# Charles Rangel reintroduces Draft Legislation



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Why We Need Universal Service

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-charles-rangel/why-we-need-universal-ser_b_837827.html

Specifically says would be National Service (not Military Service).

What do you think? Solely political posturing? W.P.A. part 2?


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

We're allowed to talk about politics now? Just asking, since the politics forum is still locked and I haven't read anything from the admins saying politics is open for discussion now. Plus I'd like to know what the rules for discussing it is before I comment so I don't get in trouble.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> We're allowed to talk about politics now? Just asking, since the politics forum is still locked and I haven't read anything from the admins saying politics is open for discussion now. Plus I'd like to know what the rules for discussing it is before I comment so I don't get in trouble.


Yes, discussion of politics is once again welcome on MDC. For now, at least, Politics will be within News & Current Events. The topics are so intertwined we are planning just one forum at this time. It could change in the future depending on evolving needs and usage.

Here are the new News & Current Events Guildelines:

http://www.mothering.com/community/wiki/news-and-current-events

Please feel free to PM me at any time with questions or concerns!


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

I've been saying that for years. It'll never happen, but I love the idea if it.


----------



## dawningmama (Jan 14, 2003)

I am all for the idea of National Service. I haven't read the whole of this bill in particular, but what I have read sounds like a possible great help with unemployment.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dawningmama*
> 
> I am all for the idea of National Service. I haven't read the whole of this bill in particular, but what I have read sounds like a possible great help with unemployment.


That seemed like a major benefit to me as well. I think I read that to "create" one job through tax cuts for the wealthy costs approximately $150K. And the jobs don't necessarily do anything for society as a whole. With that same amount of money you could create multiple jobs doing amazing things for our country.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Don't support any of the things you all are talking about, no to a draft, no to compulsory service and an emphatic no to government national service as a cure for unemployment. We are already what 14 trillion dollars in debt? The last thing we need is more government spending.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> Don't support any of the things you all are talking about, no to a draft, no to compulsory service and an emphatic no to government national service as a cure for unemployment. We are already what 14 trillion dollars in debt? The last thing we need is more government spending.


My initial reaction has always been no to any kind of draft or compulsory service. (not entirely true, but basically).

I think a govermental service organization would be a great cure for unemployment and WAY more efficient than the tax cuts that have been implimented. That said, there has been *no* conversation of doing that *instead* of the tax cuts, so my desire has no basis in reality.


----------



## Annie Mac (Dec 30, 2009)

Interesting idea. I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I would like the participants to have a choice whether or not to fight in a war.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Annie Mac*
> 
> Interesting idea. I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I would like the participants to have a choice whether or not to fight in a war.


Good point! I was just assuming that the placement would be left up to the individual (if they were anti-war or pacifists they would definatley get assigned elsewhere) but that is not actually clear.


----------



## Annie Mac (Dec 30, 2009)

I don't think it would fly though. Americans are far too wedded to the concept of individuality, an extreme concept of personal responsibility, and far too frightened of anything that smacks of The Big Bad Socialism. Do something for your community? Maybe, but only if *I* choose what it is, on *my* terms.

Personally, I kind of like the idea of socialism, and I think that a mandatory term to complete tasks that would benefit society as a whole would be a positive lesson. But that's just me. I guess it would be up to us (in theory) to decide whether or not war goes under the category of "things that benefit society as a whole." I'm a little iffy of imposing our ideals on others who may not share it. Especially when heavy artillery is involved.

And PS to the mods: I love that I can now post in News & Current Events section!


----------



## mar123 (Apr 14, 2008)

I think the cost of this program in a country our size would make it prohibitive. I have had students do this topic as their persuasive research paper. Most countries that have things such as this (like Israel) are much smaller and far more homoogenous in nature. There are many benefits to a diverse culture such as ours, but one negative (at least when trying to implement something like this) is that it would be impossible to satisfy everyone. And IMO "service" isn't something you get paid for. My children have to complete service hours to graduate from high school. They don't get paid for that. If it is going to be a "job" then call it that. Painting it with the word service is just a feel good political move.

