Universal National Service Act

[Karma]

I would say that most citizens do serve their country. Everyone who pays taxes serves their country. How do you think the military would exist if not for the tax payer who is largely overlooked and largely taken advantage of these days.

Why do you think this nation is great? It is because our forfathers engineered a free society where the principals of capitalism promoted competition and reward. Both our freedoms as well as the basic principals of capitalism have been stomped on to the point where our system doesn't work as it was meant to. What is many of your answers? Stomp on freedom more. I have had it with the "patriots" who are so busy being "patriotic", that they step on the very principals that our grandfathers fought to protect! Freedom! That's what it's about folks!

What was the last military conflict that we were involved in that was directly about protecting our country from a real threat? Is it Afghanastan? Is it the war in Iraq? Was it the first war in Iraq? How about Vietnam? That covers 50 years or so. If we spent more time worrying about our own country, and a little bit less time shipping our men and women all over the damn globe for reasons largely unclear, I would wager we would be doing significantly better. ****, we don't even bother to secure our very own borders and listen to how we are in Iraq and Afghanastan to protect our national security. Were we about to be invaded by Iraq or Afghanastan? No, they house terrorists. If we are so worried about terrorists, why is our border open to anyone who can skip across?

The last thing we need to do, is take away more freedom and give the government more control. I agree that there are improvements to be made. I disagree with the suggestion of how.

 

[Karma]

I would much rather see a system based on the wisdom of Robert Heinlein, where there are 'civilians' and 'citizens'. Everyone has the same status and legal protections, but you do not vote unless you are a contributing member of society, ie veterans, civil servants (like police), net taxpayers or yes even folks who have performed a set period of volunteer civil service. Citizens would be the vote-eligible people who actually contribute to the country. Civilians would be everyone else who is too lazy to care about making a difference or elevating themselves. For example, generational welfare recipients or people who do not pay any net taxes do not need 'the right' to vote.

Wisdom huh? Does that idea work out well for you? How about this scenario? You work for 20 years and pay taxes until the economy falls on it's face and you are found jobless. So are you now a civilian by your definition? Does that seem right? You have supported this country for 20 years, but now your right to vote is stripped away.

Of course the entire premise of this is a bit elitest, so let's take it a bit further so that you may see how it could impact you. You don't think that people should have the right to vote, because they do not add enough to society. Well, what if I make 15 million dollars a year, and I do not think that the average guy making 50k a year contributes enough comparibly. Given my line of thinking, I get together with some of my rich friends and we get legislation passed that nobody with a net income under 10 million dollars a year should vote. Does that still work out for you?

Come on people! I can't even tell you how much it scares me to see the people on a gun forum so eager step on other peoples constitutional rights! Yeah, it may sound good at times to step on rights that don't impact you negatively. The problem is that there is either freedom, or not. You can't take away the rights of others, and expect the rights you do care about to be protected! This is basic stuff people! My god! If this kind of thinking represents the guardians of our Constitution, we are screwed!

 

[trainsktg]

Yeah, wisdom. As soon as folks figured out they can vote politicians into office who will give them money, entitlements and benefits from the public treasury that they didn't earn, we were doomed fiscally.

Such a system as I mentioned earlier is indeed fair. Although immediately losing your voting status as quickly as your above example implies is certainly unwarranted, if you lost your job after paying net tax money for 20 years, perform a few months of volunteer public service while you are getting your unemployment check. You'd immediately ensure that your 'right to vote' remains intact and you'd have fulfilled the requirement if you ever again lost your job in the future. No one should expect it to be their 'right' to sit on their backside while collecting unemployment, so get out and do something productive for yourself while getting that money.

Elitist? An ex-Army groundpounder, retired firefighter, or (for example) a person who performed a pre-set length of volunteer public service would have the same voting clout as a multimillionaire who pays $200,000 per year in taxes. One vote each. How is that elitist?

As an afterthought, I'd challenge anyone to find for me in the US Constitution where it spells out an explicit 'right to vote'.

Keith

 

[Bhowe]

You think Hitler. Funny, I was thinking more in terms of The Israeli Defense Force or The Swiss Army. Everyone does a period of active duty and then either goes career military or serves in the reserves for 20 years.

Although, I admit I am a bigger fan of the carrot, not the stick. I would like to see national service become something that employers look for in a new employee, something that colleges and trade schools use to determine who gets priority admittance. Maybe veterans (and those physically incapable who give non-military service) would have some extra perks. Maybe those that fail to serve in some capacity (maybe not even in the military) would suffer some social stigma for not serving. And, maybe, just maybe, our apathetic populace would feel "bought in" and would participate in our democracy and question what wars we fought, where we spend our taxes, and maybe, just maybe, they would vote.

