"Backdoor Draft" declared legal

[Bodacious]

Read here

Judge Rejects 'Stop Loss' Suit Vs. Army

WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Army's right to force soldiers to serve past the dates of their enlistments, the so-called "stop loss" policy that can keep men and women in uniform during war or national emergencies.


Spc. David Qualls had sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Army from forcing him to remain on active duty, claiming his enlistment contract was misleading. He signed up for a one-year stint in the Arkansas National Guard in July 2003 but was later told he would remain on active duty in Iraq (news - web sites) until 2005.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth for the District of Columbia said the enlistment contract does notify those who sign up that the government could extend their terms of service. While acknowledging minimal harm to the Army if he ordered Qualls released, Lamberth said similar claims could lead to substantial disruption and diversion of military resources.

The enlistments of an estimated 7,000 active-duty soldiers have been extended under the policy, which the Army says is needed to provide experienced soldiers for battle. As many as 40,000 reserve soldiers could be ordered to stay longer.

Qualls and seven other soldiers serving in Iraq or en route to Iraq had asked the judge to order the Army to release them from service immediately. They contended the enlistment contracts make no explicit reference to the stop loss policy.

The government maintained that the enlistment contract provided that soldiers may be involuntarily ordered to active duty in case of war, national emergency or any other condition required by law, which the government contended would include extensions of existing contracts.

Qualls was ordered in December to return to Iraq while Lamberth reviewed his lawsuit. In January, Qualls volunteered for another six-year stint in the Guard.

Another left wing scare tactic is dismantled.

 

[Absinthe]

How was anything dismantled?

And conservatives shouldn't really be the ones accusing anybody of using scare tactics.

 

[Bodacious]

Things were dismantled because next time somebody wants to bring up stop loss and the "backdoor draft" people can read that link and shut their mouths.

Where did I absolve conservatives of not using scare tactics?

 

[CptStern]

ummm it had to be ruled on by a judge, it's not like the conservatives are behind the repeal of the stop-loss program ...doesnt really matter cuz the damage is already done

 

[burner69]

So people who signed up for a year were forced to go to Iraq when they didn't want to.. AFTER serving their year... then a judge had to step in and stop it... and that somehow dismantles a scare tactic????

Yeah, and what about Bush's "Sleeper cell" "Dirty bomb" "High terror alert on very old information" "Iraq intends to attack the US" scare tactics. Those have resulted in wars... and are a tad more damaging than saying there might be a draft, or bush is cutting taxes for the rich.

 

[Tr0n]

So people who signed up for a year were forced to go to Iraq when they didn't want to.. AFTER serving their year... then a judge had to step in and stop it... and that somehow dismantles a scare tactic????

Yeah, and what about Bush's "Sleeper cell" "Dirty bomb" "High terror alert on very old information" "Iraq intends to attack the US" scare tactics. Those have resulted in wars... and are a tad more damaging than saying there might be a draft, or bush is cutting taxes for the rich.

Seems like that vid I posted did come in handy after all.

 

[burner69]

Seems like that vid I posted did come in handy after all.

Shhhhh

 

[RZAL]

Why is the Arkansas National Guard in Iraq in the first place? Oh I forgot the federal govt is using state guards to wage federal wars. Sounds like a state issue, I agree with the federal judge.






The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"

 

[Bodacious]

So people who signed up for a year were forced to go to Iraq when they didn't want to.. AFTER serving their year... then a judge had to step in and stop it... and that somehow dismantles a scare tactic????

People who signed a contract and that contract states they are obligated to serve for however long. They were whiney and a judge had to tell them so. How doest it not dismatle a scare tactic? These people have no case now.

Yeah, and what about Bush's "Sleeper cell" "Dirty bomb" "High terror alert on very old information" "Iraq intends to attack the US" scare tactics. Those have resulted in wars... and are a tad more damaging than saying there might be a draft, or bush is cutting taxes for the rich.

Again, where have I absolved the right of using scare tactics?

 

[Bodacious]

Why is the Arkansas National Guard in Iraq in the first place? Oh I forgot the federal govt is using state guards to wage federal wars. Sounds like a state issue, I agree with the federal judge."

