this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
174 points (96.3% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2534 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Some in the former president’s camp say it’s time more young adults put “some skin in the game.”

JD Vance appears to be in on requiring the kids of non-billionaires to serve in the military too:

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), a potential Trump running mate, said in an interview that he sees a clear need for measures to boost participation. “I like the idea of national service. And I’m not talking about in wartime,” he said, calling for more Americans to put “some skin in the game.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] paf0@lemmy.world 83 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Will Baron go or will he dodge it like daddy?

[–] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago

Mah spurs! They hurt!

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Barron likely will not go.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 48 points 5 months ago (1 children)

“WHY DO THEY ALWAYS SEND THE POOOOOR”

[–] ME5SENGER_24@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

Where the fuck are you?

Why don't presidents fight the war?

Why do they always send the poor?

Why do they always send the poor?

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 42 points 5 months ago

Let the Trump advisors go first.

Stop sending young men to die for profits them and their families will never see. We see through the facade.

[–] TheBananaKing@lemmy.world 42 points 5 months ago (5 children)
[–] LodeMike 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Just in case anyone doesn't know: the main supreme court case about conscription basically had the decision of "But Mom! All the other countries do it!"

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Erasmus@lemmy.world 39 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hmmmm….Fortunate Son plays softly in the background.

[–] dogsnest@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

"It Aint Me"

-- DJT

[–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 34 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I remember when Obama suggested mandatory civil service. Not necessarily military but local government or parks. Doing some local community work. I thought that was a great idea.

Having mandatory military is dumb. I was in for a few enlistments and you don't want someone forced to be there when people's lives are on the line. Vietnam ended up with a bunch of officers getting fragged by disgruntled draftees.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago

I think it would be a great way to nearly eradicate unemployment and justify free college/trade school until we can force UBI down politicians' throats.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I think some kind of public service is potentially good but you have to sort out your incentive structure first. Otherwise all those extra workers just end up being the only workers.

[–] finley@lemm.ee 30 points 5 months ago (4 children)

for what? the wars they plan to start?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

For that, and because when you're in the military, you don't have the same right to free expression.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Yes, probably. But a larger military means more money piped into the military budget, even in peacetime, if there ever is such a thing again. And a larger budget means more money funneled into the military industrial teat for the GOP and their donors to suckle off of.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's a really roundabout way of socialising healthcare.

[–] psmgx@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

Service Guarantees Healthcare. Do you want to know more?

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 22 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That's the worst idea I've heard on so many levels.

Drafting people is immoral.

Also, it's politically stupid because the draft is just.... Extremely unpopular. Universal mandatory service will be radically less popular.

Then, you're filling the military with a bunch of people who don't want to be there. Suddenly a sizable portion of the US military is composed of new recruits who don't want to be there. If only half the people who come up for mandatory service actually get drafted, that's still more people than are currently in the US military. This will do wonders for effectiveness and morale.

Finally, once they get out, you have an insane amount of GI bill benefits to pay out, to say nothing of the long term VA costs that come from more than doubling the size of the military. (Potentially up to a 10x increase, assuming four year term of service and roughly 4M 18 year olds per year).
Or you can change the law to deny GI bill benefits to draftees, which is definitely going to be popular with the people whose life you're stealing.

I suppose "draft everyone" is technically a way to give everyone subsidized college education and universal healthcare, but I think there's better ways.

Just the dumbest possible people.

[–] CodingCarpenter@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago

As if they would actually pay out on the GI bill. I've known more than a few that gets screwed over over stupid technicalities or paperwork. The fact is the US government does not give a shit about vets and that's a sad thing

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago

Ah yes, the famous draft dodger that will disinherit his children if they join the armed forces.

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 22 points 5 months ago

First lest see trump’s service record…

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago

Mandatory Patriotism™

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You sure you want a military-trained proletariat Trump?

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Alternatively, would teaching all his red neck lackeys how to use guns more responsibly and effectively be a good thing or a bad thing?

I guess they would be slightly less likely to shoot themselves in the nuts accidentally. But they would also be more effective in murdering more Innocent folks when they have one of their conspiracy-fueled mental health crises.

[–] geekworking@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

Ozzy summed it up well:

Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor

[–] frezik@midwest.social 11 points 5 months ago

Lots of European countries have mandatory military service. Including scandanavian countries that are sometimes held up as a social democracy ideal. It works because they are primarily defensive in nature. When invaded, you want to have a large reserve list to fall back on; people who can return to service with minimal training. Motivation isn't usually a problem, because people tend to rally around the flag when invaded.

Conscription doesn't work as well when you're the aggressor. You have to convince those conscripts that they are here for a good reason. They otherwise start questioning why the hell they're putting their life on the line for a bunch of rich idiots at the top. Even if they don't desert, they won't put in their full effort.

This is basically the difference between the armies of Russia and Ukraine. They're both relying on conscripts, but one is clearly the aggressor and has motivation issues. We can also look back to America's history in Vietnam. Lots of people both pressed into service and at home who question why the hell we're doing this.

So what you do instead is ramp up jingoisim. Convince people they should enlist, and then it was their own "free will" to run off and die for rich idiots at the top.

