Cut Military spending?

[Denny Crane]

I like barfo's point better, but choosing my job so me and my children can live a healthy life is about as much choice as compulsary military enlistment.

You still took your choice of job voluntarily.

How about if your employer could send the cops to your house to force you to be an employee at whatever wages the company wanted, and whatever duties it chooses to assign you?

 

[blue9]

Let's not compare compulsory service to slavery. Compulsory service benefits many people, including the people participating in it. Slavery benefits the slaver.
You don't like the idea of compulsory service - that's fine. But it's not slavery.
What's more akin to slavery than compulsory service is how your clothes and goods are made.

 

[Denny Crane]

Let's not compare compulsory service to slavery. Compulsory service benefits many people, including the people participating in it. Slavery benefits the slaver.
You don't like the idea of compulsory service - that's fine. But it's not slavery.
What's more akin to slavery than compulsory service is how your clothes and goods are made.

The comparison is inconvenient, eh?

 

[Nikolokolus]

Let's not compare compulsory service to slavery. Compulsory service benefits many people, including the people participating in it. Slavery benefits the slaver.
You don't like the idea of compulsory service - that's fine. But it's not slavery.
What's more akin to slavery than compulsory service is how your clothes and goods are made.

Well I see two flaws here. One, slavery benefited many people too and getting sent to a shooting war doesn't benefit the people participating in it much.

 

[Further]

Denny, I'm not an expert on the 13th, so please help. How is the draft legal when that is in place? Seems that fills the exact same criteria of involuntary.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Denny, I'm not an expert on the 13th, so please help. How is the draft legal when that is in place? Seems that fills the exact same criteria of involuntary.

That's a good question.

 

[blue9]

The comparison is inconvenient, eh?

No, just disingenuous.

Well I see two flaws here. One, slavery benefited many people too and getting sent to a shooting war doesn't benefit the people participating in it much.

Okay - good points. Still, comparing compulsory service to slavery is nothing more than hyperbole. Maybe compulsory service doesn't ALWAYS benefit the participants, but it at least has the potential for benefit during peace-time.

 

[Denny Crane]

Both the selective service and the draft have been challenged at the supreme court and the court has ruled that the government has the power to raise and support armies, per Article I, Section 8, Clause 12.

Our founding fathers did not want a standing army at all. They felt a standing army would lead to a sort of tyranny; you know, where the government could demand taxes or worse. Nor did they want us to become some sort of militaristic society. They specifically wrote about any standing army being small (like 1,000 troops, really!) and the govt.'s power to support armies simply to pay the payroll and buy bullets.

I've not seen that the courts have ruled for or against conscription during peace time, which is a very different thing than needing troops for an actual war (not a police action tho). The selective service has been ruled constitutional during peacetime, but that's not actual conscription.

After Vietnam, Ford terminated the Selective Service. Carter reinstated it, anticipating a war with Iran. We've had it ever since.

During the Gulf War I, Kosovo (and Clinton's other military excursions), Gulf War II, and Afghanistan, we had no draft nor need for one.

Service is just that - service. There's a contract element to it, as well. In exchange for military duty, we give our vets VHA loans, VA medical care, GI Bill for education. The GI signs away various rights, like the right to quit, submits to MCOJ, 1 weekend/month+1 week/year (or whatever) for reservists, and serve where you're told, do what you're told, etc.

Right now our active military is 1.4M people with 851K in reserve. If we were to force people to join the military for two years, there'd be between 15M and 30M active military at all times.

It would cost us an additional $1T in salary for the low end (15M) level, and another $1.5T for their health care. That's not counting the cost of the bases, housing, "operation/maintenance" etc. (about $1.8T).

Then figure in the cost of GI Bill, VHA loans, etc., for all those people.

I seriously doubt it is a good idea from any perspective.

 

[barfo]

Most people who propose compulsory service don't mean compulsory military service. Either you serve in the military, or you serve in some other way. We don't need a huge army - but we do have lots of other stuff we could be working on.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The costs wouldn't change, Barfo. All those people have to eat and need a roof over their heads.

