US military is for the least fortunate?
The left loves to argue that the US military is functional only because it takes advantage of America's least fortunate - the poor, especially the poor from black neighborhoods. This set of beliefs, based on ignorance and idiotism (both flourish all over Europe, especially in evil little Finland), has recently been refuted:
These findings have been reported elsewhere since their publication. The following segment is from The New York Times:
There is no doubt that left-wing pinkos will continue to spread the myth that America's wars are fought by the poor. The pinkos are often found presenting the myth but never come up with any evidence to support it. Not even once I remember seeing a comprehensive left-wing study proving this stereotypical myth. It's just a set of beliefs without a rational foundation in reality. Also, there's no doubt that some will just ignore these findings and mark them as "right-wing propaganda" but I for one intend to ignore such childish remarks.
More:
-The Weekly Standard
-The Heritage Foundation
"In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equivalent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status."
"We found that recruits tend to come from middle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas. Overall, the income distribution of military enlistees is more similar to than different from the income distribution of the general population." -The Heritage Foundation
These findings have been reported elsewhere since their publication. The following segment is from The New York Times:
"The American military does not depend on poor recruits to sustain itself, argues Tim Cavanaugh in "Middle-Class Warfare: Military Recruits and Poverty" in Reason magazine."
"Now the conservative Heritage Foundation has analyzed enlistee demographics by looking at household incomes in the zip codes recruits come from. The results indicate a pool of recruits drawn mainly from the middle class. The largest group of new recruits in 2003 — 18 percent — came from neighborhoods with average annual household incomes of $35,000 to $40,000, compared to a median household income of $43,318. In all, the top two-income quintiles (comprising households with incomes starting at $41,688) produced 45 percent of all recruits in 2003. A mere 5 percent came from neighborhoods with average incomes below $20,000 per household."
There is no doubt that left-wing pinkos will continue to spread the myth that America's wars are fought by the poor. The pinkos are often found presenting the myth but never come up with any evidence to support it. Not even once I remember seeing a comprehensive left-wing study proving this stereotypical myth. It's just a set of beliefs without a rational foundation in reality. Also, there's no doubt that some will just ignore these findings and mark them as "right-wing propaganda" but I for one intend to ignore such childish remarks.
More:
-The Weekly Standard
-The Heritage Foundation
Labels: english
posted by MSandt at 7:34 PM
9 Comments:
Boy, the time sure flies when you are having a good time! Take for instance my dear old pc with Windows 98. It feels like just yesterday when I got them and now they are an ancient history, obsolete, irrelevant past and no real connection with to-day. Almost like the military recruitments anno domino 1999.
I have no idea what Petteri was trying to say. Maybe he should have wrote that post in Finnish.
Good article.. I've never looked up these numbers before, but I long suspected the Michael Moore types were stretching the truth with the 'military takes advantage of the poor' arguements.
I know a guy that grew up in a million dollar home and he is now an air traffic controller in the Air Force. Even if the arguement was true, so what? The military provides free education, training, self-respect, employment and the opportunity to develop into a better human being, all things that poorer individuals need.
If I had to be poor in a country, America wouldn't be my last choice...
I'm doing some explaining for Mr.Ward that is needed to clarify my statement. Those who were recruits in 1999 and before are propably not the same kind that are lining up right now. The war happened between then and now and since the Americans are not stupid and they are able to make observations as far as the job environment is in question it is safe to say that few of the fellows with better outside possibilities will give a pass. Unless, ofcourse if you loke dying.
I am sorry Petteri, but if you want to argue that current recruits are different to the ones before 2001, you have to provide evidence for it, and not just assume. Lefties have claimed who knows how long - propably since 1972 - that only poor join military in USA without any factual evidence of course. This study is a nice factual evidence against it.
- Employment in USA is now at least as good as it was in 1999, if not better.
- If we count American casualities in Afganistan and Iraq since 2001, we get some 500 for each year. This is about as much as in each year in early 90's. It was only later when safety requirements were improved.
- At the moment Air Force, Navy and even Marines have no problems at all in recruiting, and the former two are the ones needing the most educated recruits.
Oh, and I forgot the patriotic enthusiasm that has emerged after 9/11. In fact, I'd say it better to assume that money is now much less of a reason to join military than ideological reasons.
Dear anonymous, you might just be right. I confess that no research was done by me to back up my statements. I was actually only refering to the study, that was done in 1999, and I was wondering; how can this old data be relevant today, especially, when it was done in the peace time?
Ok, Petteri, and sorry for the unnecessary sneery tone of my post. In fact, most of these things are new to me as well. For example this is interesting: http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/003564.html
"If you do the math, you wil find quite a few surpises. First of all, let's compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.
George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)"
Mikko, could you reduce the fanaticism a bit? I like your blog, but the ongoing bashing of the leftists gets boring. I share your opinions but could you consentrate on the essential? "keskity olennaiseen"
Basing your statements on the right sources, you can make a reasonable and well-founded sounding argument for anything. Not to mention the old truism, "lies, damn lies, and statistics"...
Mikko chooses his sources correctly, or should I say, rightly, to underline his point. But one can only wonder how trustworthy a source a rightist think-tank such as The Heritage Foundation is.
Sincerely yours, Your Local Commie Hippie Pinko Scum
Post a Comment
<< Home