BoatShoes;1222754 wrote:Would be a solution to our catastrophic unemployment that conservatives could maybe get behind considering their respect for the military.

More jobs created "ex nihilo" and paid for by employed Americans' taxes won't be solving any problems, really. These ones will be employed, but someone's going to have to pay for it, which will either manifest itself in a tax increase on the population or more devaluing of the dollar through print.

Sage;1222756 wrote:The draft is only a non-starter as long as people can remember the Vietnam draft. Once those people are dead, this issue is back on the table.

Reps.

I Wear Pants;1222782 wrote:If a war is worth fighting (for our defense) you shouldn't have to force people to join. And I doubt our military members want people around them who don't want to be there.

Plus there's the whole big gubmint argument that conservatives should make against this but they don't actually hate big government just when it does things they don't like.

I'm making it right now. Being forced into a particular employment is laughable. I'd go to jail before willingly going in a draft. Now, they probably wouldn't take me anyway, but just because it doesn't affect me doesn't mean I wouldn't object to it at every turn.

queencitybuckeye;1222867 wrote:This. "Shoes" used the wrong word. Had he said Republicans, his point would have been at least somewhat valid (albeit with an overly broad brush). A conservative would not support mandatory government service. Makes no sense.

Indeed. I know of plenty of Republicans who would be all for this. Makes me shudder.

Don't force rich kids to die. UnAmerican.

Footwedge;1222882 wrote:Don't force rich kids to die. UnAmerican.

Rich kids? What?

Footwedge;1222882 wrote:Don't force rich kids to die. UnAmerican.

Did you even read the article?

The author positions 3 equally idiotic mandatory (welcome to communist USA young people!) choices, none of which involve deployment.

1) A "military" role that doesn't involve deployment.

2) A civilian "brownshirt" role.

3) Opting out, where the only penalty is you don't get whatever tuition breaks or other stupid "benefits" for doing nothing more than working for the government, accepting government "money", and not facing any chance of real harm.

This really is the dumbest article I've ever read.

My modest counterproposal: Let's draft all people receiving social security to work in soup kitchens or clean toilets or something. It will teach them work ethic. Maybe they'll give something back for a change instead of free-riding. We can think of it as their working off the huge debt they ran up.

fan_from_texas;1223621 wrote:My modest counterproposal: Let's draft all people receiving social security to work in soup kitchens or clean toilets or something. It will teach them work ethic. Maybe they'll give something back for a change instead of free-riding. We can think of it as their working off the huge debt they ran up.

People are going to think you're serious.

In those people's defense, technically they did earn the Social Security.

If we were talking Medicare/Medicaid ... that'd be different.

O-Trap;1223623 wrote:People are going to think you're serious.

In those people's defense, technically they did earn the Social Security.

Even though I called it a modest counterproposal? Any old person who doesn't get that should lose their license. And have to pay double for prunes from here on out.

And they earned it the same way any first person in a pyramid scheme they set up "earns" it.

fan_from_texas;1223627 wrote:Even though I called it a modest counterproposal? Any old person who doesn't get that should lose their license. And have to pay double for prunes from here on out.

And they earned it the same way any first person in a pyramid scheme they set up "earns" it.

I don't disagree, but given that it is obligatory, it's like not having a say in participating in said pyramid scheme.

O-Trap;1223630 wrote:I don't disagree, but given that it is obligatory, it's like not having a say in participating in said pyramid scheme.

this

If they started a draft, I would move to Turkey. Fuck being in the army.

DeyDurkie5;1223858 wrote:If they started a draft, I would move to Turkey. Fuck being in the army.

I imagine there are a few guys in the Turkish army who would enjoy doing the same to you.

DeyDurkie5;1223858 wrote:If they started a draft, I would move to Turkey. Fuck being in the army.

Yeah I'd be gone too.

The land of the free. Unless we decide you're needed as a pawn to support our game of world police. Then it's not your choice and we'll make all of your decisions for you until we say otherwise.

Manhattan Buckeye;1223293 wrote:Did you even read the article?

The author positions 3 equally idiotic mandatory (welcome to communist USA young people!) choices, none of which involve deployment.

1) A "military" role that doesn't involve deployment.

2) A civilian "brownshirt" role.

3) Opting out, where the only penalty is you don't get whatever tuition breaks or other stupid "benefits" for doing nothing more than working for the government, accepting government "money", and not facing any chance of real harm.

