Dormyfloridacomdorforms2012dr15ez0112pdf United States

ChinaGDP: $13.118 trillionPopulation: 1,403,500,365Defense budget: $215.7 billionActive personnel: 2,353,000Reserve personnel: 2,300,000Tanks: 6,547 all types.Armored fighting vehicles: 4,788Aircraft: 2,955Navy: 492 total ships. 2 conventionally powered aircraft carriers.Nuclear warheads:Service rifle: QBZ-95United StatesGDP: $18.57 trillionPopulation: 324,310,011Defense budget: ~$600 billionActive personnel: 1,373,650Reserve personnel: 990,025Tanks: 5,884 all types.Armored fighting vehicles: 41,062Aircraft: 13,762Navy: 415 total ships. 10 nuclear aircraft carriers, 2 under construction.Service rifle: M4A1 Carbine, M16A4 and M16A2 in reserve.The US and China have some of the most powerful militaries in the world, so strictly non nuclear and without allies, this will be a knockdown, drag out fight. However, China has no way of directly attacking the US mainland. They only have one aircraft carrier, and a limited number of operational aircraft, which severely limits their force projection capability. This will be a war strictly on Chinese soil.Meanwhile, the United States has 10 aircraft carriers (19 if you count helicopter carriers), and almost 14,000 aircraft. The US will be able to land a large expeditionary force on the Chinese mainland, whilst knowing its own homeland is safe from retaliation. The Chinese forces will put up a fight, probably making it like a D-Day landing scenario. They’ll definitely hurt us, but eventually they will be forced to pull back, although they might not retreat, since they’re defending their home country.US air power outnumbers the Chinese by an almost 5 to 1 ratio. Also, our planes are much more advanced than their Chinese counterparts. The F-16 Fighting Falcon, our air force’s standard multi-role strike fighter, is better than the Chinese fighter, the Chengdu J-10 in terms of performance and armament. Our planes will pick theirs right out of the sky, although they will put up a fight, giving us complete air superiority. That will allow us to move troops and supplies without the threat of an enemy air-strike, while it will be the exact opposite for Chinese forces. They won’t be able to move a lot of supplies at all, even at night, since we now have the capability to bomb targets at night, thanks to laser guided bombs, night vision and better targeting systems. This ain’t World War 2 no more folks.Now to the ground warfare. The average US soldier is certainly better equipped than the average Chinese soldier. The average US soldier carries around $17,500 worth of gear, excluding night vision. The average Chinese soldier carries $1,500 worth of equipment, with almost half of that counting for the rifle, which costs $700. They aren’t even equipped with any body armor besides a helmet. In their defense, they are equipping a larger military with a smaller budget. The Soviets had the same problem in WW1 and WW2.The Chinese Ground Force is the largest branch of the Chinese armed forces, much larger than the US Army, with 1.6 million personnel. However, as I said before, the US Army is the better equipped side of the fight, and in modern combat, technology is everything. However, the Chinese could do the human wave attacks that the Soviets and the Iranians used to a pretty devastating effect.The US M1 Abrams is arguably the best tank in the world in terms of protection and firepower. In its 38 year service life, only a few have been lost to enemy fire. However, it’s only seen combat against less superior tanks, like imported T-72s and T-62s. It’s never been in a fight against an equal or better foe.The Chinese Type 99 is China’s homegrown third generation MBT. Other tanks in China’s service have been license built copies of Soviet T-55s and T-62s. While there isn’t a lot of information on it that’s open to the public, I’d say the Type 99 is definitely capable of making an Abrams feel some pain. Even T-72s are capable of taking down an Abrams, it’s just that the Abrams has a much greater range. So yeah, we’d be even there if it wasn’t for the fact that the US has 1,500+ M1A2 Abrams tanks, while China only has around 590 Type 99s in service. All their other tanks are older license built copies of Soviet tanks that wouldn’t stand much of a chance against an Abrams.Another factor is armored fighting vehicles. The US has wayyyyy more AFVs than China, with over 41,000 in service. Compared to China’s 4,788, it’s no contest who’s more superior. America will wipe the floor with China in terms of armored combat, decimating their armored forces, leaving them with very few armored vehicles to mount a counter attack with.The standard AFVs in US service are the M2 Bradley and the Stryker, both of them very high quality vehicles. Each of them has a variety of armaments, with the Bradley sporting a 25mm M242 Bushmaster chain gun, TOW anti-tank missiles, and an M240C .30 caliber machine gun. The Stryker’s main armament can be either a 105mm M68A2 gun, a .50 caliber M2HB machine gun, a Mk 19 automatic grenade launcher, or a 30mm Mk 44 Bushmaster II chain gun.