Military's Recruiting Troubles Extend to Affluent War Supporters

[chomerics]

TWA,

The article talks of a people who signed up for duty and have a high GPA, but uses absolutely no statistical evidence to counter the claims poor people are serving in much higher numbers then Bush supporters.

It is from a christian magazine, it is shoddy journalism and it is a propaganda piece (or op-ed if you like) meant to sway opinions, not to give a factual account of what is really going on. If more people could recognize op-eds as what they are, peoples OPINIONS (or propaganda), and discount them as actual journalism, we would never have gone in Iraq to begin with.

[NavyDave]

Yawn, chom

So are you saying that poor people shouldnt be patriotic but should stay in the hood hustling, pimping, carjackin,using squeegees or selling roses at intersections?

[airborneskins]

so many of us have not been asked or required to make ANY sacrifices for the war effort (not even taxes). so many of our political leaders have in some way dodged combat or not served. i also think that you have to trust that your country's leaders will not ask for the ultimate risk or sacrifice from its soldiers without just cause. i think that trust has been violated. i think the loyalty, bravery, patriotism, courage and trust of our troops has been severely taken advantage of by the powers that be.

I am sorry that you feel this way.

[chomerics]

Yawn, chom

So are you saying that poor people shouldnt be patriotic but should stay in the hood hustling, pimping, carjackin,using squeegees or selling roses at intersections?

No, I am simply stating that posting an op-ed piece does not give evidence that the other side is wrong. In fact, it leads to credence that the other side is right because there were no statistics used to back up the claim, only a few people.

[twa]

No, I am simply stating that posting an op-ed piece does not give evidence that the other side is wrong. In fact, it leads to credence that the other side is right because there were no statistics used to back up the claim, only a few people.

Chom that was posted simply as info...It is clearly a op-ed piece,and never presented as otherwise.

However I CAN say that the enlistees that I know personaly are NOT some poor unfortunate duped by propaganda or financial need.

Quite frankly I was shocked by who enlisted.

[NoCalMike]

Any of these articles mentioning that we are recruiting from Central America by offering men $40,000 to enlist and fight in Iraq? That might help bump recruitng numbers a bit.......

Or the fact that recruiters have chosen a new strategy which is to target parents of lower class children by guilting them into having their kids signing up by telling them that they can't provide any type of future for their children so the military is the only answer?

[BlueTalon]

The article talks of a people who signed up for duty and have a high GPA, but uses absolutely no statistical evidence to counter the claims poor people are serving in much higher numbers then Bush supporters.

Your premise is that "poor people" and "Bush supporters" are two different groups of people. In this context, that's a faulty premise. "Poor people" who are enlisting, and "bush supporters" aren't two different groups of people, they're mostly the same group.

Any of these articles mentioning that we are recruiting from Central America by offering men $40,000 to enlist and fight in Iraq? That might help bump recruitng numbers a bit.......

Or the fact that recruiters have chosen a new strategy which is to target parents of lower class children by guilting them into having their kids signing up by telling them that they can't provide any type of future for their children so the military is the only answer?

I don't recall reading that in any articles. Do YOU have any such articles? Any evidence to back up your claims? Or are you just lobbing irresponsible accusations?

[chomerics]

Your premise is that "poor people" and "Bush supporters" are two different groups of people. In this context, that's a faulty premise. "Poor people" who are enlisting, and "bush supporters" aren't two different groups of people, they're mostly the same group.

I came up with the statistic the other day which stated that lower income americans vote democratic, I think we all agree with this correct?

Now, by using the aforementioned statistic and applying logic deductive reasoning, we can then say that poor people are generally not Bush supporters, is this correct? I am not speacking ion terms of individuals, like TWAs article, but it terms of demographics and statistics.

Now, because of this, we can also say the contrapositive: Rich people (not poor) are Bush supporters (not democrats).

Do you follow this logic?

