10 million jobs?

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by NewGuy
If it was laughed at, how did it get 13 cosponsors?

You can find a sponsor for nearly anything. I defy you to find all the politicians that support this legislation.

It will NEVER be passed in secret. This isn't a few taxes that they'll slide by at a midnight vote, you're talking about the draft!

 

[NewGuy]

The Draft*

$28 million added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. The SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has been dormant for decades, is ready for activation.

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.

 

[NewGuy]

Has anyone thought about the fact that if we stay in Iraq and keep spreading troops thin, we will HAVE to have a draft?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Has anyone thought about the fact that if we stay in Iraq and keep spreading troops thin, we will HAVE to have a draft?

Nope, not for one second. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise if you want to believe Rangel's legislation, that's your choice. This legislation isn't going anywhere.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Nope, not for one second. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise if you want to believe Rangel's legislation, that's your choice. This legislation isn't going anywhere.

What I WANT to believe as that when we give these jokers a job to do, they do it the way we say, and do it well. Since they always do the exact opposite everytime we turn around, I will believe we are ok when they actually kill the thing instead of shelving it for later-date review.

In my eyes, to do anything else is blind assumption opening the door to getting the shaft.

 

[jimnyc]

I believe this article tells the story, from one of the most liberal sites on the net:

Draft Resumption a Crafty Anti-War Tactic

In an unusual ploy to force more public debate on our looming attack on Iraq, a congressman plans this week to introduce legislation urging we reinstitute the military draft.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), revealed his plans in an op-ed column in the Dec. 31 New York Times. He argued that legislators would be less likely to send the nation's youth to the battlefields if their own children were on the front lines.

"I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve--and be placed in harm's way--there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq," he wrote. "A renewed draft will help bring a greater appreciation of the consequences of decisions to go to war."

Rangel's call to resume the draft is an anti-war argument dressed in military garb-- an obvious bit of political gamesmanship. He casts doubt on the capacity of our armed forces to meet its present and future commitments without a draft, even though he opposes many of those commitments.

Read the rest here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0106-04.htm

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I believe this article tells the story, from one of the most liberal sites on the net:

Draft Resumption a Crafty Anti-War Tactic

In an unusual ploy to force more public debate on our looming attack on Iraq, a congressman plans this week to introduce legislation urging we reinstitute the military draft.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), revealed his plans in an op-ed column in the Dec. 31 New York Times. He argued that legislators would be less likely to send the nation's youth to the battlefields if their own children were on the front lines.

"I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve--and be placed in harm's way--there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq," he wrote. "A renewed draft will help bring a greater appreciation of the consequences of decisions to go to war."

Rangel's call to resume the draft is an anti-war argument dressed in military garb-- an obvious bit of political gamesmanship. He casts doubt on the capacity of our armed forces to meet its present and future commitments without a draft, even though he opposes many of those commitments.

Read the rest here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0106-04.htm

That is a fantastic catch. I will assume it to be the most probable reality, but I will still expect the worst until this is dead for good.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by NewGuy
That is a fantastic catch. I will assume it to be the most probable reality, but I will still expect the worst until this is dead for good.

I guess nothing can ever be totally discounted but I can't see this ever receiving a majority vote - at least not if these politicians like their careers!

 

[lilcountriegal]

I've now seen it all.

I checked, and double checked and, yep, Jim posted a link from commondreams.

I think I need a drink.

 

[badfish]

My-My-My. 308,000 new jobs in March... very NOT bad...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115958,00.html