So the war on terror is being fought by the poor, eh?

[DrDetroit]

From the Washtington Times --

Middle-class youths, not the poor, are providing the bulk of wartime recruits to the armed forces, according to a new study by a conservative think tank.

The Heritage Foundation research paper found that a higher percentage of middle-class and upper-middle-class families have been providing enlistees for the war on Islamic militants since the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Researchers matched the ZIP codes of recruits over the past five years with federal government estimates of household incomes in those neighborhoods. Contrary to complaints from some liberal lawmakers and pundits, the data show that the poor are not shouldering the bulk of the military's need for new soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines.

The poorest neighborhoods provided 18 percent of recruits in prewar 1999 and 14.6 percent in 2003. By contrast, areas where household incomes ranged from $30,000 to $200,000 provided more than 85 percent.

"We found that recruits tend to come from middle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas," said the report, prepared by Tim Kane, an Air Force Academy graduate and economics scholar. "Overall, the income distribution of military enlistees is more similar to than different from the income distribution of the general population."

The debate was begun in 2002 by Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, as U.S. troops were fighting in Afghanistan and preparing for war in Iraq.

"A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent," Mr. Rangel wrote in the New York Times. The lawmaker called on the Bush administration to reinstate compulsory service. {bolded for BSmack}

Mr. Rangel's Washington office did not respond yesterday to the Heritage report.

The draft was discontinued in 1973, and the all-volunteer force eventually grew into what many national security officials see as the best-trained military force in history.

The Heritage report states that median household income for all enlisted recruits in 1999 was $41,141, compared with the national median of $41,994. By 2003, the recruit household income reached $42,822, when adjusted for inflation.

"In other words, on average, recruits in 2003 were from wealthier neighborhoods than were recruits in 1999," said the report, titled, "Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11."

Mr. Kane said overall evidence "is at odds with the image, painted by some supporters of the draft, that the military exploits poor, ignorant young Americans by using slick advertising that promises technical careers in the military to dupe them into trading their feeble opportunities in the private sector for a meager role as cannon fodder."

About 98 percent of all enlistees from 1999 to 2003 had a high school diploma, compared with 75 percent of nonrecruits nationwide.

"In an education context, rather than attracting underprivileged young Americans, the military seems to be attracting above-average Americans," Mr. Kane wrote.

But haven't we been told by the Democrats that the poor are unfairly overrepresented in this war on terrorism?

[BSmack]

The poorest neighborhoods provided 18 percent of recruits in prewar 1999 and 14.6 percent in 2003. By contrast, areas where household incomes ranged from $30,000 to $200,000 provided more than 85 percent.

And those over 200K?



BTW: a 30k household income with kids is poor.

[frodo_biguns]

The lefties tried the same thing on the Vietnam War. I love it when they play that card. It shows how ignornat they are when you give them the numbers.

[DrDetroit]

Nice dodge, BSmack. You're carryingon the fine tradition of your party, both in issuing vacuous proclamations of the military and then ducking when confronted with contrary evidence.

About 98 percent of all enlistees from 1999 to 2003 had a high school diploma, compared with 75 percent of nonrecruits nationwide.

I thought this to be an interesting piece of information.

[Mister Bushice]

oooh - A high School Diploma and 30K?

That'll get you a verrah nice high desert trailer.

[BSmack]

Nice dodge, BSmack. You're carryingon the fine tradition of your party, both in issuing vacuous proclamations of the military and then ducking when confronted with contrary evidence.

About 98 percent of all enlistees from 1999 to 2003 had a high school diploma, compared with 75 percent of nonrecruits nationwide.

I thought this to be an interesting piece of information.

Seeing as a High School diploma is required by the millitary, why should we be surprised that 98% of recruits have one? I'm more surprised that 2% do not.

Also, since when does the US have a 25% dropout rate?

More proof that the Washington Times is the biggest joke in media.

[DrDetroit]

It's kinda funny seeing B and Bushice quibbling on the margins and ignoring the larger point. But who is surprised? Their central argument just got blasted to pieces.

