The Charleston Gazette, THE DRAFT

[rhino 0]

September 21, 2004
Draft?

Bush’s war needs troops




ALARM is spreading that President Bush may seek a military draft, or mobilize more of the National Guard and Army Reserve, to obtain enough combat troops to wage his bogged-down Iraq war.

Two bills pending in Congress would launch a new draft for all young Americans ages 18 to 26, both male and female, with no college exemption. Also, a new border agreement with Canada is designed to prevent young Americans from fleeing northward to elude the draft.

When Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards spoke in Parkersburg last week, he vowed: “There will be no draft when John Kerry is president.” His declaration drew a standing ovation from the crowd.

Meanwhile, President Bush, campaigning in Missouri, promised that there will be no draft. He said improving military pay, housing and medical care will attract enough recruits to supply the needed fighting forces.

However, Bush plans a sneaky “backdoor draft,” Democrats Kerry and Edwards allege. Speaking Friday in Albuquerque, Kerry said Bush secretly intends a major Guard and Reserve mobilization just after the Nov. 2 election. Kerry charged:

“He won’t tell us what congressional leaders are now saying: that this administration is planning yet another substantial call-up of reservists and Guard units immediately after the election. Hide it from the people, then make the move.”

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a Marine veteran of Vietnam, said Pentagon insiders told him of the mobilization plan. A White House spokesman ridiculed the allegation.

Amid all this wrangling, it’s overwhelmingly clear that Bush’s war is draining America of thousands of young people and billions of dollars — and the nation is forced to meet both needs.

Tragically, the war is a waste. There never was a necessity for it. Bush’s far-right political clique planned to attack Iraq, even before he attained the White House. The 9/11 terrorist strike provided a “cover” — a surge of patriotism that Bush manipulated into justification for war against Iraq. All his pretexts for the invasion turned out to be false.

Although he declared “Mission Accomplished” last year, the fighting grows constantly uglier and more expensive. More than 1,000 young Americans have been killed. Bush needs more and more replacements.

Before the Nov. 2 election, he should tell the American people candidly how many more young soldiers he plans to order into combat — and how he will obtain them.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

President Bush may seek a military draft

The funny thing is the president doesn't initiate a draft. Congress does. Once it is voted on and passed only then does the POTUS sign legislation which starts the draft.

Oh wait...there's more. Look up bills HR 163 and S 89. You'll see those were 2 bills to re-instate the draft. Guess who introduced those? Charles Rangel and Ernest Hollings. By the way, they're both democrats. Good thing they're both stalled right now and will likely go nowhere.

That's ok. Guess you missed that part in the Liberal Handbook.

There's some good books at the library that will help you become more up to speed on how the system works. If you need further assistance PM and I'll help you out.

Forty-two

[Jib 0]

Nothing like fair and balanced...
What a partisan piece of shit!

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Michele 1]

Rhino, I can't find a link to that article. Can you link it over? Thanks.

And just at first glance, it sounds more like an OpEd piece than reportage. However, if it is a reporting piece, then one should really consider using that as representative of issues - it is rife with opinion, using terms like "sneaky" and "tragically."

Just my opinion, of course.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Guest]

-... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ...

mh

.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

-... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ...

mh

.

.-- .- ... / - .... .. ... / .- -. / .- - - . -- .--. - / .- - / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . ..--..

Jay

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

President Bush may seek a military draft

The funny thing is the president doesn't initiate a draft. Congress does. Once it is voted on and passed only then does the POTUS sign legislation which starts the draft.

Tuna & you all

The question I would like to ask is how many of have been drafted?

This question doesn't include the stop-loss folks or the activated national guard.

If there is a "real draft" will it be a repeat of the mistakes, loopholes, that occured in the previous draft's.

Whats going to happen to college deferments.$$$$?
"Don't ask, don't tell" Same sex marriages?
Drug testing during draft physical.

I don't see the last draftee's or the children of the last draftee's finding another draft acceptal.

That's why we've got "contractor's" stop-loss, and the "reserves and national guard for.

[TheAnvil 0]

What a leftist piece of garbage. He should do some research.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[tunaplanet 0]

There will be no draft. It's a scare tactic Kerry is using because he is desperate for votes.

The hysterical thing is the democrats are the ones in congress who are wanting one...not the republicans.

Forty-two

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

There will be no draft. It's a scare tactic Kerry is using because he is desperate for votes.

The hysterical thing is the democrats are the ones in congress who are wanting one...not the republicans.

Yep, next thing you know, they will be telling us Black Churchs will burn and old people will starve, and Bush has a secret plan to steal Social Security. Oh, wait, they did that in the last 2 elections. Well, at least they are trying to come up with something new.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

has a secret plan to steal Social Security

Ummm, he already did, and it's no secret.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

has a secret plan to steal Social Security

Ummm, he already did, and it's no secret.

How can you steal something that never existed?

[PhillyKev 0]

By promising to separate it from the General Accounting Fund during your campaign, and instead, keeping it there and then using all those funds for other purposes.

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Quote

-... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ... -... ...

mh

.

.-- .- ... / - .... .. ... / .- -. / .- - - . -- .--. - / .- - / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . ..--..

Jay

What the? Did you two just communicate???

