But not likely.

Under the new Selective Service rules and regulations all exemptions are temporary! Student exemptions only last for a semester, at the end of which the inductee has to report for their physical. And all physicals are to be conducted by either military medical personnel or contracted medical personnel(no more private doctor crap like Rush Limbaugh used)!


And the local boards are made up of the local community...very diverse(blue, white, and no collar). And if they exempt someone then the replacement has to come from the area that the local board is in, not from another board's area...which is what was done in the past!

Of course it's been a few years since I took the classes to be a board member, but I still have the manuals!

You can't have mine.

...of military service, of the deaths, the permanent disabilities. The men and women who serve are practically invisible to the rest of us. How many families on your block have a son or father in active duty? How many people do you actually know?

It's a career, very often, of the poor who see no other path to gaining an education and a path out of poverty. It's an economic draft.

One of the reasons the Vietnam War finally, finally was ended was that so many ordinary families lost sons and fathers, and that in theory every socioeconomic rank was subject to the draft. I personally knew more than one college boy draftee who died over there. The country was dreadfully split, but the youth were really outraged. You absolutely could not ignore that war and shrug off the very personal peril as being on someone else's back.

The all-volunteer army was supposed to alleviate that outrage -- and it did. Someone else's kid was going to go get killed or maimed, and it was all their own choice.

Guess who that ended up benefitting the most?

In a country that spends as much on military might as we do, the issue of draft vs. volunteer army is very complex and fraught. But I will tell you this about Charlie Rangel's efforts: he's trying to get people to Pay Attention, and that is a good thing.

But if you feel he still has something to prove to you, I'd lay odds he's up to it.

I don't care what he's out to prove. People post here quite often about the government buying things the military doesn't want or need. Well guess what? Military leaders don't want a draft either.

Of course military leaders don't want a draft. It would draw too much attention to how costly war really is. In blood and treasure.

This veteran didn't miss it but I'm betting millions who've never served did and do.

We are borrowing the money for our wars and relying on a small subset of the population to wage them. Both those things breed complacency, and pointing out that everyone should have skin in the game is an attempt to jolt people out of it. Maybe, like you, they'll realize war is horrible and if their kids are at risk for going, they'll start pressing politicians that war isn't the necessary first answer. "Hell, no, we won't go!" like in the old days.

He introduces this legislation every year. I doubt he expects it to be acted on. But he gets a little press on it, every year, and good for him, I say.

ways to feed blood and treasure into the machine.

is to make sure the public sees and understands the cost. That's how to avoid feeding blood and treasure into the machine.

It doesn't seem like a difficult concept.

"Drone strikes on wedding parties in US cities" would fuel opposition to war? In what universe?

...fuels opposition to war.

Both are terroristic attacks on a civilian population.

are taxes a terroristic attack on a civilian population as well?

I see a poverty draft as military slavery now, an unaccountable and out-of-control MIC as perpetrators of military slavery now and no serious opposition to that continuing into the future. If "skin in the game" is what it takes, including a draft law that selects children of the movers and shakers in this country FIRST, I'm for it. And a War Tax that covers not only our Excellent Adventures abroad, but also the DoD budget, and the VA, and the DoE that has to do with our nuclear armaments, and our clandestine services. I'd like the people of this country to know just what they spend in blood and treasure, and what they get for it. Any other questions?

I don't understand how my family became the enemy here.

Your family isn't the enemy, but it isn't just about them, or you. Is it? It's about all of us.

I don't often see your level of self-referential tribalism on this side of the aisle.

Enjoy your stay.

When will politicians realize that we view our children as ends and not as means for politicians making political points?

We love our children and grandchildren, Mr. Rangle, even if you don't.

they have been having to accept pretty low quality recruits lately.

We're just telling him to keep his grubby paws off of our children and grandchildren, that's all.

Our children and grandchildren are not his private property to dispose of however he sees fit.

They are human beings.

Mr. Rangle needs to realize that.

Democrats who attack our families are no better than Republicans who attack our families.

He figures that if the burden of prosecuting a war is laid upon the upper and middle classes, there will be no more wars.

Trying to grab headlines just like Rev. Al does.

He's pulled this stunt how many times??? And it is just a self serving stunt.

that if we insist on wars then everybodys child goes. His belief is, we will think twice about entering into any wars if we feel our own children will get drafted

That is my take

...politicians who want to use them to make their political points.

They can make their political points without exposing our children and grandchildren to murder and rape.

My children and grandchildren are not for sale at any price.

I don't care how powerful politicians think they are.

The measure isn't going to pass, and seeing as how Rangel has been doing this over and over and over again since about 2001 or so, I am pretty sure he's well aware of that.

