The real essence of Kerry's statement (1 Viewer)

[TheHonestTruth]

Everyone needs to put a little perspective on this.


I'm a little disgusted that the whole world jumps on the bandwagon here. It shows how easily manipulated we all are by the media unless you actually engage your brain!! To say his specific intent here was to smear the soldiers is retarded. He didn't call them "stupid" -- his point was on the socioeconomic differences which can be changed by education. Though he did it poorly, he was in fact pointing out WHO goes into our military -- lower middle class kids.

The root of the statement would be referring to the obvious fact that, YES, economically disadvantaged people are in fact MORE likely to sign up for the military. How many rich kids do you see enlist? If you are from a lower middle class background, you cant get federal financial aid to pay for college, so unless you are on a scholarship you don't have enough to go to college on. Instead of racking up debt, some students decide to pay for college by signing up for the military. In reality, its appeal to personal self interest a lot more than patriotism. Also, if you aren't in college at all and you cant find a job, there is one place thats ALWAYS hiring, thats the military. This is nothing new.

All of this said, Kerry is an idiot. In typical political fashion he tries to claim it was a mistake and says he misplaced a word or two. He probably thinks he's dug himself a hole, but the best thing he could do would be honest and talk about the economic issues that factor into decisions to enlist.

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

Moved. Did not meet the criteria for *Breaking News*.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

Moved. Did not meet the criteria for *Breaking News*

I put it in breaking news because I thought since the whole media was drooling over this mindless story 24/7 it could be still considered breaking news. I dont think I deserved a warning here. But I suppose this is a more appropriate place for it.

 

[Stinger]

Everyone needs to put a little perspective on this.

How about putting a little proof on your baseless assertion and smear of those who join the military first?

 

[TheHonestTruth]

How about putting a little proof on your baseless assertion and smear of those who join the military first?

You must have meant common sense.

The "proof" you are looking for...as in what? In the form of statistics by the military itself that say the main reason troops enlist is NOT because they need a job, they want to pay for college, or have plans for this as a career starter? Instead the main reason is because they believe in the war so much, right? There would be no credible way to obtain such statistics.

Sometimes you have to rely on common sense. Common sense tells you that people with fewer economic opportunities will sign up for dangerous jobs.

 

[Diogenes]

Sometimes you have to rely on common sense. Common sense tells you that people with fewer economic opportunities will sign up for dangerous jobs.

So your perception of "common sense" completely dismisses the idea of patriotism as a motivation? Has it occurred to you that not everyone shares that parochial mindset?

 

[TheHonestTruth]

So your perception of "common sense" completely dismisses the idea of patriotism as a motivation? Has it occurred to you that not everyone shares that parochial mindset?

Completely dismisses patriotism? I said it wasn't the main reason, not that troops aren't patriotic. But to say its the number 1 reason, you might be a bit deluded with jingoist fever in that case. If you're 22 years old with a high school education and no career path, no home, and no idea what you want to do, the military sounds like a great way out of all that. Veterans benefits nobody else gets, money stacking in the bank while you are on duty not spending a dime of your own money, and a great addition to your future resume. Personal self interest usually comes first over national pride, that is common sense.

Its media driven mindless politics as usual. If kerry was really trying to make a bush joke instead of pointing out how war is getting kids to sacrifice lives for a job opportunity, then he really sucks at rousing political debate for his cause. The "bush is stupid joke" is a really weak argument. He went to Yale, he's not the best on camera but the guy isn't intellectually stupid, he's actually just a stubborn puppet who takes advice from war profiteers.

 

[Stinger]

You must have meant common sense............

No I meant empherical evidence to suppor the smear you did on the military. So try again else you should appologize.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

No I meant empherical evidence to suppor the smear you did on the military. So try again else you should appologize.

As I said, obtaining evidence revealing economic motivations for joining the military in a credible manner would be nearly impossible.

As for the regurgitated accusation which you now direct at me, where exactly is this "smear" you speak of?

 

[Dezaad]

No I meant empherical evidence to suppor the smear you did on the military. So try again else you should appologize.

I thought I'd jump in here. I think you mean by your context 'empirical' evidence. There is evidence to support the notion that certain economic classes are more likely to join the military. To say so is only a smear if you think its ok to think less of people because of their economic class, which I do not. Along with that, there is also evidence to support that people with lower grades in high school join the military more frequently than the general population. That is only a smear if you think its ok to look down on people because they get lower grades, which I do not. Now, John Kerry might, so if he did actually mean what he said, then he was condescending to the armed forces, but that's not what you were asking about.

Here's the quote:

http://www.prb.org//Content/ContentGroups/Population_Bulletin/59-4AmericanMilitary.pdf
Enlistment is also predicted by parents’
education (children of college educated
parents are less likely to
serve), high school grades (those with
higher grades are less likely to serve),
college plans (college students are less
likely to enlist), race and ethnicity
(African Americans and Hispanics are
more likely to serve than whites), and
attractiveness of military work roles.

I accept this study. It was published and references apparently good studies. I'd like to see the actual data, so I am looking. If it does turn out that the military is less educated, or less good in school, then it doesn't mean we can look down on them. What you need to do is prepare yourself for the possibility that they are. If it turns out that they are (less academic), are you going to look down on them?

