Are you male or female between 18 and 42?
Flipper · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 973 posts · 679 votes
Are you ready to serve your mandatory time in the military?
H. R. 5741
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
The idea that people doing government jobs are serving the country and those running businesses are not is fallacious.
A country and an economy have a variety of important and useful functions, including national defense, policing, cleaning roads, running businesses, etc. You cannot just have jobs that use taxes without people performing roles that generate the wealth to make it all happen.
If you let market-based rules determine who does what, you will allocate labor resources well. If you have the government determining people's activities, you will waste resources with people like Steve Jobs cleaning decks instead of creating useful products.
This is election year, this bill will never pass.
You never know what will happen when the entire country continues to be apathetic
Too bad it wasn't past 40 years ago, IMO! Rich kidss poor kids take'em all and turn those cry babies into meen and women with a since of responsibility.
18 months would not kill anyone. If they can't pass a physical, put them at a desk in any federal agency answering the phone.
Gee, they might learn something, like the world doesn't revolve around them, how to get along with others from other walks of life, how to clean their room would be a big plus for many landlords later on!
It also adds a degree of maturity and teaches a degree of respect for others, superiors, peers and subordinates.
They can also have more fun than is usually lawfully possible anywhere else.
The experience wouldn't kill anyone, it's those damn bullets and bombs you have to watch out for! Good luck, Bill
I agree that the experience would do a lot of these self-involved welfare leaches some good. I think the recruiters should try harder to recruit these low income folks, or that service may be required to receive government benefits.
My problem is that the government should not be allowed to tell a citizen what they have to do. If I have to leave for 2 years, my company goes to hell. My investors are gone when I get back.
There is NOTHING the government is supposed to force us to do. Income taxes weren't even legal until 1913, 137 YEARS after the Declaration of Independence was signed.
Also take note how many of these items the President has sole control over, apparently without congressional approval. Sections 102(b)(2), 103(a), 103(b)(2), 103(c), 105(a), 106(b), 107(c), and 109(b)(1).
Do you trust your president with that much control?
I already put in my 9 years.
Gee Marc, what I'm hearing is let the poor go defend the country and let us who are attempting to profit from any opportunity left in the country stay here and reap the benefits at the cost of others.
Let the poor work at the desk in the Homeland Security Office answering the phone, cutting the cost of adminstration for the government, while others try to make a contribution by making money and paying taxes.
Guess you're lucky you were not born in Greece in ancient times, where every boy was groomed to be a warrior and those who were not fit simply killed. When they got too old to fight and defend their country they ventured off into other aspects of life.
How many countries can you think of that do not require some form of public contribution to benefit the country, how many?
If you want to go back to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, I don't recall any promises made to the citizens and saying they would not have to contribute to the cause.
Do I trust the President under those statutes? I'm sure this is an Obama bashing question, but my answer is yes, as much as I have trusted any other president under those statutes since Eisenhower, so far my trust has not been breached in those respects.
OK, so let's sit back and let others do what needs to be done.....that's the responsibility I was talking about above, it is as applicable to some spoiled brat wanting everything his way as much as it is to that poor guy receiving entitlements.
I'm an old Army Officer, I doubt you'll win me over...LOL!
It's not a rich vs poor argument. It's about Liberty. The ability to live my life and pursue happiness the way I see fit. Nothing in the constitution says the government is required to give poor people money. If they want money, why shouldn't they earn it? I've been homeless, and I got a job and moved on with my life.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who serve. But it should be a decision left up to the individual. I've spoken with servicemen who despised fighting along side forced enlistments, men who were forced into service instead of jail. They said there was no respect, no honor, and no pride in these people. That's not the military I want.
in a totally unrelated story, I heard the government will require everyone to wear brown shirts with "community organizer" screen printed on the back.
The idea that people doing government jobs are serving the country and those running businesses are not is fallacious.
A country and an economy have a variety of important and useful functions, including national defense, policing, cleaning roads, running businesses, etc. You cannot just have jobs that use taxes without people performing roles that generate the wealth to make it all happen.
If you let market-based rules determine who does what, you will allocate labor resources well. If you have the government determining people's activities, you will waste resources with people like Steve Jobs cleaning decks instead of creating useful products.
OK, and when we have a country of self centered people who feel they all have the right to let someone else do it all for them, who will be the last guy standing to defend the nation if that is required? Not you, because you don't feel like it?