(The M2 Bradley IFV)(The Stryker)China’s standard armored fighting vehicles are the Type 85 and the Type 89. They are less superior than the Bradley and the Stryker, but they get the job done. They can be armed with a .50 caliber machine gun and smoke grenade launchers, and carry up to 13 passengers.(Type 85)(Type 89)So the US has China beat in a ground war and an air war, in any scenario. The Chinese Ground Forces just don’t have the capability to carry on an extended fight against the US Army or the US Marine Corps. However, there’s frontline that China might have a chance in, the water. The Chinese Navy is almost twice the size of the US Navy, but whether or not it’s actually capable of winning a a naval conflict is subject to debate. The Chinese Navy has 492 total naval assets, and the US Navy has 415, but it has 10 nuclear aircraft carriers, and 9 helicopter carriers. China only has two diesel electrically powered aircraft carriers (the Liaoning and the Type 001A), and one of them is only considered a training vessel by the PLAN.The US Navy has much better ships, technologically. One Arleigh Burke-class destroyer could easily take out a Luyang III destroyer, and the USS Carl Vinson could launch a huge number of F/A 18 Hornets to combat Chinese Shenyang J-15s in the air, rendering us almost invulnerable to an aerial attack. The Chinese vessels will put up a hell of a fight though, think back to the naval war in the Pacific, and you’ll get a good idea of what a naval war with China would be like. Now add guided anti-shipping missiles, jet fighters, and modern radar, and you have a complete bloodbath on each side. I’m going to call this one a tie.So, in conclusion, the US has the war beaten on the ground and in the air, but the water is a controversial area. The Chinese Navy, is slightly larger, but its ships are less advanced than ours. We would probably get them in a stale mate until we take Beijing, which would force them to surrender. The US wins, but with a lot of casualties.

A nation as a whole is harder to tackle than individual families (one at a time). The first step dealing with any problem is admitting that there is a problem.Until this happens, people will continue to believe that there is nothing to be fixed and won't be open for change.Once they have admitted that there is a problem, and the kind of problem that they can't fix on their own, only then can they seek help. The issue with finances is that not everyone is in financial matters. It's not a knowledge we are born with, it's not a knowledge that we actively seek (unless confronted with a disaster) and it's not a casual read before bedtime.People who know about finances - and by that I don't mean the sales people who paddle products for their own commissions - are few and difficult to get to. To start, there is no source for this information which will accommodate all the cases and all the lifestyles and all the scenarios.And each of these will require the finance person's time, which is not free - and something that not many can afford. The next step is getting advice.This is the easiest part, actually: getting all income, all expenses, coming up with a real plan on solving the deficit and streamlining things going forward.100% of this advice will be plain common sense.Money is not a magical creature, it's physics, if you will: money does not appear our of nowhere and it does not vanish into the abyss. So, it's very very easy to handle, once a person learns how to do that. And then the hard work begins, and there is no default success embedded into this.The hard work is about making changes, suppressing egos, reducing possessions or killing habits, and basically reforming self (and one's mindset) to be like that finance person.And no, it will not be easy. It will be hard, very hard, and many people will give up on this endeavor.This, in turn, will require meaningful support and follow-up, which is something we, as a country, don't have in place.The second sentence of my response should have evoked a correlation between the financial binging (debt) and other binging  types (be it cigarettes or alcohol or food or many others).Yes, we can treat it as an addiction and it needs constant care until the person is truly reformed and can stay the course. Old habits - substances, spending, eating - are hard to break, and in the moment of crisis or a moment of weakness, old habits will come roaring back. So, the change would be temporary without being given a chance to succeed. So, how do we get out of debt? We get someone who's an expert in this area to assist with the plan and steps/changes; and then we get on with it.Whether or not many will signNow that goal successfully, that's a whole another story.

I’m assuming that it has to do with national security, etc. My question is why shouldn’t they have to do this? LEGAL immigrants work really hard to be citizens of the US. That’s the way it should be for someone who wants something strongly enough.