 

[Moot]

How about putting a little proof on your baseless assertion and smear of those who join the military first?

It true. The military has been deliberately targeting low income and minority kids.

"A new analysis of military recruiting shows that the wealthier neighborhoods became even more under-represented in the Army in 2005 while low- and middle-income neighborhoods became more over-represented compared to 2004."
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=228&Itemid=61

Bush's No Child Left Behind Act makes it a law that upon request public schools have to give the military every students name, address, grades and ethnicity which helps them to target the least likely to attend college for recruitment.

June 23, 2005 · The U.S. military is working with a private marketing firm to identify future recruits. The Defense Department will use a database of students between the ages of 16 and 18. The Washington Post says that as it struggles to meet recruiting goals, the military is collecting data on student grades, and areas of study, and ethnicity. It's an effort to find the most likely future troops. Some parents were already unhappy to learn that Federal law requires schools to give student addresses and phone numbers to military recruiters.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4715273

 

[Stinger]

ORielly is citing the DoD stats today. 25% of the military comes from the upper income groups 14% from the lowest. HS grads? Army 91% Navy 93% Air Force 100% Marines 97%.

Time to stop insulting the troops

Marine Dad x2

 

[TheHonestTruth]

ORielly is citing the DoD stats today. 25% of the military comes from the upper income groups 14% from the lowest. HS grads? Army 91% Navy 93% Air Force 100% Marines 97%.

Time to stop insulting the troops

Marine Dad x2

The lowest income group get college paid for by government pell grants based on their poverty level. Thats why its middle class kids that are more likely to sign up, they want to go to college but the parents probably cant afford it. And if you cant make it out of public high school these days you dont belong in the service. Nobody is insulting troops, unless you think reality is insulting.

 

[Morrow]

http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep98/html/chapter_7.html

I wasn’t able to find a more recent version that contained socio-economic information, although they should exist. If you look over this you will see there is not a large difference in most areas regarding background of the enlisted force structure. The only significant difference I observed were in the occupation of the parents of active military members. There were active military members whose parents had blue collar jobs than civilian. However, more DoD parents were employed than the civilian sector.

Never the less, no study is going to capture all the relevant information. I didn’t know anyone who joined the military solely out of patriotism. I also didn’t know many people who joined the military and had other options. Yes, it is true that almost everyone in the military graduated high school. But not all high school graduates are even. Most of the young people I knew joined up because they couldn’t afford school, they didn’t have job skills, and or they didn’t get good enough grades in high school. Most of the older people I knew who joined, joined because they didn’t have a good job, couldn’t get a job, or had a family to support and couldn’t be out of work very long. The people who join the military are mostly economically depressed without alternatives.

I agree with Dezaad wholly. The perception that saying many troops are poor is an insult comes from the perception that poor people are defective.

And no one is insulting the troops Stinger.

 

[Diogenes]

Personal self interest usually comes first over national pride, that is common sense.

If that's your idea of common sense, then I guess you'll be voting for the Democrats next week. Those who take life more seriously, and realize that they have a personal obligation to contribute to the welfare of the society in which they live, will not necessarily agree with your conclusions.

As I said, obtaining evidence revealing economic motivations for joining the military in a credible manner would be nearly impossible.

Some people are no doubt motivated primarily by economic considerations, but there are others with different reasons for joining the military. Not everyone is as crassly elitist as John Kerry.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

If that's your idea of common sense, then I guess you'll be voting for the Democrats next week. Those who take life more seriously, and realize that they have a personal obligation to contribute to the welfare of the society in which they live, will not necessarily agree with your conclusions.

Some people are no doubt motivated primarily by economic considerations, but there are others with different reasons for joining the military. Not everyone is as crassly elitist as John Kerry.

Its just reality, many people sign up for economic reasons.

I don't play the fake partisan games either that dominate what we call politics today. Democrats are as bad as Republicans. I only vote for third party candidates. I am libertarian on most issues. Thus I dont support the war, its not true conservatism. Its foreign intervention for imperial economic purposes based on bad speculation and its way too costly, and we cant win.

What I find amusing is that you dont realize top levels of government are the same. You buy into image, the republicans had Kerry made into a frenchman in 2004. LOL. And Bush is just a good old boy. OK then.

You should wake up to the realization they are all corrupt, elitist bastards in washington and neither party is representing the people anymore. Thats why we get bad jokes instead of real political debate. Thats why they dont even let them debate each other by responding to statements the opponent makes in the PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES. Its a show for the public.

 

[Tashah]

I put it in breaking news because I thought since the whole media was drooling over this mindless story 24/7 it could be still considered breaking news. I dont think I deserved a warning here. But I suppose this is a more appropriate place for it.

There are certain guidelines for the *Breaking News* forum. You can read them here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...es-rules-please-read-before-posting-here.html

Please follow the rules as stipulated. If you do not do so, your thread is moved and you are issued one warning point for each infraction.

Tashah
Moderator Team Member

 

[Morrow]

If that's your idea of common sense, then I guess you'll be voting for the Democrats next week. Those who take life more seriously, and realize that they have a personal obligation to contribute to the welfare of the society in which they live, will not necessarily agree with your conclusions.

