Charlie Rangel Pushes For Draft, War Tax To Battle ISIS

[homersapien 11,366]

Why not?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/22/charlie-rangel-war-tax_n_5863964.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Charlie Rangel and why not, is a question that answers itself. However, he does have a point. Are you ready to offer up your children?

[cptau 169]

Disgraced congressman Charles 'tax cheat' Rangel, is too old to be in congress and probably should be in a prison cell.

The war tax is an interesting idea, but it needs to be a separate tax that is actually paid by all persons. It can't be a line on phone bill or just an income tax increase. Most people don't pay federal income taxes and I suspect Rangel just wants an income tax increase to be kept ongoing for revenue.

Bringing back a draft will not mean people will not volunteer. The need for draftees would still be very low. The current size of the active U.S. Military at 1.4 million is about what it was in in the late 1950s. As a percentage of the total U.S. population it is very small when compared to military force levels and total U.S. population during Vietnam, Korea, and WWII.

Bringing back the draft would probably cause women to be drafted for non combat roles. Adding women to the pool of persons eligible for the draft means even fewer males would be needed in a draft, probably 45% fewer. Only 10% of the troops in the military are involved in combat roles. So of the 90% remaining roles being filled by draftees, half would be filled by women. The larger us population with the use of women to double the draft pool and a reduced need for draftees means very few white males will get drafted, if that is Rangel's intent. Women would become a larger percentage of the military.

The draft was not used to obtain personnel for the Air Force and very few for the Marines. Most draftees wound up in the U.S. army

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

I have put in over 26 years into the military for this country...I also have a son who is a combat medic....do I need to offer up more? I have been through each war since Desert Storm...so why would I have to pay a war tax? Really...how about taxing all of those who haven't served. Oh and if you want to get your kid out of the draft then pay a hefty chunk of change. Also, why are the illegals getting off scott free? if we are planning on legalizing them then make them pay a penalty of say 20-30K per person...including their kids...now that some states are allowing those same illegals to go to school at the instate rate then why not make a law that every american can go there at that in state rate....really...Wrangle is a politician who has gotten his hand caught in the cookie jar and is just making waves....these politicians make me sick...most haven't served but want to put our lives on the line at the drop of a hat to make them look better politically. I think we should have a national service or draft...let every kid serve in some form or fashion for at least two years active and a couple reserve...if they don't meet the physical or mental needs then then off they go to peace corps or some other type of service to our country like a work program to make our parks better or something for about 3-4 years...I tired of people breaking the law and having it flaunted in my face...Wrangle, illegals, IRS, president, congress, etc....I am sick of them being able to get away with it but most people who do half of what they do get thrown under the jail...

[WarTim 3,456]

We must first seek the proper guidance and insight from the right Rev. Jesse-Al,and of certain, Rev. Wright...Bwahahahaha

[homersapien 11,366]

Charlie Rangel and why not, is a question that answers itself. However, he does have a point. Are you ready to offer up your children?

I think that's the point. Many of us are apparently willing to offer up other people's children. Maybe a higher "test" for going to war would be a good thing.

(That Rangel proposed it is irrelevant to me.)

[cooltigger21 0]

The purpose of the draft is to supply the needed personnel to the armed forces to do the task. We have sufficient forces to handle what needs to be done at this point. It's not about "fairness"

[homersapien 11,366]

The purpose of the draft is to supply the needed personnel to the armed forces to do the task. We have sufficient forces to handle what needs to be done at this point. It's not about "fairness"

No, it's not about fairness, it's about accountability. What about paying for our wars instead of deferring the costs with borrowing?

We could easily institute a draft for civil service and then accept only volunteers for combat roles or deployment (unless they are needed of course). As I recall, we were sending active troops on multiple deployments due to need.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Charlie Rangel and why not, is a question that answers itself. However, he does have a point. Are you ready to offer up your children?

I think that's the point. Many of us are apparently willing to offer up other people's children. Maybe a higher "test" for going to war would be a good thing.

(That Rangel proposed it is irrelevant to me.)

I agree with the point. However, I think Rangel is relevant. It is symbolic of the cost of flushing one's own credibility down the toilet. Even when you are right, few are still listening.

[homersapien 11,366]

Charlie Rangel and why not, is a question that answers itself. However, he does have a point. Are you ready to offer up your children?

I think that's the point. Many of us are apparently willing to offer up other people's children. Maybe a higher "test" for going to war would be a good thing.

