I think the Rangle issue has been distorted by both sides, few people are really listening to his own words anymore!
No, I only claimed your interpretation of Rangle's stunt was nonsense ;)

The only "G.I.'s are stupid" mantra is the one used to defame war critics by accusing them of defaming the troops.

I don't believe Scooby thinks our troops are dumb...but I do think he made a very inarticulate statement.

But considering how the Military is having to lower standards in order to meet enlistment targets, it's easy for some to draw a parallel to Vietnam era stigma's...in a slippery slope sort of way.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :jester:

My comments are in context.

Unlike many, I don't cherry pick fringe kookisims and whitewash others so I can define my opponent as I'd like to see them. It's you who are trigger happy as any with the "left wing loony" retort to anything which is uncomfortable or difficult.

My insults are not veiled, I'm calling BULL%$%$%$%$ on this intellectually sloppy and boorish mode of communication you so embrace, which avoids the real issues in favor of a poke to the liberal straw man with an overworn stick.

Instead of getting all in a huff, how about responding to my utter nonsense post? The meat, the substance of the issue.

Would Congress and the President view using US force differently if the burden was shared not by just those who choose to sign up...but by those who enjoy it's protection!

It's a valid and perhaps critical question to ask at this juncture in the history of our country. As I've said before, yes, it's a stunt...but given how receptive the political climate has been for constructive debate, perhaps that's the only way to get the question addressed.

-spence

A few misconceptions and twists are made in these arguments - I found this on mostly DOD sites:

The American All Volunteer Military is better educated on average than the population of America. A higher percentage, significantly, of american military have HSD and those that do not are usually bootstrapped in a program for GED. A higher percentage of military from 18-35 have some college compared to the average population of America. Half of all americans from 18-24 do not qualify for military service due to health / education requirements.

Ethnicly, black americans are recruiting somewhat above and hispanic / asian american are recruiting at below their percentage of population. Recruitment of black americans is trending down.

The enlistment recruiting well mirrors the averages for America.

Interesting article:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2...13mythfact.pdf

Reading Rangel's own statements, I don't think his argument has anything to do with education...but rather economics and the notion of "shared" sacrifice.

While I don't completely agree with his argument, Rangel does make a very valid point.

One one hand the War on Terror is being pitched as the single greatest threat to Western civilization this century, yet on the other we're being told to just "keep shopping" while the government cuts taxes and continues to rack up the national debt for our children.

To Rangel's point...shouldn't this sacrifice be shared among all Americans (including corporate interests) if the stakes are really that high?

-spence

The utter nonsense is the notion that this issue is about a possible abstract consequence of the Draft reinstatement. The very basis for Rangels proposal is incorrect. His statement that the military disproprtionately consists of those of lower social bearing (Undeducated, poor, and minorities) is completely false. Want to debate the real issues? Heres a few of hundreds.

1) Forcibily removing Mothers and Fathers between the ages of 18 and 42 from a family structure.

2) Diluting the strongest and most effecient Miltary Unit on the face of the earth.

3) Lowering current Military admission standards

4) Substantial financial implications to support a milatary draft and its cojoined social/community service alternative (draft deferment option).

Actually, Rangel's statements (as he's made them) seem to be supported by Pentagon statistics and non-partisan research done over the past few years.

• Nearly 1/2 of new recruits came from lower-middle-class to poor households
  
• Nearly 2/3 of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median
  
• All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were non-metropolitan

Source: Washington Post

Put Rangel's comments in this context and it would seem as though his argument is more compelling than you might think.

-spence

Thats interesting when compared to these DOD statistics.

The overwhelming majority of military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq — nearly 74 percent — have been white. Hispanic/Latino deaths make up about 11.5 percent; blacks account for less than 10 percent. Yet, the overall U.S. population of more than 300 million is 14 percent Hispanic and 12 percent black.

You're comparing different stats. Who ever said the poorer communities were minority?

Additionally you'd need to study where the various minority groups served and where the deaths were occuring for it to have much meaning.

-spence

My guess is the, ethnicity and number of dead will remain constant with the current statistic even after the location of death data has been extrapolated and interjected to the statistic formula.

And in context with Rangel's Bill, it would still be moot ;)

-spence

These are some of the REAL issues and consequences relative to Rangles proposal. They are not moot.

1) Forcibily removing Mothers and Fathers between the ages of 18 and 42 from a family structure.

2) Diluting the strongest and most efficient Miltary Unit on the face of the earth.

3) Lowering of current Military admission standards to allow quota fulfillment.

4) Unprecedented financial (Tax) implications of supporting a military draft and its cojoined social/community service alternative (draft deferment option).

5) Conscientious Objective Deferals for those who opppose fighting in Wars.

Woa, I just had a deja vu :)
Well, I don't believe he's ever called for any of that. Rangel's bill isn't even for a "military" draft alone, but also to draft people into public service that will aid us in the War on Terror. For many this could mean nothing more than some part time work instead of watching 8 hours of mindless football on Sundays ;)

Have you even read his Bill?

-spence

Wow, Even after reading the bill I was left with the clear impression it called for a Miltary Draft. :wall:

Lots of poor caucasians in this country

Reread my post, I corrected it after rereading it and realizing it was worded poorly.

8 minutes before you responded ;)

-spence

Wow, thanks.

So back to the point...is the burden of fighting for the American way of life being equally shared among those who enjoy it?

Should it?

