Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shared equitable sacrifice sounds like a good way to get more people engaged in the political process to me. I doubt anyone can make a case that the poor are overrepresented in Congress.
Did you even read my post? Your plan would push more poor people into service, not more kids of congressmen.
Shared equitable sacrifice sounds like a good way to get more people engaged in the political process to me. I doubt anyone can make a case that the poor are overrepresented in Congress.
No they are under heard because of the special interests groups that plague Washington.
Did you even read my post? Your plan would push more poor people into service, not more kids of congressmen.
I read your post and answered that it's good to have every citizen invested in the military regardless of whether they're rich or poor. Military service would build character in young men and women from wealthy homes and those less fortunate might finally have access to a college education via the GI Bill.
Obviously our nation can't afford perpetual war given the nearly $18,000,000,000,000 national debt but people would shoot chickenhawks, like Dick Cheney, down much more quickly if there was a legitimate chance that they'd get killed or wounded in future conflicts.
I read your post and answered that it's good to have every citizen invested in the military regardless of whether they're rich or poor. Military service would build character in young men and women from wealthy homes and those less fortunate might finally have access to a college education via the GI Bill.
Obviously our nation can't afford perpetual war given the nearly $18,000,000,000,000 national debt but people would shoot chickenhawks, like Dick Cheney, down much more quickly if there was a legitimate chance that they'd get killed or wounded in future conflicts.
Forcing a young kid, via the draft, to go into the military is just wrong. The Vietnam war taught us that.
Grizz, your entire premise is flawed. As it stands today, by far those coming from low economic households are already underrepresented in the military.
Only 11% of currently enlisted recruits come from the poorest 1/5 of neighborhoods, where 25% came from the wealthiest quintile. Looking at ROTC programs, 40% of those enrolling come from the wealthiest quintile.
So the question you should be asking is why are the wealthiest sending their kids to war, and why aren't lower income people doing their patriotic duty?
Looking at the facts, reinstating the draft would decrease the percentage of wealthy kids in the military and increase the percentage of kids from low income households.
Instead of using the Heritage Foundation data go right to the source (a real site), the income bracket from $20-50K they call it middle class in the link but I doubt household income in that range is middle class in most places. The only thing you can say is that the top and bottom brackets are under represented
I would love to see where the Heritage Foundation got that info, by the way did you notice their chart is based on "Enlistees neighborhood income levels", what the hell does that even mean?
Why would politicians, the ones that have to pass this go along with term limits?
We would have to get behind potential political candidates that would be all for this.
The media runs on money, not charity and I doubt they would go against their best interests when they have political candidates shoveling money their way.
I am all for term limits by the way.
Our political culture runs on partisan attacks and partisan hacks in order to "blame" the other guy when anyone with 2 brain cells can see the dominant policies in Washington are a continuation from previous administrations.
The top elite would NEVER go for doing away with attacks on the "other" team.
The problem with term limits is that institutional memory, experience and skill evaporates. That absolutely leaves governance in the hands of staffers and lobbyists. Of course, that's not a whole lot different from their influence now. However, term limits do heighten the "need" and urgency for constant campaigning as members strive to move from one house to the other or to politically appointed positions. The real answer is campaign financing reform.
As to the matter of the draft, compulsory service would, in effect, create a de facto militia of trained, experienced citizens (those of us from the Vietnam era are a bit long in the tooth now - my service began 48 years ago) and that might have the political effect of blunting the anti-2nd Amendment folks arguments. Talk about exploding some heads! However, these interminable wars need to be brought to an end first or a draft would reinvigorate a situation similar to the Vietnam draft protests. Mandatory service hasn't seemed to hurt Switzerland a bit.
I read your post and answered that it's good to have every citizen invested in the military regardless of whether they're rich or poor. Military service would build character in young men and women from wealthy homes and those less fortunate might finally have access to a college education via the GI Bill.
Obviously our nation can't afford perpetual war given the nearly $18,000,000,000,000 national debt but people would shoot chickenhawks, like Dick Cheney, down much more quickly if there was a legitimate chance that they'd get killed or wounded in future conflicts.
I understand your point. Your point was that you wanted to bully congressmen into taking your anti-war stance by trying to get their kids killed. Something that is (in addition to being slightly despicable to do) not accomplished by any means with your plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Instead of using the Heritage Foundation data go right to the source (a real site), the income bracket from $20-50K they call it middle class in the link but I doubt household income in that range is middle class in most places. The only thing you can say is that the top and bottom brackets are under represented
I would love to see where the Heritage Foundation got that info, by the way did you notice their chart is based on "Enlistees neighborhood income levels", what the hell does that even mean?
The source was median household income within census tracts. Also, your 'data' only shows changing trends. Not absolute figures. Your data says that the percentage of middle class households is increasing. A change in velocity is not a net change in overall position.
You still missed the massive fallacy of the OP's point. The OP is obviously anti-military and is trying to use a perceived intimidation tactic to push his/her views on other people. That is being a thug, not a concerned citizen.
The OP is obviously anti-military and is trying to use a perceived intimidation tactic to push his/her views on other people. That is being a thug, not a concerned citizen.
I'm not at all ant-military, I'm just against senseless wars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