Here is a quick study done in the 90's using the least squares regression statistic.

http://www.ijoa.org/imta96/paper29.html

From the article.

Both economic variables were significant. Median family income was the most important of the two variables. Unemployment had the opposite sign of what was expected, but had a small impact on enlistment rates.

The age of the prime market was a strong factor in explaining enlistments as well. The greater the proportion of the market that was 17-18, the higher the enlistment rate; the greater the share 20 or older, the lower the enlistment rate. This is consistent with other enlistment statistics which find the median age of recruits to be 19.

The "nongrad" variable was significant with the hypothesized sign. The greater the proportion of the adult population in a county without a high school diploma, the lower the enlistment rate. However, the greater the proportion of the population with some college education was not associated with lower enlistment rates, as we hypothesized.

The percent of the youth population residing in dormitories provides a reasonable estimate of college motivations. The more people living in dormitories, the fewer enlisting in the military.

Urban/rural variables appeared to add explanatory power to our model. Population density was weakly associated with higher enlistment rates. However, counties with many households without vehicles as well as those with two or more vehicles had lower enlistment rates. It appears recruiting is most successful in areas where many households have a single vehicle. Multiple vehicles may be an additional surrogate for high income.

The most powerful single factor for enlistment rates was the percent of population that was comprised of veterans under age 65. Whether measured by beta coefficient or t statistic, the variation in enlistment rate was most strongly associated with the presence of veterans. These are primarily men in the age range to be parents of the prime market. Over 75% of the veteran population was 40-65, also indicating this group largely reflects military experience prior to the all volunteer era.

The final variable was the percent of the population voting in the 1988 presidential election. As hypothesized, the greater the percent voting, the greater the enlistment rate.

Table 2 provides the results from the female enlistment rate model as well. Many of the same variables that were powerful in the male model remain significant in the female model. Veteran population and family income are again the two most important single factors related to enlistment rate. A high proportion of the market under 19 contributes to higher female enlistment rates. The percent living in dormitories and the percent of the adult population without a high school diploma were negatively related to enlistment rate. However, percent of the population with some college education was positively related to the female enlistment rate. Finally, urban/rural characteristics were not nearly as important for women as for men.

Do you follow the logic I used, or do you still have questions? Not trying to be a wise ass, just trying to explain to you how the logical progression works, you seem to have overlooked it in your analysis.

[chomerics]

Chom that was posted simply as info...It is clearly a op-ed piece,and never presented as otherwise.

However I CAN say that the enlistees that I know personaly are NOT some poor unfortunate duped by propaganda or financial need.

Quite frankly I was shocked by who enlisted.

I've seen statistics which talk about the opposite being true. When you are talking in terms of generalities, and you are using statistics to prove your point, you can always come up with a single argument to debunk the math, but that is not the point of using statistics.

The statistics, in this case, are counter to the argument you posed, that rich educated people are enlisted in the military more then poor uneducated people. This is not true. It also does not mean that the entire military is made up of poor uneducated people, but that the MAJORITY of enlisted people in the military are form less fortunate scoio-economical backrounds. You can and will always be able to point out single case that "breaks the rule", but that isn't the point of using statistics, the point is to gain a deeper understanding of what the social and economical factors are that drive people into the military, and money is definately one of them.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The article and a lot of the people posting are making assumptions imo

Another thing ,NO ONE sends thier kid

Exactly. I love how the liberals who say this think that the conservatives are up in some big mansion on a hill wearing polo shirts and sweaters and telling that instead of going to Harvard, Junior has to go to the war. Please. No one sends their kid to the military. If you're 18, you're legal to make your own decisions and no one can tell you what to do.

And guys, haven't you learned? Chomerics is always right. On everything. Just ask him. If he says the sky is red, it must be true.

[BlueTalon]

I came up with the statistic the other day which stated that lower income americans vote democratic, I think we all agree with this correct?

Now, by using the aforementioned statistic and applying logic deductive reasoning, we can then say that poor people are generally not Bush supporters, is this correct? I am not speacking ion terms of individuals, like TWAs article, but it terms of demographics and statistics.