Face it, the democrats argument that the lower class and uneducated are fighting this war in disproportionate numbers simply rings hollow...but you guys can continue your class warfare shit, you've only been running it for forty years now.

edit -- btw - blacks are sure doing their part to drag down the graduation rate.

[DrDetroit]

Just a quick search yielded this...



1998 graduation rate was 71%...

The formula that Greene uses appears reasonable and straightforward and takes into account all those students who never enroll in high school and therefore, are not counted in the data used to determine graduation rates.

[frodo_biguns]

It's kinda funny seeing B and Bushice quibbling on the margins and ignoring the larger point. But who is surprised? Their central argument just got blasted to pieces.

Face it, the democrats argument that the lower class and uneducated are fighting this war in disproportionate numbers simply rings hollow...but you guys can continue your class warfare shit, you've only been running it for forty years now.

edit -- btw - blacks are sure doing their part to drag down the graduation rate.

Be very careful with these democrats or they will then play, "But.... it's the lower income kids that are on the front line" and "Mostly blacks are walking point and getting killed" card. I love those two the best.

[Mikey]

The lefties tried the same thing on the Vietnam War. I love it when they play that card. It shows how ignornat they are when you give them the numbers.

Guess what?
There was a draft during Vietnam.

[BSmack]

Just a quick search yielded this...



1998 graduation rate was 71%...

The formula that Greene uses appears reasonable and straightforward and takes into account all those students who never enroll in high school and therefore, are not counted in the data used to determine graduation rates.

And my quick search reveals this...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779196.html

So 20% of the population never enrolled in HS?

Spin me some more...

[DrDetroit]

No spinning here...simply presenting data.

I notice that the data you have linked to simply tracks kids after they've enrolled in high school. Of course that makes the situation better because it doesn't count students that never make it to high school. I don't know if 20% is accurate or otherwise, but that data is what it is.

Also, graduation rates also include those who complete a GED program, thereby inflating the "graduation" rate.

Nonetheless, the issue still stands, the Democrats class warfare argument is bunk.

[BSmack]

No spinning here...simply presenting data.

I notice that the data you have linked to simply tracks kids after they've enrolled in high school. Of course that makes the situation better because it doesn't count students that never make it to high school. I don't know if 20% is accurate or otherwise, but that data is what it is.

Find me some data that shows 20% of kids never make it out of 8th grade or STFU.

Nonetheless, the issue still stands, the Democrats class warfare argument is bunk.

Your stats are deliberately skewed. Anybody who thinks a 30k a year FAMILY income is anything but poor is on fucking crack. Around these parts, you better have twice that if you want to do anything but scrape from check to check.

Show me the percentage who serve from families over 60k. How about it?

[DrDetroit]

I just did, idiot...J. Greene's study.

Your stats are deliberately skewed. Anybody who thinks a 30k a year FAMILY income is anything but poor is on fucking crack. Around these parts, you better have twice that if you want to do anything but scrape from check to check.

Sorry, but no longer do we consider people who own homes, drive mutliple vehicles, own major appliances as being "poor." No one is buying that bullshit any more.

Show me the percentage who serve from families over 60k. How about it?

So now 60K is the threshhold? Why not $45,00 or $50,000? of course it's because you're simply picking and choose arbitrary numbers and are not at all interested in anything besides playing the class warfare game.

[frodo_biguns]

The lefties tried the same thing on the Vietnam War. I love it when they play that card. It shows how ignornat they are when you give them the numbers.

Guess what?
There was a draft during Vietnam.

And your point is what gain? That democrats said the poor and minorities were the ones dying in Vietnam, FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you really want to go there Mikey?

[DrDetroit]

Well, according to Heritage ( http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nation ... a05-08.cfm )

Under 30,000 = 14.6%
Over $50,000 = 22%

Now...wtf is your point, dumbshit?

[JHawkBCD]

Maybe they should start running the West Coast Offense.