State Guards can be called up by the DoD at any time. The only people that can't are State Militias, they are only for the defense of the state.

 

[RZAL]

State Guards can be called up by the DoD at any time. The only people that can't are State Militias, they are only for the defense of the state.

Aaaah…. I know that, I was being facetious. Follow history back and you’ll see the National Guard was originally the state guard, used for protecting the states. Go even further back and you’ll see the word interchanged with militia, this word also varies from state to state constitutions. My point is why have a state guard if you have a federal military? Sounds like a state issue.







The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

 

[burner69]

People who signed a contract and that contract states they are obligated to serve for however long. They were whiney and a judge had to tell them so. How doest it not dismatle a scare tactic? These people have no case now.

Again, where have I absolved the right of using scare tactics?

Whiney? Being sent into a BS war, in one of the most dangerous places on earth? Hmm.

Well you often seem to be telling us about evil left scare tactics about various things, and ignore the fact that the right are implimenting far more, and far more dangerous scare tactics at the moment. Surely they're the greater of two evils, if they are using more of these super spooky scare tactics.

 

[jondy]

*Raises hands to temples with faraway, wistful look* I foresee lockage.

 

[Bodacious]

Whiney? Being sent into a BS war, in one of the most dangerous places on earth? Hmm.

No, whiney for trying to find a cheap way to get out of a contractual obligation.

Well you often seem to be telling us about evil left scare tactics about various things, and ignore the fact that the right are implimenting far more, and far more dangerous scare tactics at the moment. Surely they're the greater of two evils, if they are using more of these super spooky scare tactics.

So what if I ignore right wing scare tactics? You don't do anything to stop left wing scare tactics either, hypocrit. I didn't see you chime in No Limit's thread denouncing the "Tax Cuts for the Rich" scare tactic. Why is it ok for left wing threads to exist but when I post a view from the right you cry foul?

 

[burner69]

So what if I ignore right wing scare tactics? You don't do anything to stop left wing scare tactics either, hypocrit. I didn't see you chime in No Limit's thread denouncing the "Tax Cuts for the Rich" scare tactic. Why is it ok for left wing threads to exist but when I post a view from the right you cry foul?

Because I don't believe that the rich should get tax cuts. Why would I post about it being a scare tactic when I believe it to be wrong?

I haven't posted any "scare tactics" threads. I've posted threads and replied to threads and mentioned where I feel something is WRONG. It just so happens the right tend to fall on the immoral behaviour side a dam sight more than the left, IMHO.

Also, with the right being in power their scare tactics are having a massive impact on people's lives. For example, we are locking up innocent people, charging them with terrorism with no evidence. Suddenly the left's "people who don't want to go to Iraq are being forced to, but it was in a prior agreement that they weren't entirely sure about but was their responsibility to chekc up on" seems a little insignificant.

 

[Bodacious]

Because I don't believe that the rich should get tax cuts. Why would I post about it being a scare tactic when I believe it to be wrong?

I haven't posted any "scare tactics" threads. I've posted threads and replied to threads and mentioned where I feel something is WRONG. It just so happens the right tend to fall on the immoral behaviour side a dam sight more than the left, IMHO.

Also, with the right being in power their scare tactics are having a massive impact on people's lives. For example, we are locking up innocent people, charging them with terrorism with no evidence. Suddenly the left's "people who don't want to go to Iraq are being forced to, but it was in a prior agreement that they weren't entirely sure about but was their responsibility to chekc up on" seems a little insignificant.

Fine, we'll leave the tax crap out of here.

You don't think people should carry out their contractual obligations?

 

[GhostFox]

Because I don't believe that the rich should get tax cuts.

I am saying this in all honesty, could you please explain to me why you think the rich shouldn't get tax cuts? I would really like to try to understand your reasoning.

 

[Absinthe]

Again, I fail to see what's being dismantled here. People are bitching about troops having to stay longer than they enlisted for. All you've done is post a link saying that it's A-OK.

Perhaps there's some angle I'm missing here, because I'm not really seeing an argument.

 

[Bodacious]

Again, I fail to see what's being dismantled here. People are bitching about troops having to stay longer than they enlisted for. All you've done is post a link saying that it's A-OK.

