ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Jul 10, 2012 8:33am
Normally the argument for reinstating the draft take the form of letting everyone pay the price, and offering a moral hazard for war. But, this article by Thomas Rick, who wrote Fiasco, and is well considered an expert military historian, offers a different take on an argument for the draft. He lays out, what I think is a good system in theory.
Pretty interesting and thought provoking article. I lean against a draft, but done in this fashion, I may lean to support it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/opinion/lets-draft-our-kids.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120710
Pretty interesting and thought provoking article. I lean against a draft, but done in this fashion, I may lean to support it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/opinion/lets-draft-our-kids.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120710
believer
Posts: 8,153
Jul 10, 2012 8:54am
Let's do it. FDR would be proud!
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jul 10, 2012 9:37am
Yeah seriously. Sign me up too!ccrunner609;1222240 wrote:so 18 month service adds up to college pay, medical benefits and a mortgage? Where do I sign up?
The plan is broken from the get-go and is another article not based in reality. Maybe we can tax the rich more to pay for everything, great wonderful. :thumbdown:
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Jul 10, 2012 10:26am
No where did that article mention medical benefits and a mortgage as payment for serving.ccrunner609;1222240 wrote:so 18 month service adds up to college pay, medical benefits and a mortgage? Where do I sign up?
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Jul 10, 2012 10:30am
Our leaders are so weak-willed that they can only have the discipline not to go to war willy-nilly if they point guns at their own children's heads? Yeah, great idea.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Jul 10, 2012 10:40am
The article would have made a lot more sense of people weren't being kicked out of the armed forces up and out system and people weren't lining up to volunteer. Last time I checked, there wasn't a shortage. But then again perhaps this is opposite day.
My guess is that there are thousands of able-bodied men between the age of 30 to 35 that would love to get a government paycheck right now that could perform the services listed in the posted article. Why would we need to conscript?
My guess is that there are thousands of able-bodied men between the age of 30 to 35 that would love to get a government paycheck right now that could perform the services listed in the posted article. Why would we need to conscript?
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Jul 10, 2012 10:49am
I've read this article twice.
It is the most insanely idiotic thing I've ever read on the internet.
"Imagine how many local parks could be cleaned and how much could be saved if a few hundred New York City school custodians were 19, energetic and making $15,000 plus room and board, instead of 50, tired and making $106,329, the top base salary for the city’s public school custodians, before overtime."
How many 19 year old "energetic" young people will willingly agree to what appears to be slavery - and how will the unions that currently protect the tired 50-year olds react?
My sweet #^%$, is this what this country has come to? The NYT actually posted this? This was posted on the OC?
It is the most insanely idiotic thing I've ever read on the internet.
"Imagine how many local parks could be cleaned and how much could be saved if a few hundred New York City school custodians were 19, energetic and making $15,000 plus room and board, instead of 50, tired and making $106,329, the top base salary for the city’s public school custodians, before overtime."
How many 19 year old "energetic" young people will willingly agree to what appears to be slavery - and how will the unions that currently protect the tired 50-year olds react?
My sweet #^%$, is this what this country has come to? The NYT actually posted this? This was posted on the OC?
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Jul 10, 2012 11:35am
Like sleeper said, it is an article not written based on reality.Manhattan Buckeye;1222368 wrote:I've read this article twice.
It is the most insanely idiotic thing I've ever read on the internet.
"Imagine how many local parks could be cleaned and how much could be saved if a few hundred New York City school custodians were 19, energetic and making $15,000 plus room and board, instead of 50, tired and making $106,329, the top base salary for the city’s public school custodians, before overtime."
How many 19 year old "energetic" young people will willingly agree to what appears to be slavery - and how will the unions that currently protect the tired 50-year olds react?
My sweet #^%$, is this what this country has come to? The NYT actually posted this? This was posted on the OC?