Now, because of this, we can also say the contrapositive: Rich people (not poor) are Bush supporters (not democrats).

Do you follow this logic?

No, I don't accept your logic ('taint logical.) It may be true that lower income people vote democratic, but you can only speak of percentages. In performing your "logic", you treat lower income people as a homogenous group, and it simply is not. It is a diverse group. (We are a diverse group.) And you could only apply the rules of the group as a whole if either the entire group (all lower income people) enlisted -- which they obviously don't, or if you could demonstrate that the subgroup that does enlist is an exact representation of the group as a whole.

I submit to you that it is not. You are far more likely to find the non-Bush-supporting lower income people in Camp Cindy than in an Army recruiting station. The Bush-supporting lower income people are the ones filing into the recruiting stations.

You gotta understand, it's not just about Bush. In this context, "Bush" could actually be shorthand for several topics lumped together -- pro Bush, pro war, pro democracy in Iraq, anti terror, etc. Someone considering enlistment will not do so if he/she supports Bush but is against the war, etc. In other words, the people enlisting including the lower income people would disagree with you on many things, not just Bush.

[chomerics]

No, I don't accept your logic ('taint logical.) It may be true that lower income people vote democratic, but you can only speak of percentages. In performing your "logic", you treat lower income people as a homogenous group, and it simply is not. It is a diverse group. (We are a diverse group.) And you could only apply the rules of the group as a whole if either the entire group (all lower income people) enlisted -- which they obviously don't, or if you could demonstrate that the subgroup that does enlist is an exact representation of the group as a whole.

I submit to you that it is not. You are far more likely to find the non-Bush-supporting lower income people in Camp Cindy than in an Army recruiting station. The Bush-supporting lower income people are the ones filing into the recruiting stations.

If you disagree with the premise, which you are, then use statistics to back up your claim. Show me where I am wrong, as I reserve the right top change my mind when faced with opposing evidence (provided the evidence isn't crapola).

Again, I posted a link which used statistics to determine the economic makeup of the military, and money is a factor, you need to look at what the statistics say. You, on the other hand, don't believe me, which is fine and your perrogative, but please try to find some supporting evidence which backs up your claim, and not just "I think this way", or "we all know it is true."

You gotta understand, it's not just about Bush. In this context, "Bush" could actually be shorthand for several topics lumped together -- pro Bush, pro war, pro democracy in Iraq, anti terror, etc. Someone considering enlistment will not do so if he/she supports Bush but is against the war, etc. In other words, the people enlisting including the lower income people would disagree with you on many things, not just Bush.

I never said they would agree with me, but using statistics and simple deductive reasoning leads to a justified conclusion based on FACTS. That is the scientific way to analize data, and make an observed judgement. You can disagree with it all you want to, but I just ask that you provide me with statistics to back up your argument, that poor people in the military are pro-Bush. Like I said before there are exceptions to every rule, but the information I have in front of me at this time leads me to logically deduce that I am right, and I have so far seen nothing contradicting my claims other then a sensationalized op-ed piece.

[NavyDave]

So are you saying there are too many patriotic low income defenders of America who should should instead be trying to become well to do blame america first types?

[chomerics]

And guys, haven't you learned? Chomerics is always right. On everything. Just ask him. If he says the sky is red, it must be true.

Spiff, this is the second time you have called me out for being a "know-it-all", I am not. I do have a very wide area of general knowledge, and I will challange anyone to a Jeopardy toruney any day, but this does not equate to being a "know-it-all", it just means I use my brain.

Am I ****y? Yes, but I consider it confidence, and I ALWAYS welcome a viewpoint which challanges my own belief system. I will change my mind if faced with contradictory evidence to what I believe, and I think this is a good thing. I WANT people to challange me, and debunk my claims with FACTS, because it makes me a more informed person, and better rounded overall.