-spence

I think that when people are thinking about the education level of the Mlitary they are falling victim to an Out-dated perception. 30-40 years ago the military was an avenue for people who didn't have the grades for College or any direction, as of yet, in there lives. Still is to some extent. I know that when I joined it was to basically do something with my life. and when I joined they were just starting to implement standards for enlistment. They were looking at things like High-school Graduate or not, or if you had a clean police record.

and as time progressed it actually became tougher to get into the military than ever before. Also as technology started to come to the Fore front the need for more Trained and Educated personnel came into play so the Military had to change its standards.

Its tough having the average guy answer this. If I answered from my personal observations the answer is yes. Every soldier I know or am familiar with through friends and family here in Boston are all well educated and career driven middle class people. They come from all walks of life be it public servants, politicians teachers etc. All with high school diplomas at a minimum, most with college and some with post grad degrees.

This is beacuse it is a cross-section of my personal and social circles. We can all relay stories about our opinions based on our experiences.

The problem is answering the question on a national level, for that we must rely on statistics. Unfortunately, as we all know we could spend a couple of days here posting links

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...rity/wm922.cfm

trying to nail down the exact socio-economic make-up of the greatest fighting force in the history of the world.

"Should it?" ..... I may have to take a stab at this later. Off to court.:walk:

I'll give this one last shot. What you seem to be saying is Republicans are now blaming Democrats for things Republicans were claiming they themselves do. If that is your point I'm left with only one word..........What?

You`re welcome and I`ll see you in court :usd:

Many words do not a point make said someone.

Hard up?


I do not believe you only have one word. My idea was that the Dems just got some measure of control....just..... and the finger pointing is growing before they can even make an attempt to turn things around which will take some time. One has an idea or special project and its all them dems want this or that..... special interests are not all encompassing no matter their outward appearing politics.

I was just kidding Mike.:tooth: I read all those long posts then hit yours and kinda laughed. All in good fun!:wave:

Me to my S-B friend :chatter

The best of holidays for you and yours :love:

I think that's the rub, obviously with more service members coming from the south and west...you will have communities that are impacted more and more. But even in RI every so often there's bad news...

But this isn't just a military demographic question. Given the desire to keep the consumer driven economy pumping does the average person really think about Americans overseas while they clammer through a Wal-Mart parking lot at 5am to score some Black Friday goods?

According to experts this war will cost well north of a trillion dollars over this decade while the income gap widens nationally and the National Debt mounts. We all know who can better afford to pay taxes without impacting quality of life.

So it would seem that the military is leaning on poorer communities for recruitment while the Federal Government is leaning on the middle class taxpayer to foot the bill.

Again, this is about the ability to shoulder the "burden" for their policy.

Agree or not 100% I do think Rangel is bringing up a very thoughtful point.

-spence

The top 10% of wage earners pay 90% of the taxes. So the government would be leaning on the upper-upper class to foot this bill.

Where did you get that stat? Gotta see that one for myself.

Well, first off that's not true. The top 10% pay more like 65% of the taxes and the current trend is shifting the burden to the lower tax brackets.

But that's not even the real issue, it's our progressive tax system that has allowed the middle class to exist for so long fueling the American dream. Wealth redistrubtion is as American as baseball and apple pie.

More and more fiscal conservatives are looking at taxes in relation to the entire Federal budget, and what this means for the future of our Country...

I'll let Ben Stein explain:

It's a good short piece, I'd read the entire thing.

-spence

Lets say your 10% and 65% numbers are correct. How then can you cay that the middle class is taking the brunt of the cost of the war? The wealthiest are taking the biggest hit. Care to discuss how much the lower third pay in taxes?

That NYT quote is unnerving. "what they can afford to pay".

That NYT quote is unnerving. "what they can afford to pay".[/QUOTE]

You are so right. :yak:

I agree slapshot, we should not be taxed on what we can afford to pay.
The "upper" class of today is not old money, but people that work 80+ hours a week.
How many vacation days do you think Bill Gates takes? I'd bet none, I am certain that he spends 12+ hours a day on Msoft business.

Because the rich can better afford it...it's that simple...Read the article. Remember, this isn't about being "fair" rather it's about fiscal balance and that any time anyone brings the subject up they are accused of "class warfare".

Actually the article is quoting Ben Stein and Warren E. Buffett! Not exactly two liberal thinkers.

-spence

The line "what they can afford to pay" is the author's "creative writing" and not a quote from Stein or Mr. Berkshire Hathaway.

ATTENTION - ATTENTION - ATTENTION

"Ben Stein" is the author writing about Warren Buffett! :humpty:

-spence

You caught me, I wasn't paying attention to a NYT article. Not sure I'd wipe my rear with that rag anyway.

More to the point, I find it hard to believe that Buffet would be willing to pay "what he can afford".

So he's just telling a lie so Stein can write a nice story?

-spence

Warren Buffet spends a tremendous amount of money. In fact he just donated most of his personel worth to Bill and Melinda Gate's foundation. That was a sizeable amount of change. So Buffet certainly isn't cheap and is willing to spend his dough. By the way, Stein and Buffet, as individuals, doesn't that combination strike anyone as odd?

No, please explain?

-spence

Spence it difficult to overcome Steins comedic travails and switch to his financial astuteness (sic). I am sure he is wealthy but I have trouble listening to what he says when the only thing I relate to while listening to or reading him is the show, "Take Ben Stein's Money". He certainly isn't in BUFFET'S category. Berkshire Hathaway is probably the most successful investment companies in the world. Besides what I have allready said I doubt many people other than Mrs. Stein pay much attention to Ben Steins advice.

Beuller, Beuller.......Beuller

(OK You knew Somebody was going to do that)

He seems to have enough street cred to keep people's attention. Given that his comedic persona is pretty annoying, I don't think he'd get far if there wasn't something to offer.

-spence