*BARF*
Those of us who take personal responsibility for our lives and actions and thoughts don’t make prejudicial judgements about peoples political affiliations based on a single statement.

 

[Stinger]

Its just reality, many people sign up for economic reasons.

People go to school for economic reasons, people read books for economic reasons, people get jobs for economic reasons, people vote for economic reasons, people do lots of things for economic reasons and doing thing for economic reasons bears no scarlet letter.

Its a specious arguement.

 

[Stinger]

*BARF*
Those of us who take personal responsibility for our lives and actions and thoughts don’t make prejudicial judgements about peoples political affiliations based on a single statement.

And aren't you lucky there are men and women out there who will take the responsibility for you to protect you from the bad guys out there who want to kill us. You can just sit back and bad mouth the while you sleep safe and sound tonight.

 

[Morrow]

And aren't you lucky there are men and women out there who will take the responsibility for you to protect you from the bad guys out there who want to kill us. You can just sit back and bad mouth the while you sleep safe and sound tonight.

"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." -- George Orwell

when did I 'bad mouth' them? I take responsbility for them, I have, and I always will.

 

[Diogenes]

You buy into image, the republicans had Kerry made into a frenchman in 2004.

Kerry defined himself as the Frenchurian candidate, and his only suggestion was further diplomacy. He never did say what he would do if he kissed the frog and instead of becoming a handsome prince, the frog was still Jacques Chirac.

Kerry is a contemptible excuse for a political leader.

Those of us who take personal responsibility for our lives and actions and thoughts don’t make prejudicial judgements about peoples political affiliations based on a single statement.

It's hardly a single statement. Kerry has been quite consistent about disrespecting the military for the last 35 years.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

It's hardly a single statement. Kerry has been quite consistent about disrespecting the military for the last 35 years.

So he should have stayed quiet about abuses he saw or were related to him by other soldiers?





----Even as biased as this newspaper and article is, they even admit there are economic truths within the botched joke and a lot of the people who got all worked up about this are hypocrites.



Kerry Trips Over an Economic Truth
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/03/AR2006110301372.html
By Uwe E. Reinhardt
Saturday, November 4, 2006; A23

There is no question that Sen. John F. Kerry owed our men and women in the military and their families the apology he offered this week. Even in clumsy jest, if that is what his remarks were, they could not have come across as anything but insulting.

Truth be told, however, economics professors routinely instruct their students on the virtue of the all-volunteer army in language that comes dangerously close to Kerry's uncouth remark.

Here, for example, is how University of Rochester economics professor Steven E. Landsburg made the case for the volunteer army in his textbook "Price Theory and Applications." Under a military draft, he writes, "the Selective Service Board will draft young people who are potentially brilliant brain surgeons, inventors and economists -- young people with high opportunity costs of entering the service -- and will leave undrafted some young people with much lower opportunity costs. The social loss is avoided under a voluntary system, in which precisely those with the lowest costs will volunteer."

Only slightly more crudely put, the central idea underlying this theorem of what economists call "social welfare economics" is that if a nation must use human bodies to stop bullets and shrapnel, it ought to use relatively "low-cost" bodies -- that is, predominantly those who would otherwise not have produced much gross domestic product, the main component of what economists call "social opportunity costs." On this rationale, economists certify the all-volunteer army as efficient and thus good.

Small wonder, then, that even college students who ardently supported the invasion of Iraq and just as ardently favor "staying the course" in Iraq argue smugly that, instead of serving their country in uniform, they can serve it so much better in law school or by trading bonds for Goldman Sachs. I personally have heard this argument many times from hawkish undergraduates at Princeton University who would never dream of fighting in uniform for the nation they profess to love.

Small wonder, too, that it became national news when Doris Kearns Goodwin's son, a Harvard undergraduate, decided to join the military and serve in Iraq. After all, how many Ivy League graduates today make that risky choice?

There is ample evidence that the elite now running America has grasped the economists' dictum. To be sure, the officer corps is drawn from the ranks of college graduates, and a tiny minority of college graduates do heed that call. On the other hand, it is well known that to fill the ranks of enlisted soldiers, sailors and Marines, the Pentagon draws heavily on the bottom half of the nation's income distribution, favoring in its hunt for recruits schools in low-income neighborhoods. Certainly few if any of Kerry's elitist critics on the right, all of them self-professed patriots, have served their country in uniform, let alone in battle; nor have many of their offspring.

One must wonder, for example, how many high officials in the administration have sons or daughters in the fray in Iraq or Afghanistan, how many members of Congress and how many of the ever-hawkish talking heads on Fox News. And, as far as I know, no young member of the wider Bush family is serving our country in the military or has done so in recent years.

None of this excuses what Kerry said. But it does point up the hypocrisy rampant among his critics, who have waxed almost hysterical over his remark. I do not recall these same critics, including President Bush, lapsing into similarly righteous hysteria when Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld only three years ago flippantly insulted legions of World War II and Vietnam draftees by labeling such soldiers of "no value."

The writer is James Madison professor of political economy at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.