BTW, the sky is red at night due to scattering of light. Nitrogen and Oxygen are the primary molecules in our atmosphere, and they scatter the blue, indigo and violet spectrum of light, or photons. As the day gets longer, light from the sun has to travel through more and more atmosphere, so the blue, indigo and violet portion of the spectrum is all "scattered out" by the time it reaches us. The red and orange part of the spectrum (remember ROY G BIV?) then takes over because it is not scattered by Oxygen and Nitrogen and has a direct path towards earth.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Spiff, this is the second time you have called me out for being a "know-it-all", I am not. I do have a very wide area of general knowledge, and I will challange anyone to a Jeopardy toruney any day, but this does not equate to being a "know-it-all", it just means I use my brain.

Am I ****y? Yes, but I consider it confidence, and I ALWAYS welcome a viewpoint which challanges my own belief system. I will change my mind if faced with contradictory evidence to what I believe, and I think this is a good thing. I WANT people to challange me, and debunk my claims with FACTS, because it makes me a more informed person, and better rounded overall.

BTW, the sky is red at night due to scattering of light. Nitrogen and Oxygen are the primary molecules in our atmosphere, and they scatter the blue, indigo and violet spectrum of light, or photons. As the day gets longer, light from the sun has to travel through more and more atmosphere, so the blue, indigo and violet portion of the spectrum is all "scattered out" by the time it reaches us. The red and orange part of the spectrum (remember ROY G BIV?) then takes over because it is not scattered by Oxygen and Nitrogen and has a direct path towards earth.

LOL thats some funny ****. That's why I like you dude.

[Thiebear]

but CHomerics:

if most poor people feel left out and unable to make a change.. didnt they not register to vote? And the VAST majority of people that voted for both Bush and Kerry were not poor? So statistically rich people voted for both?

[chomerics]

So are you saying there are too many patriotic low income defenders of America who should should instead be trying to become well to do blame america first types?

I am saying nothing of the sort. I am defending the position that well off Americans, which are Bush supporters (can we agree on this?) are not as likely to have their child in the military provided there are no veterans in their family.

As for the "blame America first" BS, you really need to re-examine your position if you think that objectively trying to figure out how 9-11 happened is blaming America. It is not, it is called trying to get an understanding of how 9-11 came to the point it did, and how to prevent it in the future.

The problem is that Bush supporters, like yourself, lack the depth and understanding of the situation to completely understand what we are saying. We are not "blaiming America", but trying to figure out how to prevent another 9-11 from happening. Your side completely ignores the correct way of looking at the problem and instead fights a hornets nest with a machette. Our side wantes to take a step back, go to the store and buy a can of raid.

In the end, your side still has a bunch or hornets flying everywhere, with no hope of getting the queen, while our side kills ALL the hornets and goes on with business.

[NavyDave]

Well chom does want to be RIGHT but he can't...........

because his views are always on the Left

Also there are time when viewing rivers and seas that from way up high they look brown and not because they are polluted

[chomerics]

but CHomerics:

if most poor people feel left out and unable to make a change.. didnt they not register to vote? And the VAST majority of people that voted for both Bush and Kerry were not poor? So statistically rich people voted for both?

First, statistically, rich people vote for Bush more then Kerry. The statistic was posted the other day, and if you factor out the ultra rich, then the statistic is skewed more in Bush's favor.

You are looking to deep into the issue, get some statistics to back up your facts. I am not saying that I am 100% right, but the information I have in front of me leads me to think this way. If people can come up with data which contradicts it, then I might change my mind about this topic, but right now, generalizations without data account for nothing.

