Selective Service - Keep it or Ditch it?

[David Floyd]

I'll be the first to agree that the SC can be wrong. No system can be perfect. But it is the law of the land. It's part of the system that makes this country what it is. It's not up to me to decide on an case by case issue. That's their job.

So if the Court decided that you no longer had the right to own a car, would you give up your car on the basis of "the Supreme Court said so"?

And I laugh that the best excuse for not helping your fellow man is that you will die in "jungle where diseases are rampantin". A bit extreme I think. Wonder what percentage of our Peace Core die every year. I would be willing to bet it's real small. Just a lousy excuse for your selfishness when it comes to helping your fellow man.

I bet it's real small right now too - and I bet it would rise if millions more people flooded in. And in any case, any possibility of me dying is just one more reason for me not to do it.

And I never said humanitarian help had to be in another country. It could be in our own neighborhoods. But of course you could probably get killed there also. So never mind.

I'm CERTAINLY not going into some inner city somewhere and risk getting shot, just to paint someone's house, all in the name of "I owe it to my country".

Loin, maybe a bit extreme, but it has some merit.
But it wouldn't fly because obviously there is too much of a feeling of entitlement in this country.

Yes, like the old people who feels entitled to social security and medicare, right?

[Boris Godunov]

SS--Ditch it, draft is wrong.

Charities: DF, have you ever worked for or done in-depth research on the resources charities have and their ability to help people?

I don't know about other places, but here NYC, philanthropy is not nearly enough to handle the volume of those who need help. The major charities do not have enough money, and much of their money comes from Federal grants anyway. Were the government dollars to disappear from these programs, along with the government social welfare programs, it would be a FAR worse problem for both society in general and for the average tax payer like you than just being "robbed" of your hard-earned money.

The government social programs and funding of resources for the poor is preventative of a vast multitude of other problems that would ultimately cost you and I more. The good of the many outweight the good of the one in this instance, and it is far better for society that we have social safety nets. And no, private organizations cannot handle it without government help. That's why government help was initiated in the first place, because relying on private philanthropy was inadequate.

[Kepler]

Military service should be voluntary. It's a good test of a nation's worth -- if you can't muster enough support voluntarily, then you cease to exist as a country.

The only time it would matter would be a very unpopular war, and if the public doesn't support a war then in a democracy that war should end *that* day.

[rah]

So it's time to change your focus.

When I first stated my OPINION on the issue, I really wasn't thinking about the constitutionality of it. Yes the court could find a draft unconstitutional in the future, but it hasn't yet. So your last post is really meanless for this discussion. I'd rather talk about the pros and cons of the concept. But you've made your opinion on that quite plain. So I guess we're at an impasse. SO it's off to find food. (good spirited discussions do whet the appetite.) I'll check back later.

Thanks

RAH

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That would be unconstitutional.

Well no ****. That's why I said "I'd see no problem with an amendment".

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, like the old people who feels entitled to social security and medicare, right?

Um, they put money into the SS system, why wouldn't they be entitled to take it out?

[rah]

Oh Oh, crossposted and didn't see you last post DF.

So one more parting shot.

"Yes, like the old people who feels entitled to social security and medicare, right?"

I've paid over 100,000 dollars into those programs, I don't think it's considered entitlement to expect some of that money back sometime in the future.

[Boris Godunov]

Now Rah copies my posts! Senility?

[rah]

Hey, we posted at the same time.
And we call them "senior moments"

RAH
Foooooodddddddd

[David Floyd]

No, the problem with Social Security NOW is that I'm paying for YOUR benefits. Just because the federal government squandered your money doesn't make it MY responsibility.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, the problem with Social Security NOW is that I'm paying for YOUR benefits. Just because the federal government squandered your money doesn't make it MY responsibility.

Huh? It's my understanding SS benefits being paid now are still from the SS fund, which is not yet insolvent, and won't be for many, many years, if at all (should reform be forthcoming).

[David Floyd]

Huh? It's my understanding SS benefits being paid now are still from the SS fund, which is not yet insolvent, and won't be for many, many years, if at all (should reform be forthcoming).

Any Social Security funds paid right now go into the general spending fund, and get spent. It's been that way for years. Granted, if someone paid money in, and that money is still there, they should certainly get it back, but if the government squandered it, they should use MY money to pay for THEIR mistakes.

[rah]

1. what does that have to do with feeling entitled.
IT doesn't.

2. And what does it have to do with the original arguement.
NOTHING

Obviously you have run out of arguements and are trying a bait and switch.

RAH

[David Floyd]

1. what does that have to do with feeling entitled.
IT doesn't.

You're the one who brought up the feeling of entitlement, and I pointed out that old people feel more entitled to their precious medicare and social security than I do to any object or program.

2. And what does it have to do with the original arguement.
NOTHING

You're the one who brought up the "you feel entitled" argument, I'm simply refuting it.

Obviously you have run out of arguements and are trying a bait and switch.

Not at all. You simply haven't responded to my most recent arguments on the subject at hand, and I'm taking the opportunity to respond to points about Social Security. Respond to my last points about conscription, and then I'll respond to you.

[rah]

When you get around to raising new arguements, I'll discuss them, (if I'm still around)

You were the ones that said old people feel entitled to SS.
I just stated that it wasn't entitlement since they have paid most of their life into the system. You have yet to respond to that point, because you can't. Find a better example, or move on. There are quite a few out there it you take the time.