On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 15:14:38 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 21:03:19 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>While the argument sounds plausible, in the real world, if we didn't
>>>join together under governments with the power to tax and conscript,
>>>we would have no freedom at all, because there are countries under
>>>tyranny waiting to conquer us.
>>
>>Taxation is like data. The taxes to be collected will expand to
>>consume the income available. This is the problem, and nobody has
>>ever come up with an effective method of controlling it.
>
>I dunno - certain political parties are better at spending it than
>others and no question a basic law of economics are that there are
>ALWAYS more needs (legitimate ones not the goofy ones) than resources
>are available.
>
>So the so called progressive do tend to believe they know better to
>decide how to spend the average taxpayer than he or she does
>themselves.

Somehow civilization managed to get along without quite a lot of the
taxes we now pay, and quite a lot of the government agencies they
support. And I suspect that any lawyer from the height of the
Byzantine Empire would be horrified at the complexity of US law.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 17:13:49 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>>That is why those who serve 30 years retire /at full pay/: they may be
>>retired, but they are still in the military.
>
>Maybe in your universe they do, but they do not in the United States.

I very much doubt my wife's uncle the Lt Colonel did (Canada) since in
retirement he took a job as a senior manager at the provincial prison.
In fairness his finances were undoubtedly crap since his wife had had
a brain aneurysm and he had had to pay for her care for 20 years in a
care home which even for an O-5 was a very large bill on top of
raising his 3 kids (who were young teenagers when their mother went
into the coma she never came out of)

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 3:15:19 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >The ability to conscript, though, *when there's a war on*, as had been
> >the case a few times prior to the mid-1970s is a power of government
> >that I do not believe can safely be dispensed with. Not in a world where
> >war remains a possibility.

> So you're saying that there is going to be a war in the future in
> which someone attacks the United States and civilization continues to
> exist long enough to train up draftees? Dream on.

Civilization continued to exist after September 11, 2001. So someone
_could_ be dumb enough to attack the United States who didn't even have
their own nuclear weapons.

But I am *not* envisaging that as a precondition for there being a need for
conscription. Neither North Korea nor North Vietnam attacked the United
States, but they were part of something that was a threat to it.

John Savard

Hi.
I need your opinions about CPU I7 Intel Core i9-12900KF (3.2 GHz / 5.2 GHz)
I will buy it from this web site
https://nextlevelpc.ma/boutique/composants/processeur/processeur-intel-core-i9-12900kf-prix-maroc-marrakech/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 16:41:03 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 17:13:49 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>That is why those who serve 30 years retire /at full pay/: they may be
>>>retired, but they are still in the military.
>>
>>Maybe in your universe they do, but they do not in the United States.
>
>I very much doubt my wife's uncle the Lt Colonel did (Canada) since in
>retirement he took a job as a senior manager at the provincial prison.
>In fairness his finances were undoubtedly crap since his wife had had
>a brain aneurysm and he had had to pay for her care for 20 years in a
>care home which even for an O-5 was a very large bill on top of
>raising his 3 kids (who were young teenagers when their mother went
>into the coma she never came out of)

Canada I don't know about, but, down here, that is called
"double-dipping" -- but only when politicians want it to be.

BTW, the response you are replying to is incoherent: it is not clear
what "they do not [do]" in the United States: retire after 30 years?
retire at full pay? be considered, in the sense of being subject to
recall, still in the military?

After 20 years, a retiree gets half-pay for life. On condition of
being recallable, and so not really out of the military.

These people can be very useful when the balloon goes up: they can
occupy posts in the training command and so free up younger and more
vigorous persons for actual combat. And, since the Army, as noted in
1976, is "200 years of tradition, unhampered by progress", a lot of
what they know is as valid as it ever was.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 20:10:47 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 3:15:19 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >The ability to conscript, though, *when there's a war on*, as had been
>> >the case a few times prior to the mid-1970s is a power of government
>> >that I do not believe can safely be dispensed with. Not in a world where
>> >war remains a possibility.
>
>> So you're saying that there is going to be a war in the future in
>> which someone attacks the United States and civilization continues to
>> exist long enough to train up draftees? Dream on.
>
>Civilization continued to exist after September 11, 2001. So someone
>_could_ be dumb enough to attack the United States who didn't even have
>their own nuclear weapons.
>
>But I am *not* envisaging that as a precondition for there being a need for
>conscription. Neither North Korea nor North Vietnam attacked the United
>States, but they were part of something that was a threat to it.