[DrDetroit]

This is why typical dropout counting methods fail...from the earlier Greene link:

Using a method that involves trying to track individual students the Dallas Independent School District in Texas reports an annual dropout rate of 1.3%.22 This number is implausibly low. Consider that according to my calculations Dallas has a graduation rate of only 52%. Even if 1.3% compounded over several years it does not come close to matching the picture drawn by my graduation rate. If only 1.3% of students dropout each year, how is it that Dallas had 9,914 students in 8th grade in 1993 but only 5,659 graduates in 1998 while the total student population in the district went up by 10.5%? It cannot be that several thousand students moved out of town while the whole city and school district population was increasing. It cannot be that thousands of students were held back a grade and that no students were held back a grade in the cohort from the year before. Frankly there is no reasonable explanation for what happened to those several thousand students in Dallas other than that they dropped out, making the 1.3% event dropout rate simply unbelievable.

[BSmack]

So now 60K is the threshhold? Why not $45,00 or $50,000? of course it's because you're simply picking and choose arbitrary numbers and are not at all interested in anything besides playing the class warfare game.

I chose 60k because that is what it takes for a family of 4 to live something even remotely approaching a middle class lifestyle. And trust me, that's not going to get you many luxuries these days. But you could afford a mortgage on a small house (at least out here in WNY) and perhaps a car payment.

[DrDetroit]

I chose 60k because that is what it takes for a family of 4 to live something even remotely approaching a middle class lifestyle. And trust me, that's not going to get you many luxuries these days. But you could afford a mortgage on a small house (at least out here in WNY) and perhaps a car payment.

That is what it takes, eh? Because you say so? Sorry, but when significant numbers of people who live beneath the poverty line own homes, cars, major applicances, that is not being poor.

According to the Heritage chart I linked to $40,000 and above represent 44%, while $35,000 and below represent 34%.

No matter how you cut it, the poor are not disproportionately represented.

You're fucking dismissed.

[BSmack]

Well, according to Heritage ( http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nation ... a05-08.cfm )

Under 30,000 = 14.6%
Over $50,000 = 22%

Now...wtf is your point, dumbshit?

Talk about buttfucking yourself in the mouth.

Let's take a look at that chart.



Yep, that's right. SEVENTY EIGHT PERCENT of recruits come from housholds making less than 52k

Well hot damn!!! Look at all them rich folk rushing to go to Fallujah!!

[Cicero]

What the man is pointing out is that most of the kids over there would be pretty darn successful if nto for risking their lives over in sand mvscal land. To hear the Left and portions of the media you would have believe that everyone over there are poor kids w/ GEDS who are doing the dirty work. And for those kids coming from families that make over 200k, I say I want them here running companies and inventing new ideas.

[DrDetroit]

Talk about being an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.

1) No one put forth the argument that the rich are rushing off or that the rich are overrepresented. This was a response to the Democrats argument that the poor are overrepresented.

2) $40,000 a year is not poor. $35,000 ain't poor. $25,000 a year is not poor. So fuck off with your bullshit.

[BSmack]

Talk about being an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.

1) No one put forth the argument that the rich are rushing off or that the rich are overrepresented. This was a response to the Democrats argument that the poor are overrepresented.

2) $40,000 a year is not poor. $35,000 ain't poor. $25,000 a year is not poor. So fuck off with your bullshit.

40k for a single person is not poor. 40k for a family of 4 to live on is.

Your stats do not address that issue. Until they do, you are nothing more than a damn liar.

[DrDetroit]

A liar? Exactly what am I lying about, B?

No surprise you'd go there seeing that I just capped your ass for being intellectually dishonest.

$40K for a family of four is not poor. In that instance, if they are living check to check that's more a lifestyle decision than anything else. So fuck off with your fucking sobbing bullshit.

And, of course, the data I have presented doesn't address what the definition of poor is...they never intended to, dumbass.

But hey, I recognize that you're desperately trying to change the subject, bitch.

[titlover]

Talk about being an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.

1) No one put forth the argument that the rich are rushing off or that the rich are overrepresented. This was a response to the Democrats argument that the poor are overrepresented.

2) $40,000 a year is not poor. $35,000 ain't poor. $25,000 a year is not poor. So fuck off with your bullshit.

40k for a single person is not poor. 40k for a family of 4 to live on is.