Perhaps there's some angle I'm missing here, because I'm not really seeing an argument.

1. Left wingers claim there is backdoor draft. This is because National Guard memebers are being kept on active dutly longer than they expected to be, past their End of Active Service or End of reserve service. The backdoor draft was mention by Kerry in the presidential debates.

2. Some guardsmen appealed to the courts wanting to leave claiming their contract was misleading.

3. The judge ruled that the contracts weren't misleading and the soldiers had to fulfill their contractual obligations.

Why is it ok for people not to live up to their contractual obligations?

 

[burner69]

I am saying this in all honesty, could you please explain to me why you think the rich shouldn't get tax cuts? I would really like to try to understand your reasoning.

The rich make a lot of money. More than enough to sustain themselves. If you cut their taxes the government loses a lot of money, and the money has to come out of somewhere else. As nolimits previous thread showed, that may well be coming from the poor, who are having things they need to sustain themselves taken from them.

Also, when it comes to corporate-type rich, they should be taxed out their arses because of the ways they get that money. Slamming adictive chemicals in foods, getting cheap third world labour, polluting the environment etc etc.

Why is it ok for people not to live up to their contractual obligations?

They signed up for a year, and they were unaware that they could be called up and forced to go to war at any time AFTER that. I personally think it's sick. Dragging people back into the military because they need more troops to stabilise this BS war. If the US was under threat, like... russia was invading, then fair enough... that however, was not the case.

 

[KoreBolteR]

If the US was under threat, like... russia was invading, then fair enough... that however, was not the case.

i actually agree with that, but the US do need as much troops over there to kill those damn terrorist civilian killers. :E

 

[Bodacious]

They signed up for a year,

Did you read my link or are you really that dense? They DID NOT SIGN UP FOR A YEAR. The contracts says, as the judge had to tell them, they have an obligation for a lot longer than a year. I ended my active service in 2004, my obligated service runs out in 2007. Their contracts say similiar things.

and they were unaware that they could be called up and forced to go to war at any time AFTER that.

Their contract said that they could be called up as well. I was fully aware of that and signed practically the same contract. The judge rulled that they need to fulfill their contractual obligations.

I personally think it's sick. Dragging people back into the military because they need more troops to stabilise this BS war. If the US was under threat, like... russia was invading, then fair enough... that however, was not the case.

So it is ok to get out of contracts because when you signed it you didn't know what was in it?

Is anyone else reading this?

Fact: The contract says they can be called up at any time during their obligated service.
Fact: They signed up for more than a year, the contracts stated that.

Those are cold hard facts that you are refusing to acknowledge. Knowing that, why is it ok to not fulfill contractual obligations? If you don't think they are facts, prove to me that they aren't. The link I provided above is my source as to why they are facts.

 

[Bodacious]

The rich make a lot of money. More than enough to sustain themselves. If you cut their taxes the government loses a lot of money, and the money has to come out of somewhere else.

That is not the case. The government received more money in 2004. The gov got more money from the rich taxed under Bush than they were taxed under clinton. The government didn't lose any money, they gained money. I have showed you these facts, why can you not acknowledge them?

Also, when it comes to corporate-type rich, they should be taxed out their arses because of the ways they get that money. Slamming adictive chemicals in foods, getting cheap third world labour, polluting the environment etc etc.

So, even the ones that are operating 100% under the law, they should be taxed more because a few people messed up?

 

[smwScott]

The backdoor draft was hardly a scare tactic. It's true, the government is calling up reserves and extending the service period for many soldiers. It's also true that many of these soldiers did not know this was the case when they signed the agreement and are being forced back into the military against their will. I don't recall the left questioning the legality of it, it is certainly legal to do so. I believe their point was to bring the questionable ethics of a backdoor draft employed by the Bush administration to light.

Therefore, I don't see how a judge ruling that the draft is legal really affects anything. I've known it was legal all along, and I've always thought that it was wrong. And you are in no position to call those soldiers "whiners" from the safety of your little desk chair. By signing up in the first place they have already done far more for their country than you probably ever will.