Some of the people most opposed to mandatory service are the top military officers. They want a voulenteer military, not because they're high minded or anything, but because they know what kind of wars America fights.

That is, until one party had its brain eaten by a man who doesn't understand the playbook.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

From the perspective of the ruling class, a draft would be an absolutely terrible idea. Many Americans do not care at all what the military does because the victims are mostly PoC foreigners, and if some American soldiers die they might care a little bit, but they chose to be there and knew the risks so it's whatever. This apathy allows the ruling class to do whatever they want, to go on these random, decades-long invasions that leave hundreds of thousands dead, and nobody actually gives a shit at all, and the handful that do can be written off as traitors and foreign agents.

Nothing would get Americans to start paying attention and caring about foreign policy like forcing them to get involved and potentially risking their own lives. From the ruling class's perspective, they've got a good thing going. They'd have to be truly desperate for manpower to fuck that up, and they're not.

I won't say they won't do it because I don't want to underestimate their stupidity. But if they do decide to start bringing people in who don't wanna be there, away from their bread and circuses, to get front row seats to all the horrors and atrocities the media doesn't like talking about, and give them guns and training, well, all I can say is that's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them.

[–] uncreativechap@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

For national defence, right? Surely they're not wanting to throw more bodies at "lesser" nations to "secure democracy", right? /s

[–] Larry@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

defending the us from middle eastern babies

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Sorry, I can't. I have bone spurs.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Okay, let's thinks some of this through.

measures to remedy what they see as a “crisis” facing the all-volunteer military.

This is accurate. All branches of the military are having problems meeting their recruiting requirements, because kids in general in the US are no longer fit enough to make it into basic training in the first place. So while there are enough raw people that have the mental aptitude that are trying to get in--but just barely--so many of them are unable to meet the physical requirements that the military lacks the personnel that it needs.

He described the concept as a common “rite of passage,” one that would create a sense of “shared sacrifice” among America’s youth.

Okay, yes. This is potentially correct. However, you're also going to see a lot of resentment. So perhaps you won't see the esprit de corps that you might want.

he says leads to “unnecessary delays” and “unwarranted rejections” for some people with disabilities or other conditions who otherwise want to serve.

I was one of those people that might have been an "unwarranted rejection"; I scored quite high on the ASVAB at the time (I think 96th percentile in the mid 90s), but was disqualified because I was on Prozac. Now I would be disqualified because I'm on the autism spectrum. (I was then too, but hadn't been diagnosed.) I might have done well in the military. I might have hated it. But I never got the chance to find out.

Only 1 percent of the U.S. population serves in the armed forces, Army data shows.

Okay, see, here's a huge problem. Mandatory military service would mean expanding the military by 100x. Even if you only served 18 months or 2 years as a conscript, that's an ENORMOUS amount of money that has to be spent by the gov't feeding, housing, clothing, training, providing healthcare, and paying (since you kinda gotta pay the troops) for so goddamn many people, and that assumes that they entirely cut all post-separation benefits for anyone that is conscripted (e.g., no VA for people that become disabled, no GI Bill, etc.) The infrastructure spending alone for that, and the number of new bases that would need to be built, is staggering. Right now we spend 3.5% of our GDP on the military. Even if we went low-tech for all the soldiers that were conscripted, you could expect to see that number triple, easily. That means that you're either doing massive deficit spending, cutting everything else that taxes are spent on, or raising taxes by a lot.

[–] Tower@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

expanding the military by 100x

Send massive amounts of money to defense contractors...

entirely cut all post-separation benefits for anyone that is conscripted

without any future liability obligations....

you could expect to see that number triple, easily

and leaving tons of room to grift...

cutting everything else that taxes are spent on

all while also getting to fuck over the poors?

Somewhere, a senator just spontaneously jizzed his pants.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

all while also getting to fuck over the poors?

Not just the poors though. You'd have to cut infrastructure spending, Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, criminal justice, food and drug administration (you know, the people that make sure food is safe?), everything that makes our country more or less functional. This isn't something that the 1% would be fine with; it's more like the .1%, or .01%, because even most of the very wealthy people would end up getting badly fucked by the kind of cuts you would need to have in order to add that many people to the military without instituting oppressive taxes.

I think that saying that the current military budget would triple if there was mandatory conscription is actually being incredibly conservative. If you look at military spending as a percentage of GDP when the US last had something even in the same county as mandatory conscription--World War II--the US was spending over 40% of the GDP on the military.

I can't imagine most people in the US being okay with that kind of loss of necessary gov't function combined with insanely high taxes unless the US was also involved in an existential war.

[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 8 points 5 months ago

Just so he can call us losers if we end up dead? No thanks.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Finland, Norway, and Sweden all have mandatory military service, and are notably democratic and socialist compared to the US. Switzerland and Austria as well.

[–] XTL@sopuli.xyz 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They also have about 5-10 million people each. And Russia right next to them.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

Austria, not so much; Austria is in central Europe, and doesn't have a shared border.

I don't think mandatory conscription is a good idea in the US per se, but I don't necessarily think that it's necessarily a bad idea either.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

"peace candidate"

load more comments
view more: next ›