Is there a point to all of this, or do you take pride in being an insufferable prig?

Let him make his bluff on the backs of YOUR kids then, or if you don't have children, then your nieces and nephews or other members of your family.

Fuck him and his "bluff". Let members of the Rangel family go first, then I'll think about it.

But I'm not going to worry myself thinking about whether or not an equine is going to drop from the sky to crush me while I'm driving.

I'm of drafting age, and I find no reason whatsoever to be concerned. Any vote for this bill would be political suicide. No one is going to vote for it, not even the most hawkish of the hawks.

Save your outrage for something worth being pissed about.

It's been that way since the Civil War, when Union draftees could buy their way out of the draft for $300 in gold (roughly $18,000 at today's gold price). Opposition to the Union draft was one reason why foreigners were recruited for Union forces, on the promise of getting free land if they made it out alive.

That's what enticed my great-grandfather to immigrate to the US.

but I would be willing to wager most can't. Those who can't would make sure they voted to not have any wars. I think we would be very watchful on who we voted for to make sure they were not war hungry, money making assholes. was I aloud to say asshole?

You've completely misinterpreted his point. This would have the effect of chilling warmongers and chickenhawks, if their children were the ones who would be on the front lines.

(Not all, but many of them would give pause to their own progeny in danger.)

Would that ol' Chuck made laws that pass when voted on, rather than making absolutely meaningless "points".

Fuck me though, that's waaay too much to ask.

standards through the roof.

Raise pay substantially while cutting broader budgets.

Ban recruitment of minors.

Ban proactive recruiting, a prospect must first come to the recruiters before they could legally engage.

Ban recruiting quotas and incentives for recruiters.

Act of war required for multiple tours to approved even if voluntary.

Drastically raise minimum safety safety requirements.

Raise training times and requirements.

Confiscation level progressive "war tax" for any conflict lasting over 30 days declared or not.

Not a fan of conscription.

I suppose if it's a choice of 30% unemployment for my constituents or conscription into a paying job, I might bend to it, too.

GLOBAL MILITARY HEGEMONY IS RUINING US, jut like it did the Romans. And our own Visigoth allies are willing to slit our throats to get at our treasures.

War tax on ALL income levels, no exceptions. A draft is not needed. A draft has never ended or shortened a war.

There's already a dispopotionate number of low income kids joining the military. If there isn't a high floor for taxation and extreme progressivity, the "war tax" hurts people who can't afford it, don't benefit from the wars, and are joining up for meager pay already.



To whit: Nobody pays the tax unless they make more than $48k per year. Then those between there at 75k, only pay 1%. 75k to 135k, 2%. 135k to 250k, 4%. 250k to 450k, 8% and anybody above 450 pays 24%. The well-off making $600k would think about supporting a war that costs them personally an extra $14400.

Progressive is fine but everyone pays. If a war is supposedly in our interest then every adult should be paying since it is their interest no matter what income. Too many people have no interest in our government because they pay no taxes. Maybe they will start paying attention when they have to pay. All pay or nothing.

Tied to any bill that the right wing nuts introduce for war. No draft.

universal military conscription, there's no way we would have invaded Iraq in 2003. And I doubt we would have been so quick to attack Afghanistan in 2001 either.

When the upper-middle and upper classes have 'skin in the game,' war loses its luster a hell of a lot more quickly than when the politicians can use a Praetorian Guard from a 'poverty draft' of poor blacks, whites and Latinos.

A little participation from the privileged classes (in terms of both treasure and talent), and you'd see a real quick change in our country's attitude toward war. I wonder if Lindsay Graham and John McCain will pick up this idea and run with it? Will Tom Cotton be as gung-ho for war when it's the Walton family paying the freight and sending their kids? How about the architects of the last couple of invasions? We going to see Private Wolfowitz or Corporal Feith anytime soon?

Rangel's idea is to flush out some of the turds polluting our system.

your children and grandchildren (or anyone else's, for that matter, including the progeny of the upper crust) be exempt from the burden of defending her?

...off of my daughters and my grandchildren.

They are not your property.

They just aren't.

What part of "NO" don't you understand?

No amount of fear-mongering is going to make me give up my children and grandchildren to you to fight your wars for you.

Fight your own God damn wars for yourself.

They are your wars, not mine.

My family is not for sale.

In your heart of hearts, do you really, truly think Rangel's proposal is going to go anywhere? Do you think that a universal draft is the sort of thing that is really, actually going to get reinstated in land of the chickenhawks, home of the let-the-poors-go-fight-our-wars? Is this something that's keeping you up at night, or starting awake in a cold sweat?