This really is the dumbest article I've ever read.

Yes, I read the article...and I repeat..."Don't let our rich kids die". It's Unamerican.

This is a subject that your generation knows very little about. My generation actually lived through it. Your generation did nothing more than possibly read about it.

I would bet a pile of gosharoodies...that you've never, ever given it the smallest thought...that had you been born between 1951 and 1953, your wonderful career and family could have been snapped away from you at the plinking of a set of ping pong balls.

O-Trap;1223269 wrote:Rich kids? What?

I know...tough to fathom, ain't it? It only lasted about 2 years though...where the rich kids were forced to go...Vietnam...i.e. as in no college deferments (RE: Cheney. "had better things to do") when that happened, Nixon ended the bloodshed. Coinky dink? I think not.

Footwedge;1223889 wrote:I know...tough to fathom, ain't it? It only lasted about 2 years though...where the rich kids were forced to go...Vietnam...i.e. as in no college deferments (RE: Cheney. "had better things to do") when that happened, Nixon ended the bloodshed. Coinky dink? I think not.

Nobody should be forced to go, socioeconomic status be damned.

Footwedge;1223889 wrote:I know...tough to fathom, ain't it? It only lasted about 2 years though...where the rich kids were forced to go...Vietnam...i.e. as in no college deferments (RE: Cheney. "had better things to do") when that happened, Nixon ended the bloodshed. Coinky dink? I think not.

Or Romney's four deferments while at the same time he was protesting against people protesting against the draft.

Some excellent responses:

http://cafehayek.com/2012/07/the-fetish-for-force-is-so-fashionable.html

(I love some of the comments more than the article itself).

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/07/thomas_rickss_f.html

Some additions, first I agree with FFT that it as absolutely obnoxious to the point of obscenity for any older American to tell the younger generations that they need to do something they weren't even forced to do, like accepting a higher age for SS benefits. All sacrifices should be shared regardless of age.

Last, I had a conversation with my step FIL about a similar plan he was thinking of more or less demanding that recipients of welfare, unemployment or any government aid must work in some public service mode. He's very smart, a successful executive, very Libertarian-oriented and to my knowledge hasn't voted for a DEM in years. I convinced him in 5 minutes (he's very smart and listens to contrary opinions why it won't work).

1) The work isn't there - "driving generals" is as much make-up work as digging ditches and filling them back up. Cleaning highways, we have felons for that. Any "work" would likely be counterproductive. Unless they are doing convenience work like walking dogs or wiping butts they'll likely just get in the way.

2) The type of person who would do good work is someone trying to get a real job. A person honing his/her resume, perhaps learning another language, constantly seeking job leads and networking is better off doing than crappy make up work.

3) The most important. This would be another huge government bureaucracy that will drain cash. Who will monitor the workers? Who will be responsible for their work product? How will their work be insured? Etc., etc., etc.....the answer to all of these will ultimately be the taxpayer on the hook for another inefficient, wasteful government product.

The author of that article should be tarred and feathered, and the NYT ridiculed for publishing the letter. It is all idiocy.

Manhattan Buckeye;1223968 wrote:3) The most important. This would be another huge government bureaucracy that will drain cash. Who will monitor the workers? Who will be responsible for their work product? How will their work be insured? Etc., etc., etc.....the answer to all of these will ultimately be the taxpayer on the hook for another inefficient, wasteful government product.

In theory, this was my only beef with the idea. There's always some form of work to be done in cities. Maybe not cleaning up highways, but instead cleaning up streets in town/within the city. If someone doesn't do good work, they don't collect their tax-funded benefits, or at least not all of them.

But this would be one more avenue to hide federal waste, and THAT will be more detrimental than good.

I Wear Pants;1223945 wrote:Or Romney's four deferments while at the same time he was protesting against people protesting against the draft.

Be careful in rippin Mitt. If elected, he's signing up John Bolton as his Secretary of State. John will have us at war with Iran in no time. If people think Obama is a warmengerer...just wait until the next guy comes in. Wheeeeeew.

Excellent. Just what we need. Force the people to serve the interests of our dear leaders and sacrifice their lives for our government which provides for us.

Cleveland Buck;1225595 wrote:Excellent. Just what we need. Force the people to serve the interests of our dear leaders and sacrifice their lives for our government which provides for us.

The vassals serving the lords. Modern day feudalism lives. Been going on for a long, long time.