Also, I don't really see how it would help with unemployment. If you have all of these people working for the government doing things that need to be done, that will hurt private industry and people who work for those companies will become unemployed. It's a wash as far as that goes. And I agree with a PP; our country cannot afford this.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> I think the cost of this program in a country our size would make it prohibitive. I have had students do this topic as their persuasive research paper. Most countries that have things such as this (like Israel) are much smaller and far more homoogenous in nature. There are many benefits to a diverse culture such as ours, but one negative (at least when trying to implement something like this) is that it would be impossible to satisfy everyone. And IMO "service" isn't something you get paid for. My children have to complete service hours to graduate from high school. They don't get paid for that. If it is going to be a "job" then call it that. Painting it with the word service is just a feel good political move.
> 
> Also, I don't really see how it would help with unemployment. If you have all of these people working for the government doing things that need to be done, that will hurt private industry and people who work for those companies will become unemployed. It's a wash as far as that goes. And I agree with a PP; our country cannot afford this.


Well, you get paid for military service, so I'm not sure why you wouldn't get paid for this service. They do need to *live* afterall--- money for food, shelter, clothing, etc..

How it would help with unemployment? You would suddenly remove a couple percentage of the population from the regular work force. That would have a HUGE effect on unemployment!

IMO, our country definately can afford it. It would just have to adjust priorities.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

You remove a couple of percent of the people from the work force, but you put them back into the work force according to what this particular service details. Which means you have jobs that people who want them or are qualified for them that are unable to get them because they are filled by people who may or may not want to be there. Higher paying jobs that need an education and experience to get will likely not be affected, but the jobs that someone who has no experience and little education can get are taken by those who have been drafted into them. Unless, of course, they are just trying to by pass the main objection to a draft by lying through their teeth saying "well it wouldn't have to be military service! You could end up with that low paying janitorial job at the hospital, you know... The one that the single mother of three could probably get to help feed, house and clothe her family if you weren't the one who got it by way of National Service?"


----------



## Annie Mac (Dec 30, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> You remove a couple of percent of the people from the work force, but you put them back into the work force according to what this particular service details. Which means you have jobs that people who want them or are qualified for them that are unable to get them because they are filled by people who may or may not want to be there. Higher paying jobs that need an education and experience to get will likely not be affected, but the jobs that someone who has no experience and little education can get are taken by those who have been drafted into them. Unless, of course, they are just trying to by pass the main objection to a draft by lying through their teeth saying "well it wouldn't have to be military service! You could end up with that low paying janitorial job at the hospital, you know... The one that the single mother of three could probably get to help feed, house and clothe her family if you weren't the one who got it by way of National Service?"


I don't think private sector jobs would (or should) be affected. They could just do the jobs they get the chain gangs to do now for free, or very little. No wonder the US needs such a high prison population.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> You remove a couple of percent of the people from the work force, but you put them back into the work force according to what this particular service details. Which means you have jobs that people who want them or are qualified for them that are unable to get them because they are filled by people who may or may not want to be there. Higher paying jobs that need an education and experience to get will likely not be affected, but the jobs that someone who has no experience and little education can get are taken by those who have been drafted into them. Unless, of course, they are just trying to by pass the main objection to a draft by lying through their teeth saying "well it wouldn't have to be military service! You could end up with that low paying janitorial job at the hospital, you know... The one that the single mother of three could probably get to help feed, house and clothe her family if you weren't the one who got it by way of National Service?"


From what I read, it actually sounded more like job *creation* not replacing current job with a "volunteer" work force. Like a huge expansion of such groups as Teach for America. Doing stuff that is *not* done now. That said, the arguement is fairly moot because I can't see it *ever* happening.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
> 
> From what I read, it actually sounded more like job *creation* not replacing current job with a "volunteer" work force. Like a huge expansion of such groups as Teach for America. Doing stuff that is *not* done now. That said, the arguement is fairly moot because I can't see it *ever* happening.


