Peace and Prosperity Act of 2014 (Voting on Amendment)

[DemPGH]

Forgiving debts is not something that I would want to do, but like Cynic said there is a lot in here that I like and I also think those figures and percentages are negotiable. I mean I'm assuming that that will happen, so for me the only red flag is forgiving debts. I'd at least want a cost analysis of that. Recently, we just shipped money to Ukraine, the wisdom of which I question(ed) and I'd hate to throw money like that away, e.g.

We've closed bases whose only purpose is to train paramilitary forces, which is good, but there are regular bases of strategic importance that I wold want to leave open. Those which are extraneous we could close. (Could I do anything like that by exec order? Hmm). But then yeah, we have to worry about those people finding work, and I see you have accounted for that.

It also brings up [again] the issue of the budget. I've perused the budget and have a few immediate recommendations that we could talk about; related to this bill I would like to drastically slash general foreign aid and general overseas expenditures.

[DemPGH]

I support the amended version, although at the very least I would like to at least train fighter pilots and pilots generally. I think we're a very long away from not needing manned flights at all (even for intel, recon, etc.), so I guess 5C is my only real gripe. And as I said before, generally shrinking foreign aid would be a good idea too.

[DemPGH]

DemPGH supports abolishing the Marines and Coast Guard, the sweeping decommissioning overseas bases, and eliminating "offensive, cross-border military capabilities"? The author of this bill is ill-informed regarding military matters.

No, the Marines and Coast Guard get absorbed back into their parent branches (the A.F. used to be part of the Army, e.g.), which I don't think is a bad idea. See, it used to be that we did not intervene in every single conflict around the world and I would like to return to something like that, as I've said many, many times. As to overseas bases in developed countries, if they want bases there, perhaps they could foot the bill for them? That might make them disappear!

But I would absolutely redraft 5C.

I can see benefits to 5D, though, but perhaps gradually.

[DemPGH]

While I would actually like to at least reduce overseas bases maybe without outright shuttering all of them, I am pleased with the amended version and hope that it strikes a good compromise. Glad to see 5C struck. We can certainly add pilotless aircraft, but eliminating pilots really isn't realistic. In all, looks good.

[DemPGH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

X DemPGH, President

I feel that this is achievable and reasonable, with quite a long time to see the bulk of it come to fruition.

Maintaining a policy of interventionism is to me exceedingly harmful; it puts a chronic strain on budgetary matters whereas we could use the money to improve education, access to education, and scientific development. Interventionism is largely wasteful, except in dire circumstances.

I also don't feel that Atlasia should shoulder the responsibility of policing the world. I always and forever ask the question, "Why us?" The answer I get? "Because we can." Well ladies and gentlemen, that is simply not good enough. Because we can do something does not mean that we should. Now, Atlasia has an excellent social safety net. If we do reduce numbers in the military, I believe that there will be plenty of other opportunities, educational and otherwise, for former soldiers.

I would also like to point out that standing armies did not used to exist, and for quite a long time in human history, standing armies did not exist outside of very small forces. Armies were always raised. My only point is that I don't doubt that if we had to increase or adjust any of the numbers herein, we could do that expeditiously.