Should people on long time government assistance be required to join the military?

SGT Alicia Brenneis — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:38:00 -0400

Should people who are on government assistance and are able to work but do not have a job be told to join the military or lose their assistance? I am not asking about people who need a little extra help but specifically those who are capable of working and have not had a job for 6 months or more. It would be an income, health care, all the benefits of government assistance plus skills training.
Please explain your vote.

Response by SFC Melker Johansson made Oct 11 at 2014 5:43 PM

SFC Melker Johansson — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:43:24 -0400

I rather have people who want to be here.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 11 at 2014 6:26 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:26:08 -0400

Please Lord, NO!!!!!!!!!!! Put them to work beautifying the community maybe. If they can't pick up trash for $10 an hour (towards welfare $$ earned) then they weren't going to seek work anyway. I'm only talking about the physically capable of course. I also think people convicted of welfare fraud should clean porta pottties with their.........hands.

Response by SPC James Mcneil made Oct 11 at 2014 6:36 PM

SPC James Mcneil — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:36:21 -0400

I have to vote no. This is one of those ideas that may sound good, but with the strict requirements of the military, so many people would likely be disqualified. Transitioning this from "on paper" to real life would be a pain.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2014 6:38 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:38:45 -0400

Gotta tell ya...I'm not sure we (the military) want to get into this. First of all, the people involved have to meet all the usual requirements for enlistment. Secondly, are we willing to accept the baggage some of this individuals bring with them - as in debts, pending trials, other issues. I know the military has a big heart, but not everything can be resolved by enlistment.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Oct 11 at 2014 6:42 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:42:05 -0400

We can't afford the volunteers we have now. Odds are they would not meet minimum entry requirements.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Oct 11 at 2014 6:50 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:50:00 -0400

In a few years, when I am grumpy-er than I already am, and when I am Officially retired, and my voice/opinions and rants are entirely mine....I will provide my insight.

As for right now, NO, at this point and time Nobody in the US should be required to serve, just as the Military should not be Required to take just ANYBODY.

That does not mean that folks should not be encouraged....

And I do see where you are headed with this SGT Alicia Brenneis , you are traveling the road of assistance should be temporary.....

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2014 6:59 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:59:21 -0400

Even though I'm generally for mandatory or compulsory military or civil service - for everyone - I voted other because I'm not sure the military is the answer. It could work, but I think some other form of service might be better for these folks.

Actually, I'd like to see the government offer a choice: those who meet the requirements should be allowed to choose the military and enlist just like anyone else. Those who do not meet the requirements - or who do not want to join the military - should be allowed (/required) to do some form of civil service.

The drawback to the civil service idea is that it would require a separate bureaucracy to manage it, whereas the military system already exists. In general, though, I'm all for mandatory service of some sort.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2014 7:04 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 19:04:36 -0400

I would have to agree with others on here and say no, because I could see an influx of people who are less than desirable. Could you imagine the quality of people that would be brought in, it would be like the draft was all over again. I would have to throw this out there, what would you do if they couldn't pass Basic training? Would stop there government assistance, or would you just let them continue on collecting a paycheck?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2014 7:07 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 19:07:02 -0400

No just stop sending them free money.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 11 at 2014 8:06 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:06:37 -0400

My first inkling is to say no but, "terrain dictates". If they are compatible, willing, have the education and can meet the standards, that could be a viable option. But I think these people will be 1 in 1000.

Response by Sgt Jennifer Mohler made Oct 11 at 2014 8:08 PM

Sgt Jennifer Mohler — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:08:38 -0400

No. Some people can't make it no matter how hard they try.

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Oct 11 at 2014 8:23 PM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:23:25 -0400

No but I believe offering other options that contribute to bettering society would be beneficial for able-bodied persons.

Think about if a single parent was forced to join the military in exchange for government assistance.

Also think about how many people pay taxes and then lose their job. They paid their dues, they deserve the financial help if they need it.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Oct 11 at 2014 9:53 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 21:53:49 -0400

You mean they aren't. Plenty of them were in the service when I was in and if you were junior enlisted and married there is no way in hell you could make it without some form of assistance in most large metropolitan cities.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Oct 11 at 2014 9:53 PM

MAJ Jim Woods — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 21:53:54 -0400

Really? That's just what the US Military needs. What ever happened to the Peace Corps? Actually, if they set a jobs program up and could somehow guarantee that the individuals would be off Govt. Assistance in 6 months-year..... I would be all for it. Or..... let them fill some of the Base/Post Contractor positions for no more money than an E-1 gets. How would you handle those who just quit and don't want to work? Lot's of stuff to think about.