If they can just create these jobs out of thin air for draftees, can't they just create these jobs for people who actually need them?


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> If they can just create these jobs out of thin air for draftees, can't they just create these jobs for people who actually need them?


Its a matter of:

1) Priorities

2) Funding

3) Payment level

For example, I have read that job creation through lowering high income taxes (so they will invest more/create more jobs) costs approximately $150K for one job. The governement *if allowed* could use that same money to fund multiple "draft" jobs. This adresses both priorities and funding.

Then it comes to payment level--- I think people *in general* would accept low payment (but communal living and training) as more appropriate for 18-20 year olds than just random people.

I'm a little confused by your coment "people who actually need them"--- young, untrained people are notoriously unemployed.


----------



## mar123 (Apr 14, 2008)

Teach for America is taking jobs from certified teachers. I see it every day. Teach for America candidates are new and young and don't make a lot. The county they work for doesn't have to shoulder all of their pay, so it cheaper to hire them than a new college graduate who majored in education. I work for a group that certifies teachers who are employed through teach for America, so I am very familiar with this program. If this is an example of national service, then it WILL impact private sector employment. Have you heard about all of the teacher layoffs and new teachers not being able to get jobs? These are NOT jobs no one is willing to do. It is just cheaper and easier (because the TFA teachers are being supervised and trained by an outside program) for school districts to hire them than a typical education major teacher.


----------



## txbikegrrl (Jul 20, 2006)

Yes this is what happens where I am also....


----------



## member234098 (Aug 3, 2002)

C


----------



## littleplum (Jul 18, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> I think the cost of this program in a country our size would make it prohibitive. I have had students do this topic as their persuasive research paper. Most countries that have things such as this (like Israel) are much smaller and far more homoogenous in nature. There are many benefits to a diverse culture such as ours, but one negative (at least when trying to implement something like this) is that it would be impossible to satisfy everyone. And IMO "service" isn't something you get paid for. My children have to complete service hours to graduate from high school. They don't get paid for that. If it is going to be a "job" then call it that. Painting it with the word service is just a feel good political move.


I think that COMPULSORY service should be compensated. I also had to complete "volunteer" hours to graduate from high school. It was only 15 hours in my senior year, but it placed an enormous financial burden upon my single parent family. My mother worked 12-14 hour days, and her only day off was Sunday, the day we spent going to church and catching up on household chores. It was my responsibility to pick up my sisters from school, feed them dinner, and get them to bed. She couldn't afford to pay for someone to care for my three younger sisters so I could fiddle fart around scraping gum off the bottoms of desks. The money that she spent on a baby sitter so that I could do my "volunteer" work, came directly out of my winter wardrobe funds. I only got two long sleeved shirts instead of five that year.


----------



## mimim (Nov 2, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *miriam*
> 
> I would be in favor of it if every person was REQUIRED to participate. In the registration and draft that I recall, many got out of service by filing deferments for marriage, children, college, and illness. To be honest, even in the military draft of the Cold War, a man could have gone in as a medic and not had to fight. There were positions for men who chose not to handle a gun.


I agree with you miriam; everyone would have to be required to do this, with very very few exceptions.

I am fiercely anti-war and anti-violence, yet I support compulsory military service. There is too much complacency about foreign policy and military practices in our culture. If everyone was required to serve, then I believe that a bigger proportion of the population would inform themselves and speak up about how our military is used and how it is run.


----------



## Sarah W (Feb 9, 2008)

I definitely do not support compulsory military service. Honestly, I've never met anyone that has (especially in the military). There have been enough issues with the relaxed standards of the last few years; never minds thousands of people who don't even want to be there. And the military is not hurting for personnel at all. I don't think that the Army has missed a quota in years. Now, especially with the draw down, people are literally fighting to stay in.

I'm all for compulsory national service, though.


----------



## member234098 (Aug 3, 2002)

T


----------

