia, that's very quaint.

The founding fathers also didn't know about high-yield explosives, jets, tanks, precision guided munitions, etc. The didn't know about petroleum- and nuclear-driven commerce and energy. Times have changed, and we need to change and adapt with them.

The truth is that, as shown in Iraq and elsewhere, the fighting just bogs down whether you're the "militia" or the occupying army. Both can make each other's lives miserable, and there certainly doesn't seem to be a happy outcome any time in the foreseeable future for anyone involved.

My problem is that huge amounts of our taxes are being spent on quagmires like that, rather than on truly defending ourselves and improving our decaying infrastructure and educational system at home. Those are far better investments for our tax dollars.

Even if we don't agree on other points I certainly concur with you on this one.

With all due respect, the foundations of the Internet were indeed a DARPA project. The world wide web as we know it today was envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee while working at CERN, a particle physics laboratory in Switzerland. Without DARAPA to get things started we probaly would still have some sort of Internet, but it would not be as we know it today and it would have taken a lot longer to develop.

Dude! And I thought it was Al Gore!

The authors of the constitution felt that the common person should have very little right to decide the make up the government. They thought that owning chattle slaves was as ok as killing a large number of my ancestors becuase they were of a reddish skin tone, and just pissing on others becuase they were kosher.

As for the roads, I loved how you failed to mention that. Most people who try to make the points you are trying to make fail to mention the common properties. Sure, the roads are going to suck more- why do you think Europe has roads that are a long site better than ours? They don't subsidise the gasoline with governemtn handouts, and they tax it so that the roads can be fixed.

As for the internet, trust me, that was DARPA. I just turned in a 30 page paper on the early history of what we call the internet, from 1960 to 1990.

When someone tries to sell you on a flat tax, run—don’t walk—to the nearest exit.

If you look at the tax code (just that part of tax law written by Congress; i.e., not including all the regulations issued by the IRS or all the case law decided by judges), you will find hundreds of pages. Depending on how fine the print is, it may run over a thousand pages. Of that, only a page or two is devoted to the tax rates, and tax rates are what flat tax proposals are about (flattening the number of tax rates). So, 99.8% of the tax code has nothing to do with those tax rates or a flat tax. What is that 99.8%?

Granted, taxes are complicated, but tax computations come down to a simple formula: Tax Rate x Taxable Income = Tax. That 99.8% is all about what constitutes taxable income. You can see that on your own Form 1040 you file each year. Most of it is devoted to defining the all important taxable income (add this, subtract that). There is a brief line about computing the tax, and then there is a little more stuff which adds or reduces the tax (credits and so on). If you blink, you will miss the part about tax rates.

Looking at case law, you won’t find anyone litigating the issue of tax rates. They are what they are. The Gov’t and taxpayers are arguing about income or deductions. If you are unlucky enough to be audited by the IRS, you won’t hear the issue of tax rates come up. All the auditor wants to talk about is income and deductions. The definition of income—that’s where the issue of fairness is decided.

You can reduce all the tax rates down to a single bracket (say, 10%). But you won’t have simplified the tax code or made it fairer. Flat tax proposals are a cynical deception perpetrated by politicians playing the magician’s game: creating beguiling illusions by diverting attention away from what is actually going on. If a flat tax is instituted, the loopholes and favors, and people who make a million dollars a day who pay less will all still be there, because a flat tax isn't about the definition of income, it's about tax rates.

Again, if you hear someone selling you a flat tax, smile, hold onto your wallet, and have nothing more to do with the man. Shake off the very dust from your sandals.

Would you be so kind as to provide some numbers? Say, last year's tax brackets vs a 20% flat tax (look, 10% is a crack pipe dream, and we all know it), for someone making 35K a year, and someone making 10M.

No cut outs, no capital gains, no deducatble donations, just a flat 20%.

Paul
The World Wide Wed is NOT the Internet - the folks from CERN developed the WORLD WIDE WEB - the internet existed LONG before and WAS a DARPA project - Hell, I had an ARPAnet account back in 1977

I can admit I may have been wrong about the internet, but lets not turn this into a race issue. Just as in this discussion, there was wrong on both sides of the fence. Lets not go down that path. Lets understand that no matter what our ancestory was that we can come together as men, and women, and have a civil discussion on this topic.

As an intergraded safety student I can see it in both ways, as a prepared civilian as well as with the emergency management people.

As a prepared civilian I would hate to loose my equipment and supplies to others, because they simply didn't prepared. My preparation cost me money and time. While other may have used there resources to have a luxury like a vacation, which I haven't had since 2000.

But understand that people managing these situations usually have little recourses to deal with a big problem. But they still have to save as many lives as possible. Than taking away some supplies from a civilian who has plenty and give them to people who hasn't, will look like an option that will work well in short situations. The management isn't trying to make prepared people miserable, but only intend to save as many people as possible. Personally I think the government must always leave enough supplies for the prepared persons for a longer period than you think a situation is going to last. And persons must be fully compensated for there "lost" equipment, supplies and any other form of damaged caused by removing your resource to others.