I'm not talking about a draft. Rather a national policy of all young people entering into some form of federal service upon graduation from high school which lasted until they turned 21. No deferments for college, rich and poor alike would have to contribute to making the country a better place for 2-3 years whether they served in the military, public works (building bridges and dams), working in a hospital or nursing home. Something that gave back a little bit, I feel that too many of our young citizens are growing up to be takers and don't feel a need to help contribute anything for the priviledges they are born to by living here.
2006-11-27 11:30:34 · 7 answers · asked by togetheradecade 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I think it would be a FINE idea... have seen it at work in other countries such as Switzerland and The Netherlands.
The trouble in the USA is rather simple... business (Contractors) wouldn't permit it. Imagine all that (relatively) cheap labor in the hands of the government !! Building our infrastructure: roads, bridges, cleaning our parks, etc... they'd all be on a pay-structure that would drive the UNIONS that get those government contracts batty !!
But also... THINK of the money the tax-payers could SAVE !! Projects done for half (or less) of the cost we pay today. We'd have virtually ZERO unemployment in the 18-21 yr range, and they would gather useful training during that period that might just reduce unemployment further down the road.
Apply some rules not unlike the military regarding behavior, fiscal responsibility, and pride.
Yes, I like the idea.
2006-11-27 11:42:43 · answer #1 · answered by mariner31 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What you describe would have the same problem as the draft, people who didn't care about their country would be forced into jobs they didn't want to take. I was career Navy from 72 to 92, I retired after Desert Storm. I had occasion to work with draftees, and people who joined the Navy to avoid Army service. They were sullen, un-motivated, and clearly cared nothing for the service, the mission, or their country. We would have been better off without them. If a person doesn't want to be in a position of service, they will not do a good job, it's the volunteers, the ones who genuinely care, that do the job well and can make a real difference.
2006-11-27 11:47:11 · answer #2 · answered by rich k 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
-So they can stay in their parents home or return to their parents home after completing their service? Not something I look forward to.
-Do they earn money for college?
-Can you really see a bunch of 18 year old gang bangers "giving back" to their/our communitites?
Our young citizens are growing up to be "takers" because of their upbringing. Too many double-income families have parents working AT LEAST 40 hours a week plus travel time. Parents feel guilty, so they give and give, thus, they take and take.
2006-11-27 11:43:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that's a wonderful idea. It may help to teach some empathy to the uppity rich jerks who think that life is a bowl of cherries for working people.
2006-11-27 11:49:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Please!
We have enough people on the federal payroll now. We don't need more.
In the 1930s FDR instituted the CCC camps for youth. They went out and planted trees and other such things.
2006-11-27 11:38:52 · answer #5 · answered by el nerdo 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It works in Europe -- but no one wants to follow the Europeans' lead on this or universal health care or mandatory home ownership...
2006-11-27 11:34:53 · answer #6 · answered by Bryce 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as it gets 'em all, 100%, every kid between 18 and 21 (male, female, fat, skinny, tall, short, stupid, smart, homo, hetro and the politically connected) I'm fine with it.
2006-11-27 12:23:10 · answer #7 · answered by Yak Rider 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