• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mandatory military service?

Would you support a mandatory service when a person turns 21 or 18?


  • Total voters
    88
do you admit or deny that the current system promotes a scenario where politicians buy the votes of the many by promising them that "others" will bear the burden of paying for the increased spending?

and its income taxes that serve as the basis of most of the political discussion.

right now its a house of cards that is gonna collapse and the only way to stop that is to make increased government spending painful for everyone, not just the 2% who cannot outvote the people who continue to enable expansion of the government


I don't deny that we're in trouble, and that part of the reason is how taxes are handled. It isn't the only part though... spending is the other half. The way we allow politicians to spend other people's money to buy votes through pork and special-intrest subsidy is at least half the issue.

Progressive tax has the problem of people carrying unequal burdens of the cost of government and public works.
Flat tax has the problem that it will impact the ability of the not-so-prosperous to even survive, if the rate is set high enough to support the kind of government spending that has been going on for most of a century, or even half that much.... and the kind of budget cuts (30-60%) that would make a flat tax a bearable burden by the poor are probably just not realistic.... I mean, there's no reason to believe it is actually going to happen.


Denying franchise to those whose tax burden is only 5 or 10%, and that mostly from property tax, sales tax, SS/MC tax, would be no way of handling it either. They're still paying taxes, even if it isn't income tax.
 
Last edited:
I don't deny that we're in trouble, and that part of the reason is how taxes are handled. It isn't the only part though... spending is the other half. The way we allow politicians to spend other people's money to buy votes through pork and special-intrest subsidy is at least half the issue.

Progressive tax has the problem of people carrying unequal burdens of the cost of government and public works.
Flat tax has the problem that it will impact the ability of the not-so-prosperous to even survive, if the rate is set high enough to support the kind of government spending that has been going on for most of a century, or even half that much.... and the kind of budget cuts (30-60%) that would make a flat tax a bearable burden by the poor are probably just not realistic.... I mean, there's no reason to believe it is actually going to happen.

which one ultimately destroys society? not the flat tax-
 
Hell no. As far as I am concerned having to get my draft card at 18 is good enough.
 
LoLz. "destroys society"...Don't hold back on that over the top rhetoric.

you deny that the current system is suggesting anything else?
 
I don't think we are headed for destruction of society.

so we have a government that has created massive entitlement programs that in turn have created massive entitlement addicts who have become dependent on those entitlements. those entitlements continue to grow. so where is the money going to come from?
 
Oh, and on topic: I would favor some system of mandatory service(not strictly military) either before or after college(ie you could delay it by attending college, but not avoid it), if a system was put in place to make it work. I think it would be very difficult to make such a system work however, if not impossible.
 
so we have a government that has created massive entitlement programs that in turn have created massive entitlement addicts who have become dependent on those entitlements. those entitlements continue to grow. so where is the money going to come from?

Did I ever say reform was not needed? However, complete overhauls probably are not needed, just a steady change. Your panic is not warranted.
 
Did I ever say reform was not needed? However, complete overhauls probably are not needed, just a steady change. Your panic is not warranted.

edify me as to what reforms you think can work

and I am not panicking. I have the means to move to areas where the creeping crud of socialism is not imminent. The fact that most of us who are in the top 2% can do that is another reason why the poop's gonna hit the fan the way things are going.
 
edify me as to what reforms you think can work

and I am not panicking. I have the means to move to areas where the creeping crud of socialism is not imminent. The fact that most of us who are in the top 2% can do that is another reason why the poop's gonna hit the fan the way things are going.

I think that every year when the economy has positive growth, we need to cut total spending by 2 %. That won't be too bad at first, but will rapidly mean that pretty much everything has to be cut, and it will get hard. I use the positive growth test because when in bad economic times, stimulative spending can be effective. It worked for Reagan after all(plus without positive growth it would become increasingly difficult to so). With cuts to spending combined with increased revenue as the economy grows, it should take a surprisingly short time to balance the books(though I don't know how long exactly).

Needless to say, this would probably require some tweaking, but is a pretty rough guide as to how I would handle things. No tax cuts until the budget is balanced, as I don't think tax rates now are so high that they significantly lower any ones standard of living.
 
I think that every year when the economy has positive growth, we need to cut total spending by 2 %. That won't be too bad at first, but will rapidly mean that pretty much everything has to be cut, and it will get hard. I use the positive growth test because when in bad economic times, stimulative spending can be effective. It worked for Reagan after all(plus without positive growth it would become increasingly difficult to so). With cuts to spending combined with increased revenue as the economy grows, it should take a surprisingly short time to balance the books(though I don't know how long exactly).