Page on irs.govHere is the w-4. You'll fill it out and hand it to your employer/ HR Rep/ Who ever handles that sort of thing. This is actually a lot easier then it looks. For line A: If your not being claimed on someones tax return as a dependent (Note- Doesn't count if your spouse thinks of you as a dependent) put a 1. For line B: If you are single and this is your only job put a 1. If you are married and your spouse does not work put 1.If you are married and your spouse works but total you two make less then 1,500 put a 1. All else- leave blank For line C: This is one that is kind of up to you on how you want to play it (if you are married). Only put a 1 here if you are married for your spouse BUT if your spouse works OR for any other reason you might have to pay extra taxes at tax season you might want to elect to leave it blank, Single people leave this blank. Line D: write the number of dependents. (Not including your spouse. He/she was taken care of on line C). This will be all the children you claim, your parents if you claim them on your tax return, or any other family member/ person whom you provide most of the support for and lives with you. Line E: If you are single AND you claim children (Children under 18 not adult children) put 1. (also your filing status should be Head of House and NOT single. Line F: IF you have to pay more then $2,000 a year for child care expenses (daycare/ sitter/ tuition for fancy schools) and your going to claim the expenses put a 1. NOTE: if you use a sitter you need to know his/her social if they do not have an EIN. This is usually an issue for most people and the reason why lots of families miss out on this wonderful credit. Line G: This one seems more complicated then it is *sigh*. Alright- If your income is less then 65k (filing single)/ 95K (filing married) And you claim children 16 and under:Multiply the number if kids you claim by 2If you claim 3-6 children subtract that number by 1If you claim more then 6 kids subtract that number by 2. what ever number your left with is what number you place on that lineNow add all the previous numbers on lines A-G and place that number on line HCONGRATS you just got your exemption rate!!!  This number goes on line 5 at the bottom.1-4 should be pretty self explanatory. line 6 should only be used if you consistently have to pay taxes at tax time and you want to have more taken out each paycheck to make it stop. Line 7 should only be messed with if your tax preparer tells you you have no tax liability at tax season. Seriously- don't mess with this unless you KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT you don't pay taxes. Now Sign, Date, and Turn in! (The bottom can be filled out by your company.) Hope I helped! -CP

No, but all three astronauts (not just Neil Armstrong) filled one out as a joke.Back from the Moon, Apollo Astronauts Had to Go Through CustomsToday’s astronauts have to go through Customs when they come back to the United States, not because they have been to space, but because they have come back from Kazakhstan! The partnership with Russia means they do a lot of international travel.Buzz Aldrin did seriously fill out a NASA travel expenses claim form that covered his trip to the moon. That’s because he had some travel expenses on Earth before they went up.

It can be done, but it would be a highly irresponsible thing to do.  In most introductory undergrad, even high school, level econ classes the concept of debt is taught.  Basically, debt is the choice of consuming now vs. consuming in the future. This is good if you are going to INVEST the debt into something that will give you a higher return than the interest (e.g. education, roads, etc.).  Would you rather go to college while young, get a higher paying job today, pay it over time while you live there or would you rather save all your life, go to college in your 50s and only enjoy your higher income for the latter part of your life? In the case of a country, sometimes it makes sense to incur debt in order to finance ordinary expenditures. This is because of the multiplier effect. Basically, you can create a virtuous cycle by giving people money, who in turn spend it on things, which in turn creates aggregate demand, with inflation as the main drawback (but heck this makes your debt even cheaper).  It's a little more complicated, but that is basically how a fiscal stimulus works. There are other reasons why US debt is a good thing. One of the main ones is that it gives the market a risk-free asset.  Not only is this a good asset class for investors to have access to, but it also facilitates asset pricing for other riskier assets.  US debt also provides the FED with a tool to manage money supply. These are just a couple of examples from the top of my head. Please don't listen to people who advocate for a zero-deficit or for a constitutional amendment requiring a balance budget. Most of them are economically illiterate at best, demagogues or conspiracy theorists at worst. As an economist, one of the analogies that annoys me the most is when people compare the US to a household.  The US does not face death, it's long term income growth is positive, and the US can print the currency in which issues its debt.  Households have a limited life-span, your signNow your peak earning potential in your 40s, and you do not control the face value of the dollar.  These things make a huge difference.