We have gone from 12 weeks of allowable Unemployment payments to 90 weeks and congress (those that lean to the left) want to extend them again. I think that term limit's and a balanced budget amendment would solve most of our Nations problems.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2014 10:04 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 22:04:38 -0400

I don't believe that is a viable option. I believe the military would suffer from that decision. Everyone would be better served if they where made to do something for their community either paid or volunteer.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Oct 11 at 2014 10:33 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 22:33:19 -0400

NO! They should find a job.

Response by SPC(P) Nick Bondgien made Oct 11 at 2014 10:40 PM

SPC(P) Nick Bondgien — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 22:40:48 -0400

*Provided the successful completion of this test:
*UA/Hair toxology ~ neg result
*No felonies
*No wife beaters(misdemeanor)
*Completion of GED/ HSED within 6mos... or better yet,a contingency of Boot Camp Graduation... failure to comply will result in recycle, no happy ass bs ohhh it's too hard for da widdow babyyyyy... naw ain't happenin.
* Continual UA's / Hair or other suitable tox screens randomly delivered at a 12:1 ratio throughout the first (4yr) enlistment.
* Failure to comply would result in Lifetime Suspension/Denial of Benefits
* No Govt. interjection on Military Implementation and Practice.
* No coddling. ie: if two soldiers get into the same situation that may result in a Field Grade Art 15. There would be no coddling of soldier number two who is there on a welfare enlistment.

No Excuses. Max Effective range of an Excuse is 0 (beeeeeeeeeeeep) Meters.
And bring back the days when Drill Sgt's could do their job. We're sending Coddled children to their deaths by Not Teariong them down; and Helping them help themselves by finding out who they really are under extreme pressure(s).... before We send them out to find out later if they could really hack it.
My two Lincolns

Response by LT Brent Williams made Oct 11 at 2014 11:29 PM

LT Brent Williams — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:29:12 -0400

From what I have seen, I would prefer to have those joining the service who are highly capable volunteers...not those who are conscripted. While there are always some excellent people who are down on their luck, those who are in need of long-time government assistance are rarely those we need in the service - whether medical issues, attitude issues, geographic flexibility, or plain outright competence. I am all for helping folks in need...but making them join the service only appears to place a massive burden on an already overloaded deploy-able force.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 12:26 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 00:26:57 -0400

Interesting idea. But I have to give that one a "no". Maybe another civil service area but not mandating they get a weapon. Would be an IET nightmare.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 9:42 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 09:42:39 -0400

Absolutely not. The people you are referring to are generally lazy people that have no ethic to work, nor do they have a desire to learn any skill set. Read a book about the Vietnam War era military. You had all of these hippie bums who would have rather been sitting in a circle in the park singing kumbaya smoking weed and dropping acid than doing any type of work. Instead they were forced to join and work and level of discipline and motivation in the armed forces was reduced drastically and made it difficult for battlefield commanders to maintain a high level of mission readiness due to troops protesting the war while in theater, which more resembled mutiny than free speech, and soldiers in the bush making mistakes because they were on drugs. Thats why Pres Nixon created an executive order decreeing that any soldier that wanted to return home from vietnam had to pass a drug test. Now put that into a modern perspective and durring the surge some of this went on. Alot of the Bums on long term government assisstance are convicted felons and a good majority are high school drops outs. With the troop softening politics that plague the military today there is little you can do to actually control these people. They dont want to be there and they like being told what to do.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 10:02 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 10:02:27 -0400

Are we talking people that can’t for the life of them get a job, or people that are satisfied living on government assistance? If it’s the former, the military could teach them a skill that they could then take out into the civilian world. But the military is not a skills camp. If the latter, do we really want to charge someone unwilling to do more than the bare minimum with defending a nation?