Needless to say, this would probably require some tweaking, but is a pretty rough guide as to how I would handle things. No tax cuts until the budget is balanced, as I don't think tax rates now are so high that they significantly lower any ones standard of living.

good luck with that. the way the dems win elections is to promise more spending and promising those who get the handouts they won't pay any more taxes.
 
good luck with that. the way the dems win elections is to promise more spending and promising those who get the handouts they won't pay any more taxes.

The way repubs win elections is promise more spending and less taxes and fiscal responsibility...
 
The way repubs win elections is promise more spending and less taxes and fiscal responsibility...

not always true-for example, here in Ohio Boehner won't take earmarks and the biggest criticism of soon to be re-elected to the first district (Steve Chabot) was that he didn't bring enough pork back to his district. Soon to win the senate seat, Rob Portman is a cost cutter as well.

raising taxes is not fiscally responsible if those tax hikes don't really result in additonal income and spending is increased
 
not always true-for example, here in Ohio Boehner won't take earmarks and the biggest criticism of soon to be re-elected to the first district (Steve Chabot) was that he didn't bring enough pork back to his district. Soon to win the senate seat, Rob Portman is a cost cutter as well.

raising taxes is not fiscally responsible if those tax hikes don't really result in additonal income and spending is increased

I think you missed the point, which was to respond to an overgeneralization with an overgeneralization.
 
I think you missed the point, which was to respond to an overgeneralization with an overgeneralization.

Not at all but if you feel better by thinking that, by all means do so.

As I noted before, My job is to spread light and not to master

toodles I am outta here
 
which one ultimately destroys society? not the flat tax-


If the flat tax were implemented with the current budget, the rate would have be at least 30%. Now add SS/Medicare, property tax, and so on.... and we're getting closer to 40%

I'd have to engage in armed rebellion, because I couldn't feed my family and pay my bills on what would be left to me.

So yeah, a flat tax would destroy society, because the lower-income 1/3rd of the country would have to rebel or starve.
 
WHile I haven't been in the army, from what I understand, comradery is what compels soldiers to fight. While there are a fair amount of patriots, this bond holds units together. So, theoretically, you just need to develop these bonds.

I understand what you're saying but I'm not much for forced patriotism.

A person should not be compelled to fight for something, they may not care for in the first place.
 
DraftCardBurning_000.jpg


Hell no! We won't go.
 
Absolutely not.

I would also (if it were up to me) do away with the contracts the way they are and allow service member to quit UNLESS they are in a warzone.

If a war is for a good cause people WILL volunteer.

When we have wars we shouldn't be in like this people will be less inclined to join except for what I call the economic draft.

Plus a draft/mandatory service is unconstitutional. The 13th amendment protects us against forced servitude unless convicted of a crime.
 
Absolutely not.

I would also (if it were up to me) do away with the contracts the way they are and allow service member to quit UNLESS they are in a warzone.

Wouldn't that severely cripple and bankrupt the country? You would have a **** load of people joining the military because they like their health care plan and benefits and then leave as soon as a war/conflict is about to start?

If a war is for a good cause people WILL volunteer.

I guess they must have not had to draft anyone in WWI and WWII.
 
I would not support a mandatory military service provision. I do not think such a requirement is necessary or advisable for a country as big as the United States. First, it would be expensive and difficult to organize. Second, I do not think it is smart to put people in the army who do not want to be there except at times when doing so is absolutely necessary (e.g. threat of invasion).

However, I do recognize that there might be benefits to mandatory military service. I think military service has the potential to teach young people valuable lessons (though that is not always its actual effect). I also think making the army more diverse would benefit many currently serving. However, these are mostly personal benefits, and can be achieved through other means. Overall, I think the practical difficulties and risks posed by such a requirement outweigh these potential benefits.

At the same time, I don't think mandatory military service is always a bad idea for smaller countries. I might also consider supporting other types of mandatory public service at the state level.

Finally, I am intrigued by (though not necessarily in favor of) a requirement that a draft be automatically instituted upon the third year of any military engagement. I think such a provision might be an interesting balance between our need to freely engage in military action under many circumstances, and the need to deter unnecessary military engagement.
 
I support some kind of compulsory service military being one option.
It could be tied to healthcare....if you serve, you get a tax credit on your insurance premiums, the amount would be based on type of service and duration of service.
Certainly the military would garner the most credit, with actual warriors getting more credit than support staff...
 
Wouldn't that severely cripple and bankrupt the country? You would have a **** load of people joining the military because they like their health care plan and benefits and then leave as soon as a war/conflict is about to start?



I guess they must have not had to draft anyone in WWI and WWII.

It would not cripple the nation. In garrison you are still working.
Also if those folks leave you are left with people that WANT to be there which is better.

People should not be forced into service ever. It has happened in the past and it was a mistake.
 
Back
Top Bottom