Prohibit racist speech and racist propaganda.Start by accepting that an absolutist free speech tradition that allows racist speech and propaganda is not this glorious and sacred tradition benefiting all but a source of impunity. It empowers a racism in a way that is more extreme and virulent than anywhere else in the world.This is not an exaggeration. Just to provide one example: there are two places in the world where one can openly, publicly engage in anti-Semitic speech or Nazi propaganda without fear of government sanction. Those places are the United States of America and Middle Eastern countries.The racial hatred that so many people in the USA share is not something new. It has been around since before the Civil War when John C. Calhoun was a U.S. statesman and spokesman for the slave-plantation system of the South made his infamous “Slavery a Positive Good” speech in 1837 in the US Senate.Precisely because racist speech is protected political speech, its memes could be handed down (since 1837) like a heirloom from generation to generation. It had made possible lynching postcards. You could even copyright such postcards.Source: Lynching of Laura and L. D. Nelson - WikipediaThe American free speech tradition is based on a number of deeply flawed premises including the Marketplace of Ideas doctrine. To quote Wikipedia:The marketplace of ideas holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse and concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population.That did not happen with racist ideas. Following the Civil War, free speech made possible white supremacist propaganda that first resulted in racist violence and vigilantism, which caused the destruction of Reconstruction, followed by the establishment of Segregation in the South. Oppression of African-Americans was subsequently sustained by 100 years of racist propaganda, which was entirely made possible by the absolutist free speech tradition.In the past 50 years racism in the US seemed in retreat. The truth is that the abatement of racism in the US happened in spite of free speech NOT because of it. It was NEVER the result of the truth emerging from the competition of ideas. Racist ideas in the US were never ‘culled’ in the ‘marketplace of ideas.’The abatement of racism was the result of judicial action by the US Supreme Court rendering Segregation and the suppression of the black vote unconstitutional. This temporarily defeated, disoriented, and demoralized deeply ingrained racist sentiment.It was more the respect for the institution of law that brought emancipation, than the marketplace of ideas fostering brotherly love. No wonder that all it took for racism to come roaring back to life was for one black president to be voted into office followed by one nasty politician who saw publicity value in openly spouting racist memes against Mexicans.The racist cops that are even today in our times shooting blacks in the back might well be racist because they could freely imbibe from the fount of racist speech. Had there been less racist speech, maybe, just maybe, some of them might never have become either racist or been less racist. That just might have caused a few less lives to be lost to hatred.Protecting hate speech is ludicrous. Judges today do not trust the marketplace of ideas to govern hard-core pornography. In what way is racist speech or propaganda superior that it should enjoy more protection than hard-core pornography? Why this blatant inconsistency? In fact, burning a wooden cross on an African-American family's lawn is still protected political speech, if we follow US Supreme Court jurisprudence. To quote Wikipedia:R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court unanimously struck down St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance and reversed the conviction of a teenager, referred to in court documents only as R.A.V., for burning a cross on the lawn of an African-American family for violating the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.I don’t believe in the term “white privilege.” If you are a less educated white male who loses his job in a world where there are a diminishing number of well-remunerated jobs for less educated people, and you can’t find a new well-paying job that will keep your wife from leaving you, you cannot be reasonably called privileged. Yet, it is also true that this white male, however miserable, is unlikely to EVER be the object of racist propaganda. He is unlikely EVER to be hurt by this specific form of speech for which there is no demonstrable value. And to be absolutely clear about this: he should not EVER have to suffer such an indignity.If you are white, well-educated, and reasonably prosperous, let say a constitutional lawyer or a judge, it will be a lark to celebrate the marketplace of ideas doctrine: you will NEVER be the object of racist speech. And again: he should not EVER have to suffer such an indignity.If you are black, well-educated, and reasonably prosperous, let say a constitutional lawyer or a judge, you can still get shot in the back by a racist cop who may have participated in a white supremacist tiki torch march shouting racist slogans.If you were a well-educated, prosperous white person and some stranger would walk up to you and backhand you across the mouth and simply walk away leaving you standing there, you would probably be traumatized for life. And then you have the gall to celebrate a supposed ‘principle’ that frankly does that psychologically to people of colour.Defending a free speech tradition that protects racist speech is not defending equality, dignity or justice. It is pure and simple defending white supremacy. And