Gahh! I hate not knowing! What the hell did you just say?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[pajarito 0]

I was just asking him if he had made an attempt at communicating in Morse Code. That's what my code said. Just goofing off...

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

By promising to separate it from the General Accounting Fund during your campaign, and instead, keeping it there and then using all those funds for other purposes.

How does that change what I said?

[wmw999 2,589]

So is it your contention that Social Security doesn't exist, and that all the (admittedly still inadequate) money should be used as the President sees fit?

I'm not sure I agree with the "Bush stole Social Security" argument down the line, but it does exist. The fact that it might not still exist when you retire doesn't mean that it ceases to exist now.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

So is it your contention that Social Security doesn't exist, and that all the (admittedly still inadequate) money should be used as the President sees fit?

I'm not sure I agree with the "Bush stole Social Security" argument down the line, but it does exist. The fact that it might not still exist when you retire doesn't mean that it ceases to exist now.

Wendy W.

Yes it is my contention there is no SS Fund. All you have in your "Account" is an IOU. How it is spent is determined by Congress and they have spent every penny and then some since it was created.

My question remains the same. How can you steal something that has never existed?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

How can you steal something that has never existed?

The money exists and is withheld from your pay check for a specific purpose. Just because it's been getting stolen all along doesn't mean it's ok to keep doing it. Especially when you promise to stop it as a key point in your campaign.

It's embezzlement, therefore stealing.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

How can you steal something that has never existed?

The money exists and is withheld from your pay check for a specific purpose. Just because it's been getting stolen all along doesn't mean it's ok to keep doing it. Especially when you promise to stop it as a key point in your campaign.

It's embezzlement, therefore stealing.

My original sarcastic statement was that soon the Liberals will be telling us Bush has a "secret" plan for stealing SS. Thanks for proving my point.

[PhillyKev 0]

Your point is still wrong. Just because you guys choose to ignore what is being done right out in the open doesn't make it "secret".

Now if you said Liberals will be telling us that Bush is openly stealing SS, that would be accurate.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

So is it your contention that Social Security doesn't exist, and that all the (admittedly still inadequate) money should be used as the President sees fit?

I'm not sure I agree with the "Bush stole Social Security" argument down the line, but it does exist. The fact that it might not still exist when you retire doesn't mean that it ceases to exist now.

Wendy W.

Look at SS this way. It's like your Savings account. You don't actually have any money in it because the bank has loaned and invested the money. That money is relatively safe because the bank is subject to laws regarding accounting practices. If the bank makes some bad investments and ends up losing "your money", the accounts are insured and tax dollars will in effect, repay you.

One of the big differences is that if you decide you can get a better interest rate from another bank, you have the right to close the account and move your money where ever you choose. With SS, you have no say in the matter and in fact most people only see about 1% return on their money at retirement. Proposals to allow you to control your own money are opposed by politicians because they believe they are best suited to make retirement decisions for you and that if you were allowed to make those decisions, you'd probably end up pissing the money away on beer, cigarettes and gambling etc.

Any attempt by any politician or President to allow you to invest your money in the way you best see fit is met with the mantra of "they are trying to steal SS and bankrupt the system." While it's true we need to honor the commitment to those Seniors who have paid into SS their entire lives, we need to start weaning ourselves off a broken system that is expensive to administer and offers very little value as an investment. It is also unfair that after investing for a lifetime, that if you die before you begin recieving benefits and have no spouse or children, that the Govt. is allowed to keep all the money you have paid in.

[wmw999 2,589]

SS is not a savings account. It was intended as an old age pension, and as a way for people who no longer were able to work to continue to live at least a meager life. I can open a savings account if I want one.

It should not provide a comfortable income; that's not its purpose. However, it should help to avoid the people dying of starvation thing -- that looks so bad on the news.

If it's purely a savings account, then widow's/widower's and children's benefits would be very different from what they are now. Maybe you think that's OK; well, I don't, so we're each 1 for 1.

I do invest in my retirement -- I have a couple of accounts. I play quite actively with one (it's smaller), and leave the other one more conservatively invested (it's larger). They're my responsibility, in case my (company-managed) pension goes belly up, and my (government-managed) social security goes belly-up. Don't you?

If we go to a partially consumer-run SS system, I would hope that the default would be to have the default be the current system, so that people who are under the (mistaken) impression that working all their lives, and paying into social security, will help their retirements without their actively managing it won't find out when they're old and easily fooled that, well, sucks to be them.

And as far as the laws governing the supposedly-mythical money in my savings account are concerned -- are you really contending that the government shouldn't exercise the same kind of due care with SS? I don't want to live in a what-can-I-get-away-with country. I'd rather live in a what's-right country.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhillyKev 0]

In actuality, it was set up to model an insurance policy. It's like reverse life insurance. You're betting that you'll die before you need it. If you happen to live longer, than you have a claim. It's supposed to be a stop gap for people who live longer than they expected and planned for. It's not supposed to replace planning for you retirement.

[wmw999 2,589]

OK -- obviously I never read enough economics
Sucks to live in a hurricane state, and I guess it sucks to get old when everyone else is too... Retiring at 65 isn't a right, is it?

You can move if you live in a hurricane state, and you can plan for your own retirement if you don't like what SS has to offer. Yes, you have to pay for it too, just as good drivers have to pay for car insurance.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)