Draft old people

[daniel]

I have a modest proposal to make military service more fair and help solve the social security "crisis" at the same time: Draft old people.

During the Vietnam war we drafted teenagers. We told them they should be proud to die for their country because of all their country had done for them, even though most of the draftees were poor (the rich kids had far more options to get out of it) and so were the ones who had received less than anyone else from their country, and being teenagers, had had far less time to recieve the benefits of being Americans.

The draft was eventually eliminated, and replaced with what is commonly known as the "poverty draft." I.e., poor kids have far fewer opportunities in life, and the military promises education, career, etc., and accepts (with open arms) kids who are poor, or minority, who for whatever reason are discriminated against and have few or no opportunities outside the military.

We pay these kids little, expose them to danger and hard work, and ask them to risk death for a country that has so far given them little more than a uniform. We ask them to solve, by killing and by their own deaths, the problems that, by and large, their parents and grandparents have created by stupid and short-sighted foreign policy decisions.

Why not draft old people instead?

Old people have benefitted far more than teenagers from their country, since they have been here longer. And they are the ones more responsible for the problems that we go to war to try to solve. It makes much more sense to ask someone who has benefitted from a life of freedom to die for his country, than to ask someone to die who has yet to receive those benefits.

A spin-off would be improvements to the health of social security:

When you kill off teenagers in a stupid war (or even a smart one, if sch a thing existed) you deprive the nation of the wealth their labor would have created had they lived, and you deprive the government coffers of the taxes they would have paid. You also create widows and orphans who then must be supported at government expense.

But if you kill off old people instead in your stupid wars, you lighten the burden on social security beause there are then fewer people receiving money from the system. It becomes a double-win, as you preserve the lives of future taxpayers while reducing the numbers of recipients.

Of course, if they do begin to draft old people, I will again refuse to go. And the AARP will throw its entire (significant) lobbying force against whatever war the digbats in power want to fight.

[Starfall]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 14 2006, 06:16 PM) [snapback]332856[/snapback]</div>

Why not draft old people instead?[/b]

Hmmm. Not a single smilie.

That said, how about the Soylent Green solution? It takes care of the seniors, solves the whole Social Security (& especially the Medicare!) mess, plus contributes to the food supply. Edward G. Robinson was happy enough with it. <_<

[huskers]

Then we cound not put them out on the ice to die!

[Schmika]

Well, it would guarantee that in about 5 years we would all be speaking Korean, Chinese, or Arabic.

One of the sillier comments by Daniel.

[Etel Rose]

I think the people who support the war need to be the ones who fight it. Why aren't the Bush girls in Iraq?

[silentak1]

my 2 cents

1) The gov't needs young people who want to probe something and earn a purple heart
2) Old people just want to come back home safely (not that young don't, but they want a medal on the way back)
3) Human reaction times

[Godiva]

I think it's a great idea. In fact it should only be retirees that are drafted. After all, they're not contributing anything anymore.

And don't forget that along with the "poverty draft" they got the "poverty G. I. Bill". Instead of getting a free college education, they now have to pay half. With the old draft you can eliminate the G.I. Bill completely. What old geezer is going to want to go to college if they survive their tourS of duty? And if the geezers have failed to make a will leaving their meager goods to their surviving kin..the government will get that too.

Perhaps we can also draft illegal aliens. That will certainly provide them with steady work.

[Sufferin' Prius Envy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Oct 14 2006, 07:25 PM) [snapback]332895[/snapback]</div>

One of the sillier comments by Daniel.[/b]

Yes, it's a silly idea, but, unfortunately, I'm beginning to believe that he actually believes what he writes has credibility and that he truly believes himself. I'm wondering if we are dealing with someone certifiable . . .

This is my favorite Daniel twist on reality . . .
(I bring it up every once in a while for the giggle factor . . . and in hopes he tries to explain . . . which would undoubtedly lead to more laughs and rolling eyes.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 2 2006, 07:59 AM) [snapback]248538[/snapback]</div>

Entering the US without permission is not against the law. You can be deported for it, and you can be "detained" pending hearings or deportation. But you cannot be sentenced to jail or prison for it. The undocumented people so often refered to as "illegals" have not broken any law by coming here without permission.[/b]

He even promised to respond to the proof to the contrary that I had posted:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 4 2006, 05:31 PM) [snapback]249965[/snapback]</div>

To all who have remained civil in this debate: It is indeed illegal to aid and abet an undocumented immigrant, or to employ one. For the rest, I will not respond to the substantive point until I have had a chance to check with my original sources, as I left that office when I moved out of Fargo last fall. It won't happen this week, though, as I'll be out of town and away from the internet over the weekend.[/b]

Come on Daniel . . . it's now been a full six months. What's wrong? The people at the legal aid office not returning you calls? Aren't you the least bit ashamed that you can make such a claim, confirm your assertion, and then not be able to provide proof when called out on it? . . . EVEN WHEN YOU PROMISED TO BACK IT UP????

If you can't back up your statements with proof, you are a fraud and have absolutely no credibility it the world of reality.

[MarinJohn]

The families of politicians, non voters supporters should be forced to serve. Politicians' families first, followed by eligable non voters (notice I didn't say non-registered voters, as they are non-voters). Then, the supporters. Therefore if I voted D and a D started a war I should be REQUIRED to serve, right after the politician's relatives and non voters have signed up. War? What war?

[daniel]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 15 2006, 08:48 AM) [snapback]332991[/snapback]</div>

Come on Daniel . . . it's now been a full six months. What's wrong? The people at the legal aid office not returning you calls? Aren't you the least bit ashamed that you can make such a claim, confirm your assertion, and then not be able to provide proof when called out on it? . . . EVEN WHEN YOU PROMISED TO BACK IT UP????

If you can't back up your statements with proof, you are a fraud and have absolutely no credibility it the world of reality.
[/b]

Nope. The folks at the legal aid office never did answer my emails. I do know that I was told by lawyers who I believe to be knowledgeable in the field, that entering the country without documents was not actually a crime. I also know that none of our clients or their relatives or people I've met in other circumstances, was ever charged with a crime for entering the country undocumented. They are either deported, or released (sometimes on their own recognizance) or permitted to leave voluntarily. But in all my experience working in the legal aid office and in the homeless shelter, I never heard of an undocumented immigrant being charged with the crime of entering undocumented.

And I really could not care less whether you think I have credibility or not. I am disappointed that the people I worked with have not replied to my emails. But if you think that makes me a fraud, that reflects more on you than on me.