Response by LCpl James Robertson made Oct 12 at 2014 3:32 PM

LCpl James Robertson — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 15:32:50 -0400

Yes, I believe a lot of people would be glad.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 4:20 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 16:20:55 -0400

We just got rid of the "dirt-bags" that joined up for college and only for college, not out of any sense of duty or willingness to serve. Why would we want someone in that clearly doesn't want to be there. Those people would only endanger the lives of those who truly want to serve.

Response by SSG Billy Wilkerson made Apr 29 at 2015 4:40 PM

SSG Billy Wilkerson — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:40:27 -0400

REALLY?????????????????

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 10:01 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 22:01:58 -0400

They should be required to work a certain number of hours towards the public good: picking up trash, etc

Response by SGT David T. made May 15 at 2015 12:08 PM

SGT David T. — Fri, 15 May 2015 12:08:01 -0400

The reason I say no is because I have dealt with stop loss Soldiers and IRR recalled Soldiers who were no longer there by choice. They were far more difficult to deal with because of that. Forcing people into the military is not good for the force. A volunteer is much easier to lead and inspire than a "draftee" for lack of a better term. Now I would be in favor of some mandated community service, but I wouldn't want to trust my life to someone who was forced to be there.

Response by SFC Christopher Perry made May 16 at 2015 1:54 PM

SFC Christopher Perry — Sat, 16 May 2015 13:54:37 -0400

I don't know that they should have to join the military. However, nobody capable of working should be aloud to stay on government assistance for an extended period. I don't particularly care what they do, just do something. The assistance should simply come to an end at a designated point in time. At that point they can figure out what they need to do to survive.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made May 16 at 2015 2:27 PM

SrA Edward Vong — Sat, 16 May 2015 14:27:25 -0400

No, serving should be something one does out of their own free will.

Response by PFC Tuan Trang made May 16 at 2015 2:26 PM

PFC Tuan Trang — Sat, 16 May 2015 14:26:10 -0400

No, i think it should
stay same, dod stay as dod, civilian stay as civlian, they should not be losing benfit just because they decided not to join.

Response by SGT Anthony Bussing made May 16 at 2015 3:54 PM

SGT Anthony Bussing — Sat, 16 May 2015 15:54:40 -0400

no...because it would dilute the service...much like we had back in the late 60s early 70s...we had people serving in combat who didnt want to be there...now, that said, I WILL grant there not ALL draftees were bad...not at all...but there is always that "ONE GUY"...personally...I like your thinking...I have thoughts like this myself...

I think we should bring back the CCC and the WPA and when a person attains the right age, they could join something like this...spend two years making america beautiful again...fighting forest fires, cleaning national parks, kinda like America's own Peace Corps...or they could do humanitarian work during tornadoes, hurricanes and whatnot...but the military should ONLY be volunteer...except in the most dire of circumstances...

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 17 at 2015 4:33 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 May 2015 16:33:57 -0400

Absolutely not. We are the force we are today because everyone wearing a uniform has volunteered to serve. You take that away and you strip us of our advantage.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 17 at 2015 4:36 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 17 May 2015 16:36:57 -0400

They don't have the mettle for the military and will be whiny.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made May 17 at 2015 4:40 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Sun, 17 May 2015 16:40:38 -0400

While I agree, I must say that this could become a dangerous premise. There will be those who respond who may take offense. All the reasons given are valid, but with current draw downs I doubt seriously that this could even become something that our "leadership" in Washington DC would consider. Overall a sound solution to an unfavorable situation.

Great question SGT Alicia Brenneis.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 17 at 2015 8:24 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sun, 17 May 2015 20:24:06 -0400

I already have challenges by the new ME-ME-ME self entitled generation. Please don't make it worse.

Response by SGT Richard H. made May 17 at 2015 8:34 PM

SGT Richard H. — Sun, 17 May 2015 20:34:10 -0400

This poll should be "who wants to lead conscripts who don't want to be there?".

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made May 17 at 2015 8:34 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 May 2015 20:34:54 -0400

The military should not be a dumping ground.

Forced military service should only be used when at war and there is not enough who step forward.

Response by LTC Gavin Heater made May 17 at 2015 8:39 PM

LTC Gavin Heater — Sun, 17 May 2015 20:39:16 -0400

I think some form of local, state of federal service might be appropriate as a gateway to a full time job, but not cumpulsory military service. Our Volunteer Military practices should remain in effect as is, separate and distinct. If anyone is interested in serving, they should pursue the traditinal accessions process.