Your stats do not address that issue. Until they do, you are nothing more than a damn liar.

stop having kids if you can't afford a kid. simple.

[Mikey]

Did you read the methodology? These results say nothing about the incomes of the actual recruits.

Income was compared on a household basis, not an individual basis, meaning that recruits’ income was defined by their household of origin. This approach was used because youth are rarely pri­mary income earners, and many earn no income at all until after high school graduation. However, the household income of their area of origin does serve as a basis for assessing whether the military recruits come from disproportion­ately poor backgrounds.

First of all, they are assuming that every recruit comes straight out of high school and still lives with his or her parents. Second, it assumes that average income in the recruits' households is the same as the average income in the entire area (based on ZIP code). You can't prove that recruits do not predominantly come from poor families by first assuming that they earn the average income in their area.

Even though they keep claiming that this data says something about the recruits themselves, it in truth proves nothing. It only applies to average household income in the ZIP code areas that the recruits come from. Many ZIP code areas include a wide range of incomes

[DrDetroit]

it is that simple, but people like BSmack would have you believe that the government has an obligation to support the decision to have children and other lifestyle choices, hence their living wage/working poor scam.

According to a 2003 Census report --
91 percent of those in the lowest 10 percent of households -- all of whom are officially poor --
own color TVs;
74 percent own microwave ovens;
55 percent own VCRs;
47 percent own clothes dryers;
42 percent own stereos;
23 percent own dishwashers;
21 percent own computers; and
19 percent own garbage disposals.

Yeah, they're really fucking "poor" aren't they??

[DMike316]

Maybe they should start running the West Coast Offense.

Oh hell yeah, that gets a RACK!

[Mikey]

Maybe they should start running the West Coast Offense.

Oh hell yeah, that gets a RACK!

Is San Francisco disproportionately middle class?

[DrDetroit]

First of all, they are assuming that every recruit comes straight out of high school and still lives with his or her parents. Second, it assumes that average income in the recruits' households is the same as the average income in the entire area (based on ZIP code). You can't prove that recruits do not predominantly come from poor families by first assuming that they earn the average income in their area.

Yep, those are flaws, however, there are always practical limits in conducting research analysis.

But take note that while this researcher described the methodology, we never see a shred of data supporting the Democrats class warfare rhetoric about the poor and the military.

Even though they keep claiming that this data says something about the recruits themselves, it in truth proves nothing. It only applies to average household income in the ZIP code areas that the recruits come from. Many ZIP code areas include a wide range of incomes

WTF is your point? Those making the initial class warfare rhetorical charge don't make a distinction and this researcher doesn't attempt to anyway.

[BSmack]

it is that simple, but people like BSmack would have you believe that the government has an obligation to support the decision to have children and other lifestyle choices, hence their living wage/working poor scam.

According to a 2003 Census report --
91 percent of those in the lowest 10 percent of households -- all of whom are officially poor --
own color TVs;
74 percent own microwave ovens;
55 percent own VCRs;
47 percent own clothes dryers;
42 percent own stereos;
23 percent own dishwashers;
21 percent own computers; and
19 percent own garbage disposals.

Yeah, they're really fucking "poor" aren't they??

New TVs? New Stereos? New computers?

More likely it's stuff that has been ghetto rigged.

[Screw_Michigan]

From the Washtington Times --

The Heritage Foundation research paper

nice try, idiot.

[BSmack]

A liar? Exactly what am I lying about, B?

You lie when you say the war is not being fought by the poor and middle class for the benefit of the rich.

$40K for a family of four is not poor. In that instance, if they are living check to check that's more a lifestyle decision than anything else.

And they are 4 times more likely to be in the millitary BY YOUR OWN STATS.

So fuck off with your fucking sobbing bullshit.

I bet you say that to all the West Coast Offenses you see.

And, of course, the data I have presented doesn't address what the definition of poor is...they never intended to, dumbass.

That is why I did. To fill in the gaps left by your one sided story.

[Variable]

Yep, that's right. SEVENTY EIGHT PERCENT of recruits come from housholds making less than 52k

Well hot damn!!! Look at all them rich folk rushing to go to Fallujah!!