 

[Denny Crane]

I certainly agree that military spending should be dramatically cut. I just don't think it'll ever happen. So with that in mind I would like to see our military personnel re-trained and better utilized. Rather than protecting corporate interests they should be used to help create/maintain infrastructure and provide basic human services - both here and abroad. That I-5 bridge in northern Washington never should have collapsed. Detroit never should have deteriorated. The levees in NO never should have failed. Our soldiers should have been put to work keeping our infrastructure in tip-top shape. And abroad we could be providing clean drinking water, housing, schools, electrical grids, etc to the poorest parts of the world rather than driving around in armored vehicles and heavy artillery. Essentially reduce the fighting force and increase the Corp of Engineers. Rather than training people to kill, train them to build, teach, provide health care, etc (and also to kill as an absolute last resort). Not only would this be a generally decent thing to do, but it would slowly help improve our image internationally.

I also think compulsory service might be a good thing. Two years of service for your country would buy you a free college education and some other perks (extremely low mortgage rate for first home purchase, free health care, etc). But compulsory service should only come after the reorganization of the military, and there should be some level of control as to what sector you're going to serve in (ie, nobody would be forced into the armed forces - though perhaps everyone would receive basic training).

I also think that compulsory service might help reduce the "us vs them" mentality in our own country. Being compulsory it would be made up of all strata of the population, putting the Harvard-bound student and the itinerant farmer next to each other, working together and learning to view things from another person's perspective, hopefully creating more compassion between groups of people that the current system has pitted against each other.

This seems to be suggesting a massive military, even if many are ACE.

 

[barfo]

The costs wouldn't change, Barfo. All those people have to eat and need a roof over their heads.

I don't think you give full military benefits to someone who picks up litter.

barfo

 

[Further]

Also depending on the job being done, There could be great positives or negatives to the GDP. Costs to feed them might stay the same, but the good they do could offset that through a better place to live or even through a better resulting economy, depending on how it was implemented.

 

[blue9]

This seems to be suggesting a massive military, even if many are ACE.

Perhaps I wasn't careful enough with my words. By no means am I suggesting more troops. Our fighting force should be DRAMATICALLY reduced. But with the idea of compulsory service, you would have the choice to serve as a government weapon if you wanted. I think most people would choose to serve in other ways though - providing health care, building infrastructure, teaching, etc. For many it could act as a form of apprenticeship to prepare them for their future career. Or perhaps their service would be paid after finishing the necessary education so doctors would get a free education but then provide community health care for X years before going into their desired field.

 

[blue9]

Also depending on the job being done, There could be great positives or negatives to the GDP. Costs to feed them might stay the same, but the good they do could offset that through a better place to live or even through a better resulting economy, depending on how it was implemented.

Precisely.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think you give full military benefits to someone who picks up litter.

barfo

The call was for a couple years of service. You're not going to pay them for those 2 years? No pay makes it slavery moreso.

The call was also to provide education and free health care (free? hahaha). If everyone had to serve, in about 80 years, you'd be providing free everything to everyone in exchange for 2 years of picking up litter.

 

[Denny Crane]

Perhaps I wasn't careful enough with my words. By no means am I suggesting more troops. Our fighting force should be DRAMATICALLY reduced. But with the idea of compulsory service, you would have the choice to serve as a government weapon if you wanted. I think most people would choose to serve in other ways though - providing health care, building infrastructure, teaching, etc. For many it could act as a form of apprenticeship to prepare them for their future career. Or perhaps their service would be paid after finishing the necessary education so doctors would get a free education but then provide community health care for X years before going into their desired field.

Take a look at the military pay scale. I don't care if you hire 16M to fight or to pick up trash, it's going to be massively expensive.

At some point, you'll have 16M+ people repaving perfectly good roads. The asphalt costs money, as do the machines to lay down the road, paint the lines, etc.

 

[barfo]

The call was for a couple years of service. You're not going to pay them for those 2 years? No pay makes it slavery moreso.

The call was also to provide education and free health care (free? hahaha). If everyone had to serve, in about 80 years, you'd be providing free everything to everyone in exchange for 2 years of picking up litter.

You are being unreasonably rigid. The length of service and benefits of service can be adjusted as desired. If all we need is 6 months from everyone to do every useful public project, then 6 months it is.

barfo

 

[blue9]

You are being unreasonably rigid. The length of service and benefits of service can be adjusted as desired. If all we need is 6 months from everyone to do every useful public project, then 6 months it is.

barfo

Seriously! They were just numbers to help illustrate a rough idea. Fucking hell - it's not like it's a fully fleshed out piece of legislation! The point is for people to provide useful service for the common good (that the government is already paying for!) in return for some individual rewards.
And I sincerely doubt that everyone is going to elect to pick up trash...

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmeriCorps#Costs_and_benefits

Already exists, and you don't have to haul people away in handcuffs if they refuse.