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Jul 10, 2012 12:08pm
The people that say the writer is off his rocker's, he does know what he is talking about. Just read some of the posts on the blog. He has a pretty solid sense of the military. The whole point of the Op-ed is he is seeing that only a small % of people are actually serving, creating a huge rift between people that know sacrifice and "free-riders". We used to not have this problem, but with the volunteer force, it is growing.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/
Again, I'm not advocating it, but it is food for thought.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/
Again, I'm not advocating it, but it is food for thought.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Jul 10, 2012 1:30pm
I don't understand the need for it if there is no shortage. Having a good strong force of volunteers for your military is NOT a problem.ptown_trojans_1;1222438 wrote:The people that say the writer is off his rocker's, he does know what he is talking about. Just read some of the posts on the blog. He has a pretty solid sense of the military. The whole point of the Op-ed is he is seeing that only a small % of people are actually serving, creating a huge rift between people that know sacrifice and "free-riders". We used to not have this problem, but with the volunteer force, it is growing.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/
Again, I'm not advocating it, but it is food for thought.
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
Jul 10, 2012 1:42pm
And libertarians who object to a draft could opt out. Those who declined to help Uncle Sam would in return pledge to ask nothing from him — no Medicare, no subsidized college loans and no mortgage guarantees. Those who want minimal government can have it.
Do they also opt out of the shitty taxes that pay for those programs? If not, that hardly seems like a fair trade.
But most of all, having a draft might, as General McChrystal said, make Americans think more carefully before going to war. Imagine the savings — in blood, tears and national treasure — if we had thought twice about whether we really wanted to invade Iraq.
Were Americans really for invading Iraq? Seems to me the general is shifting the blame from his superiors to the American people. Seems pretty shady to me.
A
Altor
Posts: 62
Jul 10, 2012 1:42pm
Sure it did. If you don't serve, you don't get Medicare.WebFire;1222345 wrote:No where did that article mention medical benefits and a mortgage as payment for serving.
And libertarians who object to a draft could opt out. Those who declined to help Uncle Sam would in return pledge to ask nothing from him — no Medicare, no subsidized college loans and no mortgage guarantees. Those who want minimal government can have it.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Jul 10, 2012 1:45pm
IF(and it's a big if)...a draft was necessary this might be a starting point. The author is right about one thing...this is a political non-starter.
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
Jul 10, 2012 1:49pm
A better way to keep america from invading Iraq or other countries would be to have the politicians and their families on the front lines for low pay.FatHobbit;1222510 wrote:Were Americans really for invading Iraq? Seems to me the general is shifting the blame from his superiors to the American people. Seems pretty shady to me.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Jul 10, 2012 2:21pm
That's much different than "so 18 month service adds up to college pay, medical benefits and a mortgage?" The implication was that all are free for life after serving.Altor;1222513 wrote:Sure it did. If you don't serve, you don't get Medicare.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Jul 10, 2012 2:23pm
Not to mention I have access to Medicare now without serving. So what's the gain?
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jul 10, 2012 3:29pm
This is really, really stupid.
pmoney25
Posts: 1,787
Jul 10, 2012 3:53pm
Hopefully I raise my kids well enough to where they would opt out.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jul 10, 2012 4:04pm
I ever get a draft card in the mail I'm sending that shit back. Don't pretend you stand for freedom if you want to force people to go shoot people in third world countries.
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Jul 10, 2012 5:58pm
Neat article. Would be a solution to our catastrophic unemployment that conservatives could maybe get behind considering their respect for the military. Furthermore, the lack of common military bond has increased our contempt and polarization in our society methinks.
Sage
Posts: 2,070
Jul 10, 2012 5:59pm
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.
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Jul 10, 2012 6:02pm
Plus in war sense...the draft is necessary to keep the poor (who of course are begging to get in with catastrophic unemployment) from fighting all our wars. If a war is worth fighting all we should all have a stake.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jul 10, 2012 6:37pm
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.BoatShoes;1222759 wrote:Plus in war sense...the draft is necessary to keep the poor (who of course are begging to get in with catastrophic unemployment) from fighting all our wars. If a war is worth fighting all we should all have a stake.
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.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Jul 10, 2012 6:39pm
I Wear Pants;1222782 wrote:...
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 a conservative. I don't think the government should force people to be int he military. I think they should attract the type of people they want.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Jul 10, 2012 8:06pm
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.Con_Alma;1222784 wrote:I'm a conservative. I don't think the government should force people to be int he military. I think they should attract the type of people they want.