(That Rangel proposed it is irrelevant to me.)

I agree with the point. However, I think Rangel is relevant. It is symbolic of the cost of flushing one's own credibility down the toilet. Even when you are right, few are still listening.

Fine. But I didn't mean for the topic to have anything to do with Rangel, only the substance. I guess I should have known better than to use a source that is radioactive.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

Charlie Rangel and why not, is a question that answers itself. However, he does have a point. Are you ready to offer up your children?

I think that's the point. Many of us are apparently willing to offer up other people's children. Maybe a higher "test" for going to war would be a good thing.

(That Rangel proposed it is irrelevant to me.)

I agree with the point. However, I think Rangel is relevant. It is symbolic of the cost of flushing one's own credibility down the toilet. Even when you are right, few are still listening.

Fine. But I didn't mean for the topic to have anything to do with Rangel, only the substance. I guess I should have known better than use a source that is radioactive to bring up a legitimate topic.

You are correct. Rangel is a radioactive source because of what he has been able to get away with and due to his antics should not be in Congress. Take a hard look at his past. The idea for taxing during a war is interesting and deserves some thought but so should getting rid of our debt and out of control spending habits. The draft is another issue as we are currently downsizing our military as we have plenty of volunteers at the moment and are forcing people out of the service. Now I still hold that we need national service for every generation in some form or fashion as I think too many americans are out of touch and don't understand about our country at all...

[cptau 169]

The founders intended congress to control the funding for the military, have the ability to raise taxes, and the power to declare war. Congress is not taking that responsibility and we need to vote them out when they don't. Instead we vote for them to bring more government funding in to the districts where we live, funding that is not supported completely by taxes, but also by borrowing.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

The founders intended congress to control the funding for the military, have the ability to raise taxes, and the power to declare war. Congress is not taking that responsibility and we need to vote them out when they don't. Instead we vote for them to bring more government funding in to the districts where we live, funding that is not supported completely by taxes, but also by borrowing.

Most of that funding helps only a select few...primarily the ones who contributed to their campaign...

[autigeremt 6,599]

Charlie Rangel and why not, is a question that answers itself. However, he does have a point. Are you ready to offer up your children?

I think that's the point. Many of us are apparently willing to offer up other people's children. Maybe a higher "test" for going to war would be a good thing.

(That Rangel proposed it is irrelevant to me.)

Some of us offered ourselves up already....did you?

[homersapien 11,366]

Charlie Rangel and why not, is a question that answers itself. However, he does have a point. Are you ready to offer up your children?

I think that's the point. Many of us are apparently willing to offer up other people's children. Maybe a higher "test" for going to war would be a good thing.

(That Rangel proposed it is irrelevant to me.)

Some of us offered ourselves up already....did you?

Yep.

[quietfan 233]

I have no desire to defend Charles Rangel as a man, a politician, or an unqualified speaker of truth. But per adage that "even a blind hog will occasionally discover an acorn", even the most ignorant, brain-damaged, crooked or biased person might occasionally stumble upon an "acorn" of truth.

Now, do I think Rangel's idea is a good one? Well, I certainly think it's better to fund a war through taxes when possible, rather than with an IOU or on the word of another nation that they will foot the bill. As for a draft, I'll worry about that when the military tells us they need one, not when some politician does...and should it become necessary, would demand that the rich, the poor, and the middle class, the powerful and the disenfranchised, share the burden equally.

[cptau 169]

I have no desire to defend Charles Rangel as a man, a politician, or an unqualified speaker of truth. But per adage that "even a blind hog will occasionally discover an acorn", even the most ignorant, brain-damaged, crooked or biased person might occasionally stumble upon an "acorn" of truth.

Now, do I think Rangel's idea is a good one? Well, I certainly think it's better to fund a war through taxes when possible, rather than with an IOU or on the word of another nation that they will foot the bill. As for a draft, I'll worry about that when the military tells us they need one, not when some politician does...and should it become necessary, would demand that the rich, the poor, and the middle class, the powerful and the disenfranchised, share the burden equally.

Congress treats funding wars like it treats any other funding needs, just print or borrow the money. Hiding the 'war' funding in a continuing budget resolution is a joke.

presidents avoid asking for declarations of war from congress and for various reasons congress has allowed presidents to make war without declaring war.