It doesn't make a happy day for you, well then let's all get on that wagon, no one will have to go! We can just let anyone move in and run the place.
Frankly, I think there ought to be a special tax for people that think they don't have to contribute to the whole, like 99%. SImply moochers copping out with "it's a violation of my rights" or "it's a matter of personal choice" right, because so long as it has been a matter of choice, the moochers of freedom have chosen to take the advantages of it and not pay for anything!
It is exactly the same mentality of someone who refuses to get a job because they can live off entitlements, live off the tax payer, well the failure to serve in some capacity is the same thing as living off the blood of others who ensure our freedoms while the moochers refuse to participate in the cost of any such benefits.
I doubt anyone on this site can tell me about forced service in the miliatry. First of all, I don't believe anyone was talking about American forces and Americans, I have been in the service during both the draft and voluntary service. We don't behead draft dodgers, some countries do and I doubt I would respect their motivations. I'm not totally against someone who refuses to serve based on moral or religious grounds, but saying it's just my right to choose does not cut it. IMO.
In fact, the reason there are war fighters usually stems from the greed and incompetence of polical leaders and corporate interests in this country. I would much rather take some CEO of a corporation or some politician or some guy who claims he has no responsibility to serve and have them clear the path through an IED area, and blow it, than the poorest private in the Army who joined!
So, if you really want to know, many soldiers, marines, airmen and even those swabbies feel like there are many in this country that don't deserve to be protected, but they do it for those who do deserve their service.
DOn't take it personally Marc, it's just the wrong attitude, for an Americn to take, IMO> :)
Mike, I agree, the government has been the failure of society, for the evidendce, just look at the attitudes that prevail today. Self interest above all, at any cost! Lack of responsibility, ethics, moral compass, compassion, consideration for others, grit and determination.
During Viet Nam, many in uniform looked to the draft dodgers as cowards, I really didn't and argued in their defense at times, to no avail, since they were acting in support of their convictions which were well founded in my opinion since we also have the right to disagree, even with authority as civilians.
Saying that one has no obligation to contribute to society is rather niave and immature IMO. Elvis at least served, and he was discharged early mainly because of the taxes lost during his enlistment. So, I might buy that argument if some 19 year old is making millions to pay taxes. But some wannabe? Really, how classist. And as if some kid out of highschool is going to make a significant contribution to the national tax base, LOL!
And I didn't mean to imply that all had to serve in a military service, time spent in directly serving the public interest is fine too.
Scott, thank you! Yes you are right, veterans like myself are some of the people that our people in uniform are fighting for. But let's make something clear. The political propoganda that has been pumped out since the Revolutionary War, that they are fighting for us is not really true, they are there because politicians put them there, in every war, to promote an agenda, some admirable and moral, some not. War fighters fight first for those standing beside them in the fight, then justify their actions politically, each in his/her own way.
If you are real lucky, you'll never find out! Good luck!
37 and i have served 8 yrs you do get to see parts of the world that you may never see with out serving and make a lot of true friends .Also when you sign for your license at 18 your signing up for selective service if they need you but your right everyone entitled to on opinion of serve or not.
be sure and vote that way you know you did what you could to voice opinion and God Bless
I would have no problem serving my time if it was needed, I've actually been looking into joining anyway. I don't even have a real objection to the draft, even a peace-time draft, if it's fairly executed, and necessary for the strengthening of our military, and defense of our borders.
What I have a problem with is being mandated to do something, just "because." I don't see any way for this to be fairly executed. How will the government track down every individual and force them into service without violating any fourth amendment rights?
Will it be something you just have to sign up for? Like the current SS? Because that's a joke. Only 20 people (according to wikipedia) have ever been convicted of failing to register, and 19 of them confessed. So everyone that follows the rules has a better chance of being drafted (or in this case, the absolute certainty of giving service), and the people that ignore the rules benefit. And yes, within 30 days of my 18th birthday, I was registered for the draft, and that was at the height of the war in Afghanistan.
My asking how much you trust the President wasn't (necessarily) a stone throw at Obama, but rather why should any one individual be given that much power? The government was designed for the congress to provide a check and balance against the Executive branch. This bill is bypassing that.