Mind if someone who's actually served offers up an opinion on this?

The VAST majority of blacks and whites in the military come from the south and the midwest. In those areas, the cost of living is significantly lower than that of CA, NY or any other state with premium prices on real estate.

Most latinos come from farming communities, where the COL is also very low. Additionally, about half of the latinos I served with weren't even US citizens...they had green cards. Most fell into the stereotype you hear about where they live 3 families to a house. Again, $30,000 would make for quite a comfortable living with 6 or 7 wage earners in the house.

Very, very few people come from urban areas of CA or NY, unless they were poor and lived in the poor neighborhoods.

The bitchfest you guys are fighting is steeped in relativism. If you're thinking of "middle class" being "middle class for upstate NY", then OF COURSE $30,000 isn't jack shit. But if you're talking Cornpone, Iowa, that kind of money would give you a good life.

One point of clarification... Poor people generally are on the front lines, not because they are poor, but because they often have a lower quality education, resulting in lower ASVAB scores, which makes you ineligible for most advanced training. But you can be poor and still get into a decent military school as long as you possess the ability to think logically and have some sort of mechanical skill.

The military is stupid about many things, but wasting a good mind isn't generally one of them. If you've got the ability to perform a skill, even something small, chances are you won't be charging up a beachhead at a machine gun nest. But if you're dumb as a box of fucking rocks, rich or poor, your ass is gonna be in the first wave at Omaha beach.

[Variable]

You just couldn't more wrong if you tried. Everyone is expendable. Smart, stupid, black, white it doesn't matter a fucking bit. You're all green and you're all government property.

Believe me, as a former engineroom mechanic, I know that better than most. Our job in the event of a catastropic plant casualty was not to save ourselves, but to preserve equiptment first and ourselves [/i] second. But in the case of war, it makes absolute sense (in terms of self-preservation), since if the engineroom goes down, the ship loses power, in which case you're a sitting duck and everyone's dead anyway.

Anyway, my point wasn't that smart people aren't expendable, but that if you've got a job that involves your brain and not just carrying a rifle on your shoulder, you're much less likely to be in harm's way.

I guess that explains why Green Berets are the smartest human beings in uniform anywhere in the world, huh?

Eeeeeasy there, Beavis. I was generalizing, which means that it's "generally" true. But very sincere congratulations to you for finding an exception.

[Cuda]

If you've got the ability to perform a skill, even something small, chances are you won't be charging up a beachhead at a machine gun nest. But if you're dumb as a box of fucking rocks, rich or poor, your ass is gonna be in the first wave at Omaha beach.

So what you're saying is anybody who does something heroic in combat is

dumb as a box of fucking rocks

, right?

You might not want to pass up too many more opportunities to shut the fuck up when they present themselves.

[Mister Bushice]

Even though they keep claiming that this data says something about the recruits themselves, it in truth proves nothing. It only applies to average household income in the ZIP code areas that the recruits come from. Many ZIP code areas include a wide range of incomes

Good point. Our zip code has major disparities. Where I live (a small private community) the average family income is 6 figures, but 5 miles from here in the same zip where the majority of the people from the zip code live, the average income is easily 40k or below, and that would be the area most recruits are coming from, since all the spoiled rich kids here are off to college, not Iraq.

[JHawkBCD]

Cool... Cuda's about to get his ass handed to him.

Better pick up some more beer on the way home... this is gonna be good.

[Mikey]

Even though they keep claiming that this data says something about the recruits themselves, it in truth proves nothing. It only applies to average household income in the ZIP code areas that the recruits come from. Many ZIP code areas include a wide range of incomes

Good point. Our zip code has major disparities. Where I live (a small private community) the average family income is 6 figures, but 5 miles from here in the same zip where the majority of the people from the zip code live, the average income is easily 40k or below, and that would be the area most recruits are coming from, since all the spoiled rich kids here are off to college, not Iraq.

Same here. I wouldn't say that my neighborhood average is 6 figures, but there are a lot of people in the area that make about $60/day under the table plus almuerzo, when they can find work.