Well, a /perceived/ threat, anyway.

And a definite threat to those of our allies who were directly
affected.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 17:17:17 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 15:14:38 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 21:03:19 -0400, J. Clarke
>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>While the argument sounds plausible, in the real world, if we didn't
>>>>join together under governments with the power to tax and conscript,
>>>>we would have no freedom at all, because there are countries under
>>>>tyranny waiting to conquer us.
>>>
>>>Taxation is like data. The taxes to be collected will expand to
>>>consume the income available. This is the problem, and nobody has
>>>ever come up with an effective method of controlling it.
>>
>>I dunno - certain political parties are better at spending it than
>>others and no question a basic law of economics are that there are
>>ALWAYS more needs (legitimate ones not the goofy ones) than resources
>>are available.
>>
>>So the so called progressive do tend to believe they know better to
>>decide how to spend the average taxpayer than he or she does
>>themselves.
>
>Somehow civilization managed to get along without quite a lot of the
>taxes we now pay, and quite a lot of the government agencies they
>support. And I suspect that any lawyer from the height of the
>Byzantine Empire would be horrified at the complexity of US law.

I don't know about that.

Byzantine government was pretty ... byzantine.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 15:14:38 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>Somehow civilization managed to get along without quite a lot of the
>taxes we now pay, and quite a lot of the government agencies they
>support.

You really haven't studied history if you believe this.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:39:21 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 16:41:03 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 17:13:49 -0400, J. Clarke
>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>That is why those who serve 30 years retire /at full pay/: they may be
>>>>retired, but they are still in the military.
>>>
>>>Maybe in your universe they do, but they do not in the United States.
>>
>>I very much doubt my wife's uncle the Lt Colonel did (Canada) since in
>>retirement he took a job as a senior manager at the provincial prison.
>>In fairness his finances were undoubtedly crap since his wife had had
>>a brain aneurysm and he had had to pay for her care for 20 years in a
>>care home which even for an O-5 was a very large bill on top of
>>raising his 3 kids (who were young teenagers when their mother went
>>into the coma she never came out of)
>
>Canada I don't know about, but, down here, that is called
>"double-dipping" -- but only when politicians want it to be.
>
>BTW, the response you are replying to is incoherent: it is not clear
>what "they do not [do]" in the United States: retire after 30 years?
>retire at full pay? be considered, in the sense of being subject to
>recall, still in the military?
>
>After 20 years, a retiree gets half-pay for life. On condition of
>being recallable, and so not really out of the military.
>
>These people can be very useful when the balloon goes up: they can
>occupy posts in the training command and so free up younger and more
>vigorous persons for actual combat. And, since the Army, as noted in
>1976, is "200 years of tradition, unhampered by progress", a lot of
>what they know is as valid as it ever was.

Your reading comprehension is so poor and your annoyance factor is so
high that I really should killfile you.

You asserted that US military gets full pay after retirement with 30
years. That is a damned lie. They do not get full pay after
retirement at 30 years. Is that clear enough for you?

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 20:10:47 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 3:15:19 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >The ability to conscript, though, *when there's a war on*, as had been
>> >the case a few times prior to the mid-1970s is a power of government
>> >that I do not believe can safely be dispensed with. Not in a world where
>> >war remains a possibility.
>
>> So you're saying that there is going to be a war in the future in
>> which someone attacks the United States and civilization continues to
>> exist long enough to train up draftees? Dream on.
>
>Civilization continued to exist after September 11, 2001. So someone
>_could_ be dumb enough to attack the United States who didn't even have
>their own nuclear weapons.
>
>But I am *not* envisaging that as a precondition for there being a need for
>conscription. Neither North Korea nor North Vietnam attacked the United
>States, but they were part of something that was a threat to it.

Dealing with 9/11 did not require a draft. Poor example.

