They just took control house/senate and look .....

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

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!

-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).

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

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.

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

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually, Rangel's statemes (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

-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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

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

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

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

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

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.