But most of your ennemies could reach you only by sea, and that's a menace that your formal military (navy) have to deal with outside of your native ground. The only "real" ennemy that could take your territory was Mexico, and we all know what happened when you got your guns toting against them. Your heartland of the time wasn't even remotely treathened.

After, there was only outlaws and indians that would be a treath, and my earlier statemen still stands, methink. It was more efficient to let people fend for themselves than trying to provide security for everybody.

Compare to France, which has Germany and Spain right on its doorstep. They have to rely more on government rule, as an invading rival is a reality, and has been for hundreds of years.

Compare to Britain, which is on an island. They trust less their own government, as they've had natural geography to defend themselves. They did not had to put much faith into their government to prevent invading forces, but merely put faith into their own navy.

There is a lot of cultural influence that your geographical position give you, over the years, and how much you rely on the government. The most extreme case would be Russia. They have no geographic defensive feature whatsoever, so they needed to conquer land in order to defend themselves with buffer zones. So, they were forced to turn toward the government a lot more over time, and developped a culture around it.

No, the 47% is not in dispute.  You can equivocate about ALL taxes, but when you get specific - Federal INCOME taxes - that removes the equivocation (like SS Taxes).

Be very careful!  The self employed tax is not that easy to avoid.  If you make enough W2 money that you exceed the maximum (at 106,800 for 2009), you do not have to pay the self employed tax.  However, and this is the good part, if you fall $1 below, you do.  On ANY profit you make from self employment!  I found out the hard way on that one.

Plus, while you do not have to pay the 15.3%, you are still obligated for the 2.5% (Medicare/Medicaid) as that is not income limited.

No, you missed the nuance.  back then, most of the enemies were local.  America was at war with most of the native tribes, and they were killing citizens of the new country.  Each by itself was not strong enough to take down the new country, but collectively they could have.

I can see the misconception.  You are thinking 19th century and I was referring to 18th (and into the early 19th century).  At that time, Mexico was not contiguous nor a threat (they had their own problems).  They became a threat, really, with the Texas War of Independence, but then only to Texas.  it was not until Texas joined the union that they became an issue for the USA.

Only those that moved outside the protection (as there was still plenty of land not claimed by the USA).  For those citizens still in the borders, it was an issue.  That is not to say that every threat was met by a retaliation as the new country did not have the man power to meet them.

Yes, but then again, they were killing pioneers of the new country. Your established centers weren't menaced themselves. And more often than not, the most efficient way of dealing with them was simply to arm your local milia well rather than doing an all-out government intervention (except for a few large-scale military campaign, but even then, it was the US who were mostly on the offensive).

Hum, I seem to recall a little piece of history, where the British torched Washington DC. I believe that was called the War of 1812. Sounds threatening enough to me.

Again, you are not even reading the freaking posts we were talking about.

I adressed the fact that these kinds of menace had to be dealt by your navy anyway, it wasn't a direct land-conquered. The only treaths by lands were Mexico and the indians, and they never really got dangerous for your land.

Sorry I'll step out of your fantasy land, game of "Risk" environment you seem to be talking about. Please continue, as I didn't realize I was on the board game forum. My bad.

???????????????????????

What the hell are you talking about?

I will not get into a debate on whose fault it was or who was on the offensive (I agree with you for the most part).  But the point was the statement by Franklin was made when the enemy was at our door, not safely 3000 miles across an ocean.  It is as true then as it is today.  We have obtained a measure of security, that was shattered by 9-11.  But the sentiment stands.  Trading freedom for security will deny you both.

...and when the US's Navy was small, the British landed troops and that's where they fought, on land. No need to have a neighboring country, although they did have Canada.

"The War of 1812 was fought between the United States and Great Britain from June 1812 to the spring of 1815, although the peace treaty ending the war was signed in Europe in December 1814. The main land fighting of the war occurred along the Canadian border, in the Chesapeake Bay region, and along the Gulf of Mexico; extensive action also took place at sea." LINK

Your simplistic, one dimensional view as to what constituted a "threat" to the US on thread that has gone way off topic.

No, the 47% is not in dispute.  You can equivocate about ALL taxes, but when you get specific - Federal INCOME taxes - that removes the equivocation (like SS Taxes).

But your statement "Clearly they are as they are supporting not only the poor, but another third of the country as well" only makes sense if the 47% statistic refers to all taxes.  If the 47% refers to just one tax among many, then it doesn't (by itself) support saying "The rich are supporting 47% of the country."

I think his point is that in the board game Risk you can only move into North-America from Mexico (if we rule out the northern connection) whereas in the real world a fleet coming over the Atlantic works just as well, especially when it is the British fleet attacking a (then) weak USA.

It always astounds me when someone outright dismisses the power of the British fleet especially at that time in history. Even today very few countries can afford to dismiss a British naval attack.

I read your previous statement after I had posted my response you quoted in the latest post.  So I think I understand your original "debate" statement especially with the follow up (sorry for being obtuse).

You are correct that it is not a complete support.  In other words, they do not support the retirement (that is debatable as to who does anyway), and medicare, since those taxes are paid by virtually all the 47% that work (even though most are refunded through credits to the actual poor).  But they do support all the non earmarked programs of the 47%.  So they are supporting them, just not in a child care manner. The 47% are not paying for defense, yet reaping the benefit of it.  They are not paying for Education, Energy, Congress (I would love to get out of that one as well), etc., the other 53% are.  yet they enjoy the benefits of all those programs, without paying a dime.  They are being supported by the other half.  They just pay their own part of Social Security, medicaid/care on the federal level. 

The best country/Continent to have in Risk is Australia - only one point of attack.  Second is South America - only 2 points (Mexico and the Atlantic).  Europe and Asia are the worst, but North America is not much better.

Love the game!

It feels, well, pretty minor.

I am charged but not in charge. Perhaps I should change that.

Less than 47% since I am not Liberal.