And for further reference, "the army is forcing many soldiers to extend their service agreement" is not a scare tactic. "Vote for me or there will be another terrorist strike" is a scare tactic.

 

[KoreBolteR]

and when these soldiers signed, was there a tiny message upside down on the bottom saying "your military service actually runs 3 years more than stated above"

 

[burner69]

With regards your other post, smwscott seemed to sum up my feelings quite well. Bravo to you sir.

That is not the case. The government received more money in 2004. The gov got more money from the rich taxed under Bush than they were taxed under clinton. The government didn't lose any money, they gained money. I have showed you these facts, why can you not acknowledge them?

No, you showed me a 15 page list of figures, which did not show where correlations lay. It was a quantitive, not qualitive source, not that it means it was useless, mind.
I might start believing there was a direct link between the government getting more money when they stopped taxing the ricj so much if you explain to me how it happened. You have not. There are a million and three reasons why the government could have ended up with more money, cut backs seem more plausible than reducing taxes.

So, even the ones that are operating 100% under the law, they should be taxed more because a few people messed up?

Name some nice corporations.
McDonalds thrusts very unhealthy food at a young audience, and makes them addictive.
Nestle had the whole powdered milk thing going on in Africa, and I believe they have abismal work conditions for employees abroad.
Nike use third world cheap labour.

I'm not too hot on other large American corporations, but am well aware that they are hardly very nice. The whole ideal of making profit, no matter what the cost, is inherently immoral.

 

[Bodacious]

The backdoor draft was hardly a scare tactic.

So why does the left bring it up?

It's true, the government is calling up reserves and extending the service period for many soldiers. It's also true that many of these soldiers did not know this was the case when they signed the agreement and are being forced back into the military against their will.

They aren't being forced back in, they never got out. Why is it the gov's fault they didn't know what was in the contract?

I don't recall the left questioning the legality of it, it is certainly legal to do so.

So why bring it up if it is not questioning it? It might be legal to do so but is it not questionable ethics to try and get out of contractual obligations?

I believe their point was to bring the questionable ethics of a backdoor draft employed by the Bush administration to light.

Stop loss has always been a law in the military and is nothing new and is in the contract that these people signed. Always has been. If anything happened under Clinton stop loss would have been enacted. Why is it being questioned now?

Therefore, I don't see how a judge ruling that the draft is legal really affects anything.

The idea that there is backdoor draft is eliminated. Ignore the facts all you want, the backdoor draft doesn't exist, and what this judge says makes it so.

I've known it was legal all along, and I've always thought that it was wrong.

That is a valid perception but where is your voice when it comes to people not fulfilling their contractual obligations?

And you are in no position to call those soldiers "whiners" from the safety of your little desk chair. By signing up in the first place they have already done far more for their country than you probably ever will.

For that assumption I bite my thumb at you, sir. I was in Kuwait/Iraq for 9 months. I was in Iraw for 4 of those 9 months. There goes that assumption. I have done as much as they have, if not more.

And for further reference, "the army is forcing many soldiers to extend their service agreement" is not a scare tactic. "Vote for me or there will be another terrorist strike" is a scare tactic.

The fact of the matter is, they aren't forcing them, because they volunteered. How can you force a volunteer to do anything?

 

[Bodacious]

With regards your other post, smwscott seemed to sum up my feelings quite well. Bravo to you sir.

And I just completely annihilated his post.

No, you showed me a 15 page list of figures, which did not show where correlations lay. It was a quantitive, not qualitive source, not that it means it was useless, mind.

Where the revenues came from aside, the fact remains tax revenues are up. The fact remains the Rich paid more taxes under Bush than they did under clinton. Are you trying to say they aren't? Want me to give you the link again?

I might start believing there was a direct link between the government getting more money when they stopped taxing the ricj so much if you explain to me how it happened. You have not. There are a million and three reasons why the government could have ended up with more money, cut backs seem more plausible than reducing taxes.

What difference does it make where the money came from? Tax revenues are up, that is an undeniable fact. The rich paid more under Bush than they would have paid under Clinton's tax laws. That is an undeniable fact. Need the links again?