The system as it stands now is just fine with the masters of war who decide where and when we're going to commit the troops, the vast majority of families who don't have any kids or grandkids in the military, and the large corporations that make serious coin off of their war profiteering. Do you honestly think any of those powerful or numerous constituencies are going to have a sudden attack of conscience and say, "You know, this just isn't fair. Although my family or my pocketbook or my political career are at an enormous advantage with the way things are, I want to change the system so that our society and I can appreciate the true cost of war that we so cavalierly start for the benefit of the aforementioned family, pocketbook or career."

Is that really what you think?

Last edited Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:07 AM - Edit history (1)

your wisdom and political acumen. I was arguing in favor of Rangel's suggestion from an abstract principle -- that in a republic, all citizens must share equally in the burdens (irrespective of their financial status) -- but not paying due respect to the realities of life in the 'land of the chickenhawk' (nice turn of phrase, btw).

The person to whom you're responding seems to be so preoccupied with the protection of his progeny that he or she is missing our point(s) and merely restates his or her opposition to Rangel's Quixotic proposal(s).

...of my daughters and my grandchildren and purposely exposing them to murder and rape on the battlefield.

fervent desire that your progeny not share in the responsibiity for defending the republic.

Are you OK with only the kids of the poor doing that job for you? That's what the phrase 'poverty draft' means.

Or perhaps you don't think the republic as it currently exists is worth defending? That's a defensible position, I suppose.

But please tell me you do understand the concept of a 'republic'. Or are some citizens more equal than others?

My daughters are not your private property to dispose of however you might wish.

Neither are my grandchildren.

They are human beings.

They have the right to say "NO".

definition of the term 'republic'. Else, there's little point in any further discussion with you.

Conscription is fuel for the fires not a means to extinguish them otherwise war would have been an alien or at least a very out of date concept by the time any of us came along.

agree that we were fighting to defend our republic and to defeat German and Italian fascism in Europe and Japanese imperialism in Asia. If you don't believe World War II was worth fighting, then I'm not sure we have much basis for further discussion, as we start from such radically different premises that there is no way to 'meet in the middle.' (A few radical pacifists did object to our involvement in World War II and went to prison for their beliefs, IIRC. But they were the rare exception.)

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/thegoodwar/american_pacifism.html

Your logic is built on an exception and ignores the rule.

I also notice you are conflating "worth fighting" and "defending the Republic", those things may not be the same either way depending on circumstances. I think World War II was both to a degree but way closer to the former and barely the latter.

I'm also not seeing how this supports the base argument that conscription makes it more difficult to go to war.
Would we have been able to actually do so in a serious fashion even with the existence of a plausible existential threat without it?
Dubious I say, without a draft I'm not sure the volunteer numbers would have come through.

What is your argument here besides bodies for the MIC by hook or crook because WWII for peace (like that makes any sense)?

had military conscription -- Debs was imprisoned for advocating that workers resist conscription, among other things -- and from 1916-18, a large number of U.S. service people were sacrificed into the maw of European imperialism. That experience in World War I produced a great degree of war weariness and isolationism among the American public and created an entire 'lost generation' of veterans, most notably Hemingway and his coterie in Paris.

Fast forward to 1939-40 and FDR and most of the people paying attention know that war with Hitler is inevitable. But the American people's reluctance to enter into another continental or global blood-bath restrains FDR's hands (if they needed staying) and it is only after Pearl Harbor and Nazi Germany's declaration of war upon us that we once again enter the fray in Europe.

World War II was 'worth fighting' precisely because we were 'defending the Republic'. Are you suggesting otherwise? If so, then we seem to be proceeding from very different definitions of 'defending' and 'Republic,' that lacuna making further discussion difficult. The point is that conscription and its consequences stayed our leaders' hands in the run-up to World War II and we made war only when it was forced upon us. Contrast that with Operation Shocking and Awful in 2003 -- when there was no draft other than the 'poverty draft' -- where only the most lunatic fringe of the right wing any longer maintains that war with Iraq was necessary for our national defense or survival.

Bottom line: World War II -- war of necessity -- conscription. Iraq 1990/2003 -- wars of choice -- no conscription.

No, it isn't "bottom line" you are missing the vast majority of factors in your equation.

You are focused on an outlier (arguably a singular outlier at that) and ignoring the overwhelming rule.

entirely certain whether you consider that a war that had to be fought.

But from my perspective, the Civil War and World War II are two wars that had to be fought, thereby justifying the use of conscription. I used World War II as my example -- not a singular outlier -- because WWII is almost universally conceded a war of necessity and not of choice (like the Iraq War of 2003).