And it's not the ability to call to arms that bothers me as much as the fact that it gives the President the ability to assign the "civilian" jobs. That makes me nervous with a president that leans a little too far to the left, IMO.
he already has that power to pull us into a conflict not "war" with out prior approval from congress for max of 6 months too they are gonna do what they want when they want unless we all want some TEA and that is true we do tea parties in LaFayette Ga on taxes and anything the community doesnt want our local govt to pass
and they dont hunt those down that skip anymore they just wait until they get themselves into trouble then the blotter tells on them and alerts the county they are arrested in to hold until they decide to court martial which 8 out of 10 they don't even pick them up
" Are you a male or female between the age of 18 to 24?"
This sounds suspicously like profiling.
... you just never know ...
Actually, it was to emphasize the point that this is open to everyone, and is amending the current draft laws to include women.
Nobody I've talked to around here seems to have any strong feelings one way or the other. It's actually making me sick how apathetic people can be as the government steps in and begins telling people how to live their lives.
By here, of course, I mean my current home. Obviously some of the board members have strong feelings, even if they lean the wrong way. Bill.
Lean the wrong way? LOL It's an opinion that has been formed over more years than many of the posters are old and you are to think that in your years and past experiences that your position is parmont. It's from the lack of experience in life and living in the "land of the free" (lol) that your misconceptions are seeded. You just think you have rights, and you do, when you are allowed to have them.
Arguing this aspect with many of the younger generation, at this time, is like a minister denouncing attitudes of a group at a gay rally! Not much of a chance of doing that. The young are idealistic and as they mature they will learn the realities of their environment.
Your rights are those you are allowed to have. If you think about it you will find that there are many aspects of life in our country where freedoms have deminished, and it's not due to any particular political party, well more so with conservatives than off to the left. (and I don't sit on the left)
Much of our conservative thinking in government comes from religious beliefs which promote conformity, obedience and the condemnation of what a particular group agrees to be immoral or evil. These ideas of control are reuired to establish and maintain a moral society. Most everyone here did not see the 50s, when many drivers didn't even have a drivers license and if they had a wreck, they got a ten dollar ticket. You could do many things in business and few ever looked over your shoulder, but then there were not as many cheats and crooks then in the population, IMO either, there were many, but not at all like today where cheating someone is often seen as a strategy in business. So rights have been erroding for many years and I don't doubt that more rights will be eroded as more control is sought over the masses. So your conception of them telling you how to live is misconstrued, you have no idea how your life can be directed, directly and indirectly, to a common goal to facilitate order. To grasp this idea, look at the recent laws passed relating to real estate and your freedom to conduct business. Who do you think is in charge anyway....the people?
They can drag you out of your hosue kicking and screaming about rights viloations any day of the week and if you are without means, can put you anywhere they like. Don't be so niave that we don't live in a classist country, there is a difference too between the new money people and the old money, very sharp dividing lines exist in many areas. Good luck All!
That little jab at you Bill was supposed to be in jest. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell that online. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and despite your comment about my age, I am not immature or arrogant enough to actually believe my opinion to be more right, or better than yours.
That said, I'll continue my debate with you.
The idea of every man being entitled to Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness was written not as the foundation for a government, but as a basic moral statement. All people everywhere should have those basic rights, and I believe the governments responsibility ends at protecting us just enough that we can freely pursue our own happiness. Obviously, where that line lies would be debated to a different point by everyone.
It's interesting to me that you point out: "So rights have been eroding for many years and I don't doubt that more rights will be eroded as more control is sought over the masses." Yet, you seem not to be upset by that fact. That apathy in the general population is what bothers me I think more than anything.
If I offended you in the prior post, it was not my intention.
Looks like something Stalin might say. Or perhaps Mugabe.
I think it is absolutely true that moral standards have gone down. And I think one contributing factor for that has been the increasingly regulated society that we live in. As the government takes over every aspect of our lives and creates rules to micro-manage us, these rules are slowly supplanting common-sense based moral values.
We have reached a point where it is no longer shameful to do something if it is legal, regardless of how unethical it is. And similarly, people are being shamed for violating idiotic laws that no sensible person will want to comply with.
This establishmentarianist attitude has seeped all the way down into society and many people seem to have bought into it as it is the viewpoint that dominates the mass media. I am glad to see that young people like Marc are still able to maintain their independence of thought.
I'm with ya, Marc. Did you hear about the Department of Homeland Security "Rightwing extremism" report? If you favor smaller government, stockpile food, talk about a One World Government, or study end-times prophecy, you are considered a terrorist.
And NASA's new mission is to "reach out to the Muslim world"