Name some nice corporations.
McDonalds thrusts very unhealthy food at a young audience, and makes them addictive. No one force people to eat at McDonalds
Nestle had the whole powdered milk thing going on in Africa, and I believe they have abismal work conditions for employees abroad.No one forced them to drink powdered milk. Why is other countries problems our responsibility?
Nike use third world cheap labour.Again, why are other countries problems our responsiblity

My replies are in blue above.

I'm not too hot on other large American corporations, but am well aware that they are hardly very nice. The whole ideal of making profit, no matter what the cost, is inherently immoral.

So how do you think those corporations should operate with minimal or no profit?

 

[GhostFox]

The rich make a lot of money. More than enough to sustain themselves. If you cut their taxes the government loses a lot of money, and the money has to come out of somewhere else.

Tax cuts for the rich are supposed to stimulate the economy and actually make more money for the govt. and everyone else. It's the trickle down theory of economics.

I.E. Rich guy recieves tax cut. Opens new business with money. Hires 12 employees. They spend much of the money they earn, supporting other businesses. Those businesses hire more employees. They spend their money else where. Etc. The rich man pays taxes on his income from the buisness. Exployees pay taxes on jobs they wouldn't have had other wise. They spend that money on good and services, creating more jobs and tax dollars. Those tax dollars then go to support govt. programs like welfare.

Do you see how the money "trickles down". And also how tax cuts for the rich actually support the poor (in theory at least, nothing is perfect).

Now from your posts I know that you know little or nothing of economics, and I am not going to harass you about that. All I ask is that you study up on it a bit before you espouse an opinion on a subject that you clearly know nothing about.

 

[GhostFox]

McDonalds thrusts very unhealthy food at a young audience, and makes them addictive.

You have got to be kidding me. Unless you have proof McDonalds laces their food with heroin, you need some serious help. Do you want the govt. to protect you from everything? If the food is unhealthy, don't eat it. It is called personal responsibility.

 

[CptStern]

Again, why are other countries problems our responsiblity

gah gah ahkkkk ..ch-o-k-in-g on the i-ron-y gakhhhh!!!

 

[burner69]

So why does the left bring it up?

Because it is happening, and is of questionable ethics. If you don't want to risk your life in Iraq you shouldn't be forced to.

They aren't being forced back in, they never got out. Why is it the gov's fault they didn't know what was in the contract?

It's the governments fault for having contracts that drag people back into the military after they've left. These people signed a contract but were unaware what it entailed. You would have thought the recruiting agency for the army would mention that, well, after your service, we can still force you back in.

So why bring it up if it is not questioning it? It might be legal to do so but is it not questionable ethics to try and get out of contractual obligations?

I think it's far worse to force people into Iraq, than to break a contract, personally.

Stop loss has always been a law in the military and is nothing new and is in the contract that these people signed. Always has been. If anything happened under Clinton stop loss would have been enacted. Why is it being questioned now?

Probably because many people don't believe this war is justified, necessary, or if it is, not taking place at a very good time (instability after 9/11, Afghan)

The idea that there is backdoor draft is eliminated. Ignore the facts all you want, the backdoor draft doesn't exist, and what this judge says makes it so.

It's just a phrase. The implications are the same whatever you call it.

That is a valid perception but where is your voice when it comes to people not fulfilling their contractual obligations?

It sounds to me that being forced back into the military was kept hush hush to the people who signed the contracts, or else they would have certainly known about it. Many people who go into the army aren't the greatest readers (not all by any means - though I do have a friend who signed up, and I had to read his contract for him, because it was very long and in very small print). I think the army has a responsibility to ensure that important factors like being pulled back in after leaving is very important. Not doing so is more immoral than contractual obligations.

For that assumption I bite my thumb at you, sir. I was in Kuwait/Iraq for 9 months. I was in Iraw for 4 of those 9 months. There goes that assumption. I have done as much as they have, if not more.

I slag the war off all the time, but Bodacious, I have a lot of respect for you for doing that. Hats off to you. (But I still disagree with you )

The fact of the matter is, they aren't forcing them, because they volunteered. How can you force a volunteer to do anything?

They believed they were volunteering for x number of years, suddenly, after x has expired, they're being pulled back in.