I agree, the Swiss have had it right all along. A rifle in every home, one of the lowest murder rates on the globe. Put every man in the service for at least a little bit. Put some morals back in this country.

 

[Karma]

Yeah, wisdom. As soon as folks figured out they can vote politicians into office who will give them money, entitlements and benefits from the public treasury that they didn't earn, we were doomed fiscally.

Such a system as I mentioned earlier is indeed fair. Although immediately losing your voting status as quickly as your above example implies is certainly unwarranted, if you lost your job after paying net tax money for 20 years, perform a few months of volunteer public service while you are getting your unemployment check. You'd immediately ensure that your 'right to vote' remains intact and you'd have fulfilled the requirement if you ever again lost your job in the future. No one should expect it to be their 'right' to sit on their backside while collecting unemployment, so get out and do something productive for yourself while getting that money.

Elitist? An ex-Army groundpounder, retired firefighter, or (for example) a person who performed a pre-set length of volunteer public service would have the same voting clout as a multimillionaire who pays $200,000 per year in taxes. One vote each. How is that elitist?

As an afterthought, I'd challenge anyone to find for me in the US Constitution where it spells out an explicit 'right to vote'.

Keith

First off, I would say barring those who make a very small amount of money from voting would be the very definition of elitest! What would you call it?

It was suggested that those people who did not make enough money to be a "net taxpayer" should not be allowed to vote. Imagine if you will, a single mom of two, who has a minimum wage job. She works her *** off, but doesn't make enough money to be a "net taxpayer". Should she be barred from voting? I sure as **** don't think so. On the other hand, you may have a spoiled rich boy who's dad gave him a undeserved job for his company making millions. He should be able to vote while the person who was not as fortunate shouldn't? Sounds elitest to me.

I also mentioned something earlier that you expertly avoided. Why don't we just make it so that only people who make a million dollars a year or more can vote? Those are quite obviously the people who are putting the bulk of the tax money out. Would you consider that elitest?

If you want to talk about money and entitlements from the public treasury that wasn't earned, why don't we talk about many government employees and their retirements? I would say that is at least as big of a problem! Your answer is to require that everyone is employed at some point by the government! That wouldn't further socialism or anything!

I challenge you to find in the U.S. Constitution where it spells out explicit "right to make love to your wife". The Constitution doesn't explicitly guarantee a lot of things. See our founders realized that they could never put every single thing in a document that we can do. That is why the Constitution explicitly gives the government specific powers and reserves the rest for the people. The Bill of Rights was thought to be a step that was not needed, because the people retained the bulk of the power.

 

[trainsktg]

I never implied nor inferred the barring of anyone from voting who makes either a small amount of money or below a certain amount. My intent is clear. I said bar those who are chronic sponges off of others' hard work. Using your example, if a single mother who is working her butt off can't afford to pay $1 of net taxes per year, and instead not only receives a 100% refund of all her taxes paid for the year but actually receives an additional $2,000, $3,000 or more (the infamous and erroniously named "Earned Income Tax Credit"), then yes, she can still get her government largess but she also loses the right to vote more tax money from others.

Now, regarding the generous packages of government employees, well you'll get no arguement from me. However, I will disagree with classifying the voluntary donation of time cleaning of public parks, outreaching in seniors' retirement homes, or helping at animal shelters is 'government service'. IMO, the less true government employees we have, other than emergency services like fire and police, the better we are all off.

Keith

 

[Karma]

I understand the frusteration. I get frusterated with the way things work also. I just don't know that limiting freedom and what was intended to be basic rights is the answer.

If you start trying to decide who should be allowed to vote, or exercise any right for that matter, you may eventually find yourself on the excluded also.

 

[trainsktg]

Agreed. Its a fine line. And frustrating. Especially when the average meth addict welfare sponge's uninformed vote counts exactly the same as your or my educated vote.

Keith

 

[Karma]

Agreed. Its a fine line. And frustrating. Especially when the average meth addict welfare sponge's uninformed vote counts exactly the same as your or my educated vote.

Keith

It is. I just always like to error on the side of too much freedom than not enough. Don't get me wrong. I am irate everytime I go in the store and see a meth dealer pull out a huge roll of large bills to dig out their food stamp card! I see it all of the time.

I think there definitely should be reform of the entitlement programs. I have no problem with people, especially in this horrible economy who are getting unemployment while getting another job. I have no problem with someone being down on their luck for a while and getting food stamps until they are back on their feet. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.

My problem is when people get on the system and never intend on getting off. The people who work under the table, or worse yet deal drugs while supplementing their income with tax dollars and getting their housing paid for. For many of these people it is more profitable to stay on the system than to branch out. That is what needs to change in my opinion.