I stand by my original assertion: were Romney's kids in the line of fire in 2002-03, there's no fucking way we would have invaded Iraq. Why should that scum-bucket's kids get a pass? Please don't tell me you buy Cheney's line of shit about having 'other priorities' (one of the most insulting things he could say in front of any Vietnam veteran who was drafted and served).

We have thousands of years of history chock full of conscription combined with wars of choice as I have stated and you have been unable to counter over and over.

Your perspective is emotion driven ignorance assumably based on some for of projection that powerful people just won't spend their blood unnecessarily because you wouldn't and I say you are making a sucker's bet. The wealthy and powerful have many times put their own at risk because they care even more about wealth and power.

Romney has plenty of kids and can have more, he can risk to burn a few for power acquisition if circumstances dictate it. Especially now, he can invitro a whole tribe of them with his resources.
Kings would spend their sons even if it meant actually killing their own lines, some would even put themselves into battles much less their spawn and now there isn't even that little tap on the breaks.

It doesn't matter how much you keep going to the well, you are pushing snake oil.

the history of military conscription:

weren't conscripted throughout history all the way back to the tribal level then I don't know what to tell you.

There were no insults and no attacks on you ad hominem or otherwise.

Nobody has to agree with your ill consider scheme to feed more souls into the machinery of the military industrial complex to not be attacking you.

Didn't seem to slow the roll even when the rich and powerful actually directly participated.

This is a fantasy born of projection, you think that because if put into position to spend your children's blood for anything but the greatest necessity with all other options exhausted that the warmongers will do the same if their children really would be in the line of fire but I see no indications that this is true at all.

Maybe your avarice for power and wealth isn't as keyed up as many of those already in such positions and when you do the math things that aren't there keep getting added and things that are get deleted from the equation leading you to an answer that doesn't jibe too terribly smoothly with any examples we have over thousands of years.

This is a too clever by half proposal to me. Making it easier to mount war efforts doesn't make wars less likely, making it difficult and expensive as possible reduces wars and their footprints.

Everybody has a scheme to duck conflict with power when no way that shit works and is most likely to play into the hands of the opposition.

Waltons' and Kochs' kids' asses are on the line, you can bet your ass they'll be on the hot line to Hillary and Jeb to tell them to stand down for silly imperial hubristic shit like Iraq 1990 or Iraq 2003. If the rich don't have skin in the game, then only their moral compass (or lack thereof) guides their deployment of influence. We saw how well that worked in 2003 -- sure, no problem invading Iraq. It's just the poor blacks, Latinos and whites who will have to pay the ultimate price. Words are inadequate to express my contempt for this stance. To reiterate, put the Walton and Romney kids in play and, lo and behold, no Iraq War 2003.

the big ballers aren't the shot callers in the first place. There wow be no wars if the greedy Fuchs weren't demanding them for their own aims.

Throughout history even "skin in the game" appears to no slow the roll a bit. Just because you won't spend your children's blood for more wealth and greater power does not mean some other folks' math adds the same way.

I already went over this weak ass argument in my previous post, conscription has never stopped a war, it makes them more likely and more deadly.

Even if it was true, how in the world do you execute it with the wealthy and powerful owning the system. Why do foolish people think they will put themselves in check?

The idea of the draft is a good one. The problem is that loopholes will be put into place so that rich folks kids will be able to get out of it. Things like George W. Bush being sent to an Air National Guard unit that was not going to be sent to Vietnam.

If somehow there was a statute that said if the US engages in military action, all people 17-25 would be drafted and there were no exemptions or deferments, what Rangel is proposing MIGHT work to reduce the tendency to go to war. But I dont think such a law is possible.

they get gravy posts in big cities where the worst thing they'll ever fight is a hangover from the night before. GWB was basically AWOL for most of his "service."

Rangel is a dreamer if he thinks Congress would care about a draft. They're already experts in exploiting loopholes.

For every serviceman or woman fighting in an invasion that the government started, the government must pay a minimum salary of $100,000 per year for each of their families plus full healthcare benefits. For every killed service member, the government has to pay all of their funeral expenses and support their immediate family with $100,000 per year and healthcare for life. Also, the government must supply the military with the best equipment out there - especially for protection.

All casualty reports must be 100% public. They must be updated every week at least, with the name of every soldier, where they were from, and how they died. Taking pictures of coffins must be always allowed.

I realize that Rangel is trying to bring the war home, but there are better ways to do it. Instead of kicking citizens' butts, let's kick the government's butt and get people mad. Let's make invasions so costly that the US would never do them, and would return to a lean and effective defensive force.

He thinks it's fairer than what Jesse Jackson called "the economic draft". And he's right. But it's still the draft. Nope.