 

[burner69]

Tax cuts for the rich are supposed to stimulate the economy and actually make more money for the govt. and everyone else. It's the trickle down theory of economics.

I.E. Rich guy recieves tax cut. Opens new business with money. Hires 12 employees. They spend much of the money they earn, supporting other businesses. Those businesses hire more employees. They spend their money else where. Etc. The rich man pays taxes on his income from the buisness. Exployees pay taxes on jobs they wouldn't have had other wise. They spend that money on good and services, creating more jobs and tax dollars. Those tax dollars then go to support govt. programs like welfare.

Do you see how the money "trickles down". And also how tax cuts for the rich actually support the poor (in theory at least, nothing is perfect).

Now from your posts I know that you know little or nothing of economics, and I am not going to harass you about that. All I ask is that you study up on it a bit before you espouse an opinion on a subject that you clearly know nothing about.

Thanks for the info, I googled it before, but came up with nothing.
While I admit I know little about economics, the lack of information from the other side of the argument made it very easy to make the assumption there was NO correlation.

I thank you, but perhaps less of the 'opinion dosen't matter' - I debate to learn, and continued to harrass for details of why tax cuts = more money.

Inicidently; rich tax cuts we're talking buisnesses, or individual higher ups within the buisness. Because while I logic'd that cutting taxes on buisnesses could quite possibly result in money eventually coming back, I fail to see how cutting individual, several figure pay salary individuals taxes will help the economy. Perhaps you can help me here.

 

[Bodacious]

Because it is happening, and is of questionable ethics. If you don't want to risk your life in Iraq you shouldn't be forced to.

So why is it ok to opt out of contractual obligations? Is that not questionable ethics even to attempt to get out of a contract? Military persons take an oath to follow the orders of the Commander in Cheif. If you sign a contract, you have to follow it, even if you don't like what you are doing. If you think you made a mistake, do what Jeremy Hinzman is doing. In my eyes there is no dishonor in what he is doing.

It's the governments fault for having contracts that drag people back into the military after they've left.

The fact is, they never got out. I am not out. I still have contractual obligation until October of 2007. The same rules apply to the people being stop lossed.

These people signed a contract but were unaware what it entailed. You would have thought the recruiting agency for the army would mention that, well, after your service, we can still force you back in.

Why is it the governments fault they didn't read the contract? Do you seriously hear what you're saying here? Helllo?!?!

I think it's far worse to force people into Iraq, than to break a contract, personally.

Either way, the gov can legally do whatever they want with their troops, doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not. That doesn't make you opinion less valid, but why is not fulfilling a contractual obligation acceptable to you?

Probably because many people don't believe this war is justified, necessary, or if it is, not taking place at a very good time (instability after 9/11, Afghan)

Again, a valid opinion but that doesn't invalidate the personnel's contracts, does it?

It's just a phrase. The implications are the same whatever you call it.

And whatever you call it, is invalidated and dismatled.

It sounds to me that being forced back into the military was kept hush hush to the people who signed the contracts, or else they would have certainly known about it. Many people who go into the army aren't the greatest readers (not all by any means - though I do have a friend who signed up, and I had to read his contract for him, because it was very long and in very small print). I think the army has a responsibility to ensure that important factors like being pulled back in after leaving is very important. Not doing so is more immoral than contractual obligations.

Again, there weren't forced back in, their contract never ended and tehy had to fill their obligations.

Second, I read the contract, I knew it was in there. I took the initiative to read the contract. I am not trying to use the gov as a cheap copout to get out of military service.

Being inept enought to not read a contract you are going to sign is immoral?

I slag the war off all the time, but Bodacious, I have a lot of respect for you for doing that. Hats off to you. (But I still disagree with you )

Thanks, I know you didn't say those thngs so I hold no ill will toward you for making those asumptions.

They believed they were volunteering for x number of years, suddenly, after x has expired, they're being pulled back in.

And why did they believe they were volunteering for x number of years and not y number of years? Because they didn't read their contract.

Honestly, what kind of moron signs a contract without reading it? And you are defending their stupidity?

 

[gh0st]

Thanks for the info, I googled it before, but came up with nothing.
While I admit I know little about economics, the lack of information from the other side of the argument made it very easy to make the assumption there was NO correlation.