 

[ZeroRing]

Fact of the matter is, "charity" received on a temporary basis from private sources works FAR better than government largesse for the simple fact that "normal" folks feel shame when living off another individual's good graces.

When you take out the "shame" factor and allow folks suckle at the government teat there's little to no incentive for them to improve their OWN circumstances. I mean, they're not "hurting" anyone right??

 

[Bruce]

What I do like about a draft is might drive our moral weaklings to Canada.

 

[Stomper]

...or Cuba!!

 

[michaels]

the Swiss have had it right all along

Oh man, this one again.........

They do have it right.

Welfare, essentially for life for single mothers.

Free HEROIN (not methadone) for junkies.

Gay Marriage.

Healthcare for all.

12 paid holidays, 4 weeks paid vacation as standard.

Progressive taxes.

Squatters rights.

Oh, the gun laws suck.

If you are not military or cop, you have no business with a gun.
(yes retired military keep their guns)
Just to oversimplify.

This was based on 4 years of LIVING in Switzerland, not repeating rumours in america.

Back to topic.

Get a draft going!

I so support that.

 

[zeezee]

Yeah, wisdom. As soon as folks figured out they can vote politicians into office who will give them money, entitlements and benefits from the public treasury that they didn't earn, we were doomed fiscally.

Such a system as I mentioned earlier is indeed fair. Although immediately losing your voting status as quickly as your above example implies is certainly unwarranted, if you lost your job after paying net tax money for 20 years, perform a few months of volunteer public service while you are getting your unemployment check. You'd immediately ensure that your 'right to vote' remains intact and you'd have fulfilled the requirement if you ever again lost your job in the future. No one should expect it to be their 'right' to sit on their backside while collecting unemployment, so get out and do something productive for yourself while getting that money.

Elitist? An ex-Army groundpounder, retired firefighter, or (for example) a person who performed a pre-set length of volunteer public service would have the same voting clout as a multimillionaire who pays $200,000 per year in taxes. One vote each. How is that elitist?

As an afterthought, I'd challenge anyone to find for me in the US Constitution where it spells out an explicit 'right to vote'.

Keith

Hmmm, lets start with Article 1 Section 2; "The House of representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People . . ." Now tell me that is not accomplished via voting? That is in the 3rd paragraph of the Constitution and how about "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies." Please read the Constitution before you make such outlandish remarks as this "I'd challenge anyone to find for me in the US Constitution where it spells out an explicit 'right to vote'."

 

[zeezee]

What I do like about a draft is might drive our moral weaklings to Canada.

Or mexico or cuba or any of the other socialist nations they love and want to turn this Republic into.

 

[Karma]

Or mexico or cuba or any of the other socialist nations they love and want to turn this Republic into.

A REPUBLIC doesn't force it's citizens into government service. That is my problem. By being all for something like forced service, you guys would be the ones changing it towards a socialist country!

 

[zeezee]

A REPUBLIC doesn't force it's citizens into government service. That is my problem. By being all for something like forced service, you guys would be the ones changing it towards a socialist country!

The very first sentence in this very first paragraph by terrylf72 reads;

"First off I have not reseached this. My girlsfriend sent me this, and it scares her. For those who have the knowlage and resorces to find out better please let us know. I looked and did'nt see this posted yet!"

Yeah, it really sounds as if he is all for it? NOT! Anyone with half a brain, especially those of the liberal/progressive/socialist ilk, would be against this bull crap!

 

[Bruce]

The truth is there is not a need for the draft at this point in our history. While some branches may be low on recruitment, there are enough to sustain operations. Reenlistments are at a high but you still need Privates to be lead by the NCOs that are re-upping. While the military may be a way out of poverty for inner city youth, there is still the youth of "middle America" that is the bulk military service.

 

[Bruce]

The military has guns right?

 

[trainsktg]

Hmmm, lets start with Article 1 Section 2; "The House of representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People . . ." Now tell me that is not accomplished via voting? That is in the 3rd paragraph of the Constitution and how about "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies." Please read the Constitution before you make such outlandish remarks as this "I'd challenge anyone to find for me in the US Constitution where it spells out an explicit 'right to vote'."

There is no 'right to vote' guaranteed by the Constitution, as there is a right to free speech, unwarranted searches and seizures, etc. Yes, members of Congress are chosen by voting, and yes, the Constitution says that there will be no voting discrimination based on race or gender, but other than that leaves voter qualification standards to the States. Many states prohibit felons from voting, some prohibit people with certain mental issues from voting. The residents of the District of Columbia cannot vote for their representation in Congress because they have none, as DC is a Federal enclave. And of course there is a minimum voting age requirement nationwide.

It would be an unpopular issue to exclude welfare sponges from the voter rolls, but perfectly legal according to federal law.

Keith