Response by SGT Michael Touchet made May 17 at 2015 9:38 PM

SGT Michael Touchet — Sun, 17 May 2015 21:38:33 -0400

I don't think they would necessarily qualify for military service. So only if they qualify for service.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made May 17 at 2015 10:40 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sun, 17 May 2015 22:40:36 -0400

I do not want a single person who did not raise their hand and volunteered for service. Would rather fight at 50% strength.

There are so many reason to scream "Good God no!". The military fights wars and defends the nation. It is not a social safety net.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 17 at 2015 11:51 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 May 2015 23:51:23 -0400

I just asked my wife this and I really like her answer, however I will re-phrase for clarity.

The current US military cannot afford to be populated with people who do not want to be there...preventable failure and sabotage are not an option, so the government assistance people should be given an option...

1. Voluntarily join the military as a regular recruit (officer or enlisted, as applicable)...if that doesn't work out go to option 2

2. Work for the military (or government, really) in the capacity of what Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines, have to do to kill time between actual missions, i.e. cut grass, paint, janitorial, etc.

Response by TSgt Jackie Jones made May 18 at 2015 12:00 AM

TSgt Jackie Jones — Mon, 18 May 2015 00:00:26 -0400

Can you imagine the work ethic of that bunch?! We already do the job of many---

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made May 18 at 2015 6:59 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Mon, 18 May 2015 06:59:04 -0400

What makes you think that they will work in the military? Doesn't the military already have enough slackers? I think that doing this will drive the quality of personnel away and those who are in to make a career will leave. To me I don't think this is a good idea. My thoughts.

Response by SFC Stephen Carden made May 18 at 2015 7:41 AM

SFC Stephen Carden — Mon, 18 May 2015 07:41:38 -0400

Maybe. It all depends on the person. I wonder what kind of SMs they would be considering the circumstances in which they joined. Today's military is all-volunteer after all, and telling someone that they have to join the military or be totally destitute doesn't sound like volunteering to me. My wife works in a dentist's office that accepts Medicaid. She has patients that are 5th or 6th GENERATION welfare recipients. That means that nobody in that family has had a meaningful job for decades. Something tells me that if they wanted to work, they absolutely could find a job. Not to mention the strong possibility exists (without sounding like I am stereotyping anyone) that the particular pool of recruits that you are talking about will not even qualify for military service due to a variety of reasons including drug use, obesity, criminal records, and health problems. I do agree that there should be a time limit on receiving welfare benefits or unemployment benefits for those who are able-bodied and of working age. I just don't think the military should be used as an incentive to find other work.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2015 8:49 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 May 2015 08:49:45 -0400

Certainly not the military. Only if they can meet psysical & academic requirements. Maybe some form of local government or community service would be appropriate, but this potential can of worms would need to be discussed by category and type of assistance. Outside of that, sure, support from the tax base should be repaid in some form/way to prevent the deficit train from rolling on.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2015 4:08 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 May 2015 16:08:53 -0400

Most employable people are not qualified to join, so what could possibly make one think folks on long-term gov't assistance would be likely to serve effectively in the most advanced fighting force the world has ever know. The military is neither a charity nor a penalty. It is an honor to serve, and there are many good reasons why one must qualify.

Response by SGT Kevin Brown made May 18 at 2015 5:43 PM

SGT Kevin Brown — Mon, 18 May 2015 17:43:04 -0400

I voted no. Don't get me wrong, I cannot stand our current welfare state and would love to see radical reform which actually encourages people to work or create work over obtaining welfare. With that said, the military needs to stay volunteer. Forcing any population to join (especially the poor) is not only immoral, it is dangerous. We want the best of the best serving by choice not the unable or unqilling to get a job, just because. I get your argument, but with more and more military funding cuts, I'd rather see any available funds spent on someone who actuallu wants to be there.

Response by SSG(P) Brian Kliesen made May 27 at 2015 12:47 PM

SSG(P) Brian Kliesen — Wed, 27 May 2015 12:47:46 -0400

Perhaps another form of national service, but not in the military. We already have issues in the military that we are having to deal with, this would create a whole new level of chaos, particularly as the civilian / military authority shrink our ranks.