What does he mean feel the burden ???

Who the fuck does he think pays for the military, the contractors, and the private mercenaries ???

Why does he think all of the social services are being gutted ???

Our tax dollars are being squandered by the TRILLIONS.

Isn't that enough of a burden ???

Fuck the draft.

No one should be forced to die so a corporation can profit.

No one should be forced to die because the military brass decides to invade a country that poses no threat to us.

If all the enlisted men and women would lay down their arms maybe this shit would stop.

It seems the civilians have no power to stop the warmongering.

of reference, Specialist Lynndie England -- she of Abu Ghraib fame -- testified that she enlisted because the only jobs and employer within a 60-mile radius of where she lived were at WalMart.)

Let the politicians do their torturous, murderous dirty work on their own.

Draft. No way. I'm a veteran and proud of that, but I will never support a draft or any politician who pushes one.

It's remotely possible that one of my kids might decide to join the military someday, but there is no way in hell I will let our war mongers kidnap them.

Rangel has "re-introduced" his Reinstate the Draft Bill since the early years of the War on Iraq. He really started pounding this drum beat much louder in 2007 which was kind of weird at the time, but it went nowhere I think mostly because the Pentagon isn't in favor of it.

There's a mind set among some here that this would be a good thing, it would somehow prevent unnecessary wars.. a fantasy not evidenced in history, i.e. Vietnam.

Rangel and others seem to miss that lesson for reasons i cannot fathom, since he was around at the time.

More than you've seen on college campuses during our last few imperial adventures.

on bringing that war to an end.

And of course, all the draft did was increase the numbers of the dead and wounded, mentally scarred for life. But it did nothing to prevent the U.S. from engaging in Imperialistic-military engagement or to shut that policy down.

I know so many of us like to think that the anti-war/anti-draft demonstrations brought the war to an end. I have no idea why..

Although we were not successful, it certainly wasn't for the lack of trying.

I actually think were it not for Watergate hearings, Nixon would have continued that war until the end of his second term were he allowed to continue to occupy that position.

Then, whole lots of people would have a personal stake in whether we were going to war. Now, a relative handful of military families bear the brunt, while the rest of go shopping.

And I'm not, in principle, opposed to mandatory public service. Some other countries do that.

...if they started kidnapping our children and grandchildren to fight their bloody wars for them.

It would be the end of the Democratic Party.

... is how many people calling themselves Democrats, fail to see the solid message and point of WHY Rep. Charles Rangel is saying this.


Holy fuck, talk about clueless entitlement.

Wow. I don't generally expect that sort of blindness on this side of the aisle.

Have a public vote on the proposed war, and those who vote "yes" would have 20% (or whatever percentage it takes) of their net wealth donated to the cause.

(The list of "yes" votes could also be used as a source of names for any potential draft, should such be "needed".)

heavy lifting, typical dead beat.

from war, not the rest of us.

a 'levy,' IIRC).

If I understand right, in Viet Nam, you at least only required one tour of duty and if you survived, you were done.

The volunteer military doing multiple tours seems to be a very bad thing and leads to intense pressure and a high suicide rate.

And if America is so gung ho on a war they should be willing to go themselves, not just support the others, and willing to specifically pay for it.

I recall the Rs who gloated about "beating" the Vietnam syndrome. In other words, they knew not having such a personal stake meant fewer protests about their military adventures.

I think people are missing his point.The tiniest number of families in US history is feeling the pain of military service, of the deaths, the permanent disabilities. The men and women who serve are practically invisible to the rest of us. How many families on your block have a son or father in active duty? How many people do you actually know?

It's a career, very often, of the poor who see no other path to gaining an education and a path out of poverty. It's an economic draft.

One of the reasons the Vietnam War finally, finally was ended was that so many ordinary families lost sons and fathers, and that in theory every socioeconomic rank was subject to the draft. I personally knew more than one college boy draftee who died over there. The country was dreadfully split, but the youth were really outraged. You absolutely could not ignore that war and shrug off the very personal peril as being on someone else's back.

The all-volunteer army was supposed to alleviate that outrage -- and it did. Someone else's kid was going to go get killed or maimed, and it was all their own choice. Neat trick, that.

Guess who that ended up benefitting the most?

In a country that spends as much on military might as we do, the issue of draft vs. volunteer army is very complex and fraught. But I will tell you this about Charlie Rangel's efforts: he's trying to get people to Pay Attention, and that is a good thing.

Anyone? Anyone at all?

No?

Then Rangel either needs to go get his own helmet and re-enlist, or knock this stupid shit off. I get his "point" but his point also happens to be completely wrong.

Yeah, that will solve our problems.