I thank you, but perhaps less of the 'opinion dosen't matter' - I debate to learn, and continued to harrass for details of why tax cuts = more money.

Inicidently; rich tax cuts we're talking buisnesses, or individual higher ups within the buisness. Because while I logic'd that cutting taxes on buisnesses could quite possibly result in money eventually coming back, I fail to see how cutting individual, several figure pay salary individuals taxes will help the economy. Perhaps you can help me here.

Slightly less important than stimulating our economy, how is it fair that the top 1%, who pay 50% of the taxes in this country are taxed the most? Just doesnt make sense, everyone wants america to be fair but that surely isnt. People would invade others privacy, take their money through taxes, and waste it on failed social programs.

Sadly though, trickle down economics has historically not worked well. In tough economic times, the rich are more likely to hoarde their money as opposed to spend it; see the captains of industry in the late 19th century. Rockefellar and Carnegie didnt get rich by spending their money.

 

[GhostFox]

Sadly though, trickle down economics has historically not worked well.

I agree. It hasn't worked out as well as hoped in the past and I have never been truly sold on it. My main point to others is that your statement would be the correct argument against TDE, as oppposed to the "rich people are greedy, GWB just wants to give his rich friends more money" type arguments. People should be pro/con on the issue once they understand it, not based on a fundamental lack of information.

It's nice to see someone else on here who understands economic principles. Even if you did steal half my name.

 

[MarcoPollo]

I agree with everything that bodacious has said and i am glad he is one of the brave people fighting for our country

ok burner youve had some good points and some things bodacious said could be opinionated BUT you need to face the cold hard fact that its not a "Back door draft" its IN THE CONTRACT IF THEY DONT READ THE CONTRACT THEY SHOULDNT COMPLAIN and neither should you because they didnt get pulled back in they were just "put on the shelf" they are still IN the military but if the gov't feels they have enough troops they dont have to fight DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

 

[gh0st]

ok burner youve had some good points and some things bodacious said could be opinionated BUT you need to face the cold hard fact that its not a "Back door draft" its IN THE CONTRACT IF THEY DONT READ THE CONTRACT THEY SHOULDNT COMPLAIN and neither should you because they didnt get pulled back in they were just "put on the shelf" they are still IN the military but if the gov't feels they have enough troops they dont have to fight DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

Worst sentence ever Your points valid though.

 

[burner69]

I agree with everything that bodacious has said and i am glad he is one of the brave people fighting for our country

ok burner youve had some good points and some things bodacious said could be opinionated BUT you need to face the cold hard fact that its not a "Back door draft" its IN THE CONTRACT IF THEY DONT READ THE CONTRACT THEY SHOULDNT COMPLAIN and neither should you because they didnt get pulled back in they were just "put on the shelf" they are still IN the military but if the gov't feels they have enough troops they dont have to fight DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

You do realise that a lot of people who sign on for the military are college and school drop outs? People who aren't v.good at reading. I've seen what recruiting agencies for the army are like here in the UK, they just tell you how great the army is, then it's all "sign sign sign, get in the army". In the article posted the people were clearly unaware of this extra obligation, which, when sprung upon them, they naturally didn't want to do.
There's a problem there, both with them, and the system.

And please explain how Iraq is fighting for our country. Not to undermine bod's work, I just don't feel it is fighting for the US anymore than invading Mongolia would be right now.

 

[Absinthe]

Sorry, Bodacious. I still don't see how this has dismantled anything. I don't recall anybody questioning the legality of the situation. They just thought it was bad that these people were being held longer than they enlisted for. It doesn't help that they're being forced to participate in a war that they also believe to be immoral and illegal.

This judge's ruling dismantles nothing. All it concludes is that yes, there is a "backdroor draft" (or whatever you want to call it) and it's legal.

But just because it's legal doesn't make it alright.

However, a contractual obligation is still just that. But considering the kinds of areas that military recruiters tend to target, I think they should lay out the terms nice and clear. Because as it currently stands, they're like some of those drug companies.

Gives a long-lasting erection that will satisfy the Missus for hours!

May result in exploding kidneys.