And the US should have finished the job in Korea and never been
involved in Vietnam.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:41:12 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 20:10:47 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 3:15:19 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> >The ability to conscript, though, *when there's a war on*, as had been
>>> >the case a few times prior to the mid-1970s is a power of government
>>> >that I do not believe can safely be dispensed with. Not in a world where
>>> >war remains a possibility.
>>
>>> So you're saying that there is going to be a war in the future in
>>> which someone attacks the United States and civilization continues to
>>> exist long enough to train up draftees? Dream on.
>>
>>Civilization continued to exist after September 11, 2001. So someone
>>_could_ be dumb enough to attack the United States who didn't even have
>>their own nuclear weapons.
>>
>>But I am *not* envisaging that as a precondition for there being a need for
>>conscription. Neither North Korea nor North Vietnam attacked the United
>>States, but they were part of something that was a threat to it.
>
>Well, a /perceived/ threat, anyway.
>
>And a definite threat to those of our allies who were directly
>affected.

You mean France?

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 22:46:23 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:39:21 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 16:41:03 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 17:13:49 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>That is why those who serve 30 years retire /at full pay/: they may be
>>>>>retired, but they are still in the military.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe in your universe they do, but they do not in the United States.
>>>
>>>I very much doubt my wife's uncle the Lt Colonel did (Canada) since in
>>>retirement he took a job as a senior manager at the provincial prison.
>>>In fairness his finances were undoubtedly crap since his wife had had
>>>a brain aneurysm and he had had to pay for her care for 20 years in a
>>>care home which even for an O-5 was a very large bill on top of
>>>raising his 3 kids (who were young teenagers when their mother went
>>>into the coma she never came out of)
>>
>>Canada I don't know about, but, down here, that is called
>>"double-dipping" -- but only when politicians want it to be.
>>
>>BTW, the response you are replying to is incoherent: it is not clear
>>what "they do not [do]" in the United States: retire after 30 years?
>>retire at full pay? be considered, in the sense of being subject to
>>recall, still in the military?
>>
>>After 20 years, a retiree gets half-pay for life. On condition of
>>being recallable, and so not really out of the military.
>>
>>These people can be very useful when the balloon goes up: they can
>>occupy posts in the training command and so free up younger and more
>>vigorous persons for actual combat. And, since the Army, as noted in
>>1976, is "200 years of tradition, unhampered by progress", a lot of
>>what they know is as valid as it ever was.
>
>Your reading comprehension is so poor and your annoyance factor is so
>high that I really should killfile you.

Feel free to run and hide whenever you want to.

>You asserted that US military gets full pay after retirement with 30
>years. That is a damned lie. They do not get full pay after
>retirement at 30 years. Is that clear enough for you?

Yes.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:39:28 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> After 20 years, a retiree gets half-pay for life. On condition of
> being recallable, and so not really out of the military.

That was true, under the legacy "High-3" system. For newer recruits,
it has been replaced by the Blended Retirement System, under which
what is recieved after 20 years has been decreased to 40%.

John Savard

On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 19:06:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:39:28 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> After 20 years, a retiree gets half-pay for life. On condition of
>> being recallable, and so not really out of the military.
>
>That was true, under the legacy "High-3" system. For newer recruits,
>it has been replaced by the Blended Retirement System, under which
>what is recieved after 20 years has been decreased to 40%.

I was, of course, giving how it was when I was in the Army.

Not that I necessarily remembered it correctly, of course.

But the basic point -- that "retired" means "subject to being
activated" -- remains.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 6/22/2022 9:06 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:39:28 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> After 20 years, a retiree gets half-pay for life. On condition of
>> being recallable, and so not really out of the military.
>
> That was true, under the legacy "High-3" system. For newer recruits,
> it has been replaced by the Blended Retirement System, under which
> what is recieved after 20 years has been decreased to 40%.
>
> John Savard

And the BRS is:

Blended defined benefit and defined contribution plan.

Defined Contribution:
All covered members receive a Government contribution that equals 1% of
basic or inactive duty pay to a tax-advantaged retirement account
(Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)) after 60 days following the entry into
Uniformed Service. Additionally, covered members have the ability to
receive up to an additional 4% matching contribution from the Government
to TSP beginning after 2nd year of service through 26th year of service

Defined Benefit:
Members who otherwise qualify for a retirement based on longevity of
service will also receive a defined benefit that is 2.0% times the
number of years of service times the member’s highest 36 months of basic pay