Some of this is due to changes in weapons technology. It once took months to get ready for war and months to commit significant forces to combat. Now it takes minutes by ICBM, hours by bomber, and only days for ground and naval forces to deploy. WWII was the start of that change and we have not declared war per the constitution since WWII.

We are now more concerned with getting international cooperation in making war than following the constitution. Perhaps this needs to be another proposed amendment to the constitution clarifying what is making war, who has the power to authorize it, and how is it must be funded.

[AUUSN 823]

Continuing resolutions don't work that way. DoD will have to request additional funding to fund this conflict. Right now DoD states that they have enough budget cushion but will come calling right after the mid-term elections.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I have no desire to defend Charles Rangel as a man, a politician, or an unqualified speaker of truth. But per adage that "even a blind hog will occasionally discover an acorn", even the most ignorant, brain-damaged, crooked or biased person might occasionally stumble upon an "acorn" of truth.

Now, do I think Rangel's idea is a good one? Well, I certainly think it's better to fund a war through taxes when possible, rather than with an IOU or on the word of another nation that they will foot the bill. As for a draft, I'll worry about that when the military tells us they need one, not when some politician does...and should it become necessary, would demand that the rich, the poor, and the middle class, the powerful and the disenfranchised, share the burden equally.

I am loathe to ever agree with Rangel on anything, no matter how small. I think in general, he's a charlatan of the highest order. And I still disagree about a draft because I don't think it's necessary, at least at this point.

But a temporary "war tax" that was separate from other taxes and had a hard sunset date on it could at least get through people's heads that actions have direct consequences to the bottom line. It's not the worst idea I've ever heard.

[channonc 466]

Not a fan of Rangel's, but put me down for both ideas.

On the draft: We have soldiers doing 3, 4 and 5 tours over there (sometimes way more). I think this only leads us to some of the issues we have with the VA, PTSD,suicides, etc. Combat is stressful, and I think there is only so much one person can really take. I would actually take this one step further and say that I would be willing to consider mandatory military service in this country. I think it would make us much more appreciative of what we are actually asking of these men and women that volunteer. This would also make military service much more equitable across socioeconomic lines. Additionally, now that women are allowed in combat, they should not be excused from the draft.

On a separate war tax: Can't agree enough with this one. Wars are expensive, and if we don't have the money to help boost our own economy, fix our aging infrastructure, focus on our energy needs, then we don't have the money for another war. It's time we all pay our fair share to fund our national security. I am the first one willing to write a check. I would be in favor of it having a sunset date as Titan suggests, the only caveat is the sunset date has to match the end of the conflict-- and draw down of troops.

[AUUSN 823]

Not a fan of Rangel's, but put me down for both ideas.

On the draft: We have soldiers doing 3, 4 and 5 tours over there (sometimes way more). I think this only leads us to some of the issues we have with the VA, PTSD,suicides, etc. Combat is stressful, and I think there is only so much one person can really take. I would actually take this one step further and say that I would be willing to consider mandatory military service in this country. I think it would make us much more appreciative of what we are actually asking of these men and women that volunteer. This would also make military service much more equitable across socioeconomic lines. Additionally, now that women are allowed in combat, they should not be excused from the draft.

Spot on channonc. I'm conflicted on a draft but if we go that route then we need a 'smart draft.' Even during the draft, there was little equitability

throughout the socioeconomic landscape. Rich, white, suburban kids took advantage of draft loopholes while those who couldnt afford it were drafted.

[quietfan 233]

Not a fan of Rangel's, but put me down for both ideas.

On the draft: We have soldiers doing 3, 4 and 5 tours over there (sometimes way more). I think this only leads us to some of the issues we have with the VA, PTSD,suicides, etc. Combat is stressful, and I think there is only so much one person can really take. I would actually take this one step further and say that I would be willing to consider mandatory military service in this country. I think it would make us much more appreciative of what we are actually asking of these men and women that volunteer. This would also make military service much more equitable across socioeconomic lines. Additionally, now that women are allowed in combat, they should not be excused from the draft.

On a separate war tax: Can't agree enough with this one. Wars are expensive, and if we don't have the money to help boost our own economy, fix our aging infrastructure, focus on our energy needs, then we don't have the money for another war. It's time we all pay our fair share to fund our national security. I am the first one willing to write a check. I would be in favor of it having a sunset date as Titan suggests, the only caveat is the sunset date has to match the end of the conflict-- and draw down of troops.

Absolutely, include women on my list of persons who should share the burden equally if a draft were reinstated.