Author Topic: Universal National Service Act of 2007 (Read 1466 times)

bsdaddict · « **on:** January 31, 2007, 12:42:26 PM »

oh joy. a new draft bill has been introduced in the House. If I wasn't exempt I'd be getting worried. Universal National Service Act of 2007

parents, how do you feel about the prospect of your kids being enslaved?

john9001 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 31, 2007, 12:46:09 PM »

the democrats want a draft, vote no in 08.

Kuhn · « **Reply #2 on:** January 31, 2007, 12:52:50 PM »

I get angry every time I see a bill like this. What a waist of taxpayers money. When war is declared, doesnt John Q Public enlist? When a state of emergency is declared the government usually is the one to drag their feet. I just don't see the point of some people wasting their time writing this stuff. Lets hope it doesn't get burried with some other bills getting signed.

bsdaddict · « **Reply #3 on:** January 31, 2007, 12:57:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kuhn
Lets hope it doesn't get burried with some other bills getting signed.

my money's on this getting attached to some new domestic abuse bill, or something similar that has a big emotional pull that our representatives just can't vote against...

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 31, 2007, 01:19:52 PM »

Rangel has been talking about restoring the draft ever since 9/11. Unfortunately I am not exempt from this particular bill.

"To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security..."

Yeager · « **Reply #5 on:** January 31, 2007, 01:22:13 PM »

I am not against the concept of mandatory national service, but the feds might want to talk to the states first. This subject is at least worthy of a good healthy debate among intelligent adults..................oh SNAP!

Airscrew · « **Reply #6 on:** January 31, 2007, 01:23:56 PM »

it better fail.

Quote

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.

WTF amend the IRS code, what does that have to do with a draft? and see how they craftly add or in civilian service [/b] to make seem like you get a choice

I think I read about this guy Rangel before, early in the month. Another congressman said Rangel submits this bill every year trying to get a draft started. Story pretty much indicated the bill had no chance of being passed

Shamus · « **Reply #7 on:** January 31, 2007, 01:26:40 PM »

Well we are at WAR ya know.

Good way to drive down costs, we have many 3rd world folks working for slave wages to keep the cost of our stuff down.

It will work with the military as well, if you have a pool of millions to draw from, you can cut compensation by 70% and still have a hard time placing all the bodies.

shamus

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 31, 2007, 01:52:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Airscrew
it better fail.

WTF amend the IRS code, what does that have to do with a draft?

Military pay does not currently count as earned income when calculating if someone is eligible for the Earned Income Credit. Congress has been trying to get that changed since at least '03. Unfortunately, it always gets bogged down with amendments and ends up dying in committee.

Shame on Rangel for trying to squeeze it into his draft bill where it will fail. He should nut up and submit it as a stand-alone measure.

lazs2 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 31, 2007, 02:22:21 PM »

the democrats need the draft. The problem with being against the war is....

The people who are actually fighting the war are not against it... no kerries throwing someones medals down and that sort of thing... No crowds of ex soldiers and those who fear they might become soldiers to show on TV..

Nope.. the soldiers think the war is the right thing soooooo... being against the war is seen to be against the troops at this point...

Not good for democrats... they need lot's of anti war soldiers so that they can say they "support the troops" by cutting and running...

The "cut and run" policy and "support the troops" at this point in time are at loggerheads with each other.

lazs

Hap · « **Reply #10 on:** January 31, 2007, 02:39:27 PM »

I'm for the draft. 110%. No exemptions, no deferments. Everyone 18 to 23 serves 5 years. What else can they do that's worthwhile, really?

All the Best,

hap

p.s. All in the 3 branches of government are first in line for kids, grandkids, and great grandkids to serve.

Auger · « **Reply #11 on:** January 31, 2007, 02:48:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
The people who are actually fighting the war are not against it... no kerries throwing someones medals down and that sort of thing... No crowds of ex soldiers and those who fear they might become soldiers to show on TV..

Nope.. the soldiers think the war is the right thing soooooo... being against the war is seen to be against the troops at this point...

I may have missed the sarcasm bit being set, but to make a blanket statement like that shows a complete lack of clue. Just because the soldiers fight the war does not mean they support it, nor think it is right. Tennyson has the definitive quote:

Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die

john9001 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 31, 2007, 02:51:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hap
I'm for the draft. 110%. No exemptions, no deferments. Everyone 18 to 23 serves 5 years. What else can they do that's worthwhile, really?

All the Best,

hap

p.s. All in the 3 branches of government are first in line for kids, grandkids, and great grandkids to serve.

sounds like you don't want a military that can fight, you want a military that will not be sent into battle. Thats what rangel wants.

john9001 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 31, 2007, 02:53:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Auger
Tennyson has the definitive quote:

Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die

Tennyson was a poet not a solder.

Maverick · « **Reply #14 on:** January 31, 2007, 03:14:40 PM »

It's a revised draft bill. I would like to see some additional categories of comparative service like Fire and Police as long as they are serving in a state recognized department.

Major difference is the inclusion of women from what I saw. I saw there is no exclusion for full time college enrollment, critical job deferment or sole surviving son / daughter. Otherwise it's the same lottery draft we had before.

I really don't have a problem with it, then again I am very much in favor of the Heinlein paradigm of service to grant full citizenship and the right to vote. You can live here if born here but unless you are willing to place body at risk to defend it or perform other civic service considered comparable you don't govern it or vote.

It's hardly what I would call enslavement, then again I'm not chicken little.