[chomerics]

Well chom does want to be RIGHT but he can't...........

because his views are always on the Left

Also there are time when viewing rivers and seas that from way up high they look brown and not because they are polluted

:laugh:

I am in the process of putting together a book on my random thoughts, and I was going to call it something like

"Orwellian Politics, How the Right is Wrong, and the Left is Right"

Or something like that

[NavyDave]

I didnt realise that Ohio and all of the flyover Red States had so many rich people.

going on percentage

How many journalists are democrats

How many pro athletes

How many hollywood actors and actresses

then factor in the fans who view them as role models

[NavyDave]

I say blame america first because all you here from liberals is an attack on our policies or how we should at it from the "freedom fighters" perspective.

There is always a yeah but or some smear like racist when you look at solutions to control terrorists from entering the US illegally and "profiling" most likely threats.

[BlueTalon]

No, I don't accept your logic ('taint logical.) It may be true that lower income people vote democratic, but you can only speak of percentages. In performing your "logic", you treat lower income people as a homogenous group, and it simply is not. It is a diverse group. And you could only apply the rules of the group as a whole if either the entire group (all lower income people) enlisted -- which they obviously don't, or if you could demonstrate that the subgroup that does enlist is an exact representation of the group as a whole.

If you disagree with the premise, which you are, then use statistics to back up your claim. Show me where I am wrong, as I reserve the right top change my mind when faced with opposing evidence (provided the evidence isn't crapola).

Again, I posted a link which used statistics to determine the economic makeup of the military, and money is a factor, you need to look at what the statistics say. You, on the other hand, don't believe me, which is fine and your perrogative, but please try to find some supporting evidence which backs up your claim, and not just "I think this way", or "we all know it is true."

I showed you where you are wrong. And your link didn't do anything to address your faulty premise.

To recap, your flawed premise is that by saying "lower income americans vote democratic" you are treating lower income Americans as a homogenous unit rather than a diverse group. And then, after I pointed out that lower income people are diverse that that many/most of them who are enlisting are Bush supporters, you tried to apply the formula to lower income enlistments:

Lower income people vote democrat.

Democrats don't support Bush.

Lower income people enlist.

Therefore, lower income enlistees don't support Bush.

I know, you didn't use those words, but that's effectively what you did. I pointed out that your homogenous, democrat-voting "lower income americans" should really be spoken of in terms of percentages rather than treating them as a homogenous unit, and that even if you broke down the category of all "lower income americans" into their precentages, you still couldn't apply those percentages to lower income people who enlist unless all lower income people enlisted, or unless you could demonstrate that the group of lower income people who enlist is directly representative, subgroup by subgroup and percentage by percentage, of all lower income people. The burden of proof is on you.

As for my contention that many/most lower income enlistees support Bush, I get that from two things. One is the self evident fact that people who don't support Bush or are against the war don't enlist in mliitary service that could very well send them to that war. The other is that in my role as a military instructor, the vast majority of my students voice support of Bush. Granted, that is only anecdotal evidence, but it is nevertheless valid.

[chomerics]

I didnt realise that Ohio and all of the flyover Red States had so many rich people.

going on percentage

How many journalists are democrats

How many pro athletes

How many hollywood actors and actresses

then factor in the fans who view them as role models

Define democrat, and you will find that most journalists are centrists. There are two areas of politics to consider, economical and social. They are socially democratic and economically conservative.

Now, if you are trying to tell me most journalists are liberal on spending and economic issues, I will say that is a lie (unless you mean where mainstream economics lies right now, which is just right of center). Similarly I would not try to tell you that most journalists are conservative on social issues, they are not.

[BlueTalon]

Define democrat, and you will find that most journalists are centrists. There are two areas of politics to consider, economical and social. They are socially democratic and economically conservative.

Now, if you are trying to tell me most journalists are liberal on spending and economic issues, I will say that is a lie (unless you mean where mainstream economics lies right now, which is just right of center). Similarly I would not try to tell you that most journalists are conservative on social issues, they are not.

How you choose to define "democrat" doesn't change anything I wrote. (Unless you were to try to tell me that "democrat" = "pro Bush", which I probably wouldn't believe no matter how hard you tried to convince me of it!)

(edit) Oops, you were responding to Navy Dave, not me. My bad.