white supremacists know it. They value and cherish this free speech tradition. They just love it. It would behoove supporters of the absolutist free speech tradition to remember Kant’s proverb:With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?Of course we know that this is not what was intended. And we know most supporters of the absolutist free speech tradition mean well. Yet, there is a thing called unintended consequence. And that is still a consequence. And so one more proverb:The road to hell is paved with good intentions.We now have all the data. We have so much data. How about for once acting on that data?Prohibit racist speech and racist propaganda.Further reading:Slavery a Positive GoodMarketplace of IdeasLynching of Laura and L. D. Nelson - WikipediaR.A.V. v. City of St. Paul - WikipediaThe Supreme Court Case That Enshrined White Supremacy in Law

If we had a Civil War in the United States today, it would get ugly. Very, very ugly. We’re talking many many factions, foreign intervention, brutality, rape, murder, torture, all of it over huge areas of the U.S.The dividing lines of today are politics, not allegiance to individual states and not slavery, so there is no point in adding those to a scenario. And in most of the country it looks like this:and adjusted for population. (The colors are switched on this map):Anywhere in the US where there is a mix of Liberals and Conservatives, you’d see these everywhere:Checkpoints. Individual groups would rule certain areas. This is Lebanon 1976, but just change a few names and it becomes Illinois, 2020. There is a name for this. It’s called Balkanization.What would make this particularly brutal is that in most places in the US the factions are all close together and relatively evenly matched. This greatly weakens conservative attempts to form a national fighting force. They will have trouble keeping control of their own respective backyards.Conservatives have a clear geography problem.Now as to who would win, this is pretty straightforward:Here is our geography. This is important:The most politically homogenous area in the US (conservatives are outnumbered around 3 to 1) is also the best protected by mountain ranges. That would be California, Oregon and Washington and probably Nevada. Not only is California huge, but it would have access to foreign recruits from Latin America and may be backed by China as well. Conservatives don’t have a great reputation in the rest of the world and in a Civil War this is going to matter a lot.Keep in mind that Federal taxation goes to hell, which ends the huge pile of money needed to run our armed forces, which may divide against itself on top of lacking funding. It’s not a sure thing for one side or the other to rely on the armed forces.The Pacific area of the contiguous US, which is quite self sufficient with ocean access would remain the most stable while the rest of the nation tore itself apart. There is no taking over California. It’s too big and the mountain passes are very long and easily defended and there is no manpower shortage.California would have very short supply lines and the opposition would be crossing deserts and mountains to get there.As much as conservatives might hate it, having this stronghold would be decisive. The Pacific states would be able to project power without any fear of California being invaded. The Army of the Pacific would likely attack through New Mexico, Arizona and Texas, with Mexican help, gaining access to the Gulf with the help of liberal Texans. There they can be resupplied by ship through Mexico.They can also team up at that point with the Northern liberal states and parts of Florida via the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic. It’s what I would do at least.This isn’t a comment on which political position is superior or even who has the most guns. It’s mostly about geography.Edit: Commenter scenario: The Conservatives take over Central CaliforniaI’ve had a few comments posted here that California conservatives could take over the central valley and the food supply so I’m going to address why that wouldn’t happen.First, there are less of them and they are spread out. They would have to split into two forces: one for Northern Cal. and one for Southern Cal. They would be separated from one another by several hundred miles and their one freeway connecting them would be I-5.Second, it is a huge area and it’s flat. When you’re the smaller force this is not something you want to defend.Third and most importantly, this would cut them off from all their supplies, which come from the coast. You do not want to be supplied via mountain passes in the Sierra Nevadas, trust me on this.Fourth, the San Francisco Bay area can go a couple of years without water from the Sierras because of reservoirs and ground water. Los Angeles also has local reserves. The cities have time in other words, to get their act together and take back their water supply. Food is no big deal because it can be shipped in via the ports like we do all the time.So that’s just a bad idea on so many levels.Oh, and 55% of Republicans in California are over 55. Only 9% are between 18 and 34. (I probably should have led with that.)Edit2: Commenter argument: Tough armed Conservatives vs. Sissy unarmed LibtardsBefore the Civil War you could find many Southerners saying much the same things about the Northerners. No will to fight, a bunch of sissies, we’re stronger and tougher, etc.They were wrong because of course they were. Your enemy, whoever that is, is not going to be a pushover. They have as much resolve and will as you do and they will learn from their mistakes and get better at war.