SGT Alicia Brenneis 273998 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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. <br />Please explain your vote. 2014-10-11T17:38:00-04:00 SGT Alicia Brenneis 273998

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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. <br />Please explain your vote.

2014-10-11T17:38:00-04:00 2014-10-11T17:38:00-04:00 SFC Melker Johansson 274007

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I rather have people who want to be here.

2014-10-11T17:43:24-04:00 2014-10-11T17:43:24-04:00 SFC Mark Merino 274056

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Please Lord, NO!!!!!!!!!!! Put them to work beautifying the community maybe. If they can&#39;t pick up trash for $10 an hour (towards welfare $$ earned) then they weren&#39;t going to seek work anyway. I&#39;m only talking about the physically capable of course. I also think people convicted of welfare fraud should clean porta pottties with their.........hands.

2014-10-11T18:26:08-04:00 2014-10-11T18:26:08-04:00 SPC James Mcneil 274061

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2014-10-11T18:36:21-04:00 2014-10-11T18:36:21-04:00 PO1 Private RallyPoint Member 274063

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2014-10-11T18:38:45-04:00 2014-10-11T18:38:45-04:00 TSgt Joshua Copeland 274067

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>We can't afford the volunteers we have now. Odds are they would not meet minimum entry requirements.

2014-10-11T18:42:05-04:00 2014-10-11T18:42:05-04:00 CMSgt James Nolan 274079

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.  <br /><br />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.<br /><br />That does not mean that folks should not be encouraged....<br /><br />And I do see where you are headed with this <a class="dark-link bold-link" role="profile-hover" data-qtip-container="body" data-id="294852" data-source-page-controller="question_response_contents" href="/profiles/294852-sgt-alicia-brenneis">SGT Alicia Brenneis</a> , you are traveling the road of assistance should be temporary.....

2014-10-11T18:50:00-04:00 2014-10-11T18:50:00-04:00 CW5 Private RallyPoint Member 274087

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

2014-10-11T18:59:21-04:00 2014-10-11T18:59:21-04:00 SGT Private RallyPoint Member 274097

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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?

2014-10-11T19:04:36-04:00 2014-10-11T19:04:36-04:00 LTC Private RallyPoint Member 274100

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>No just stop sending them free money.

2014-10-11T19:07:02-04:00 2014-10-11T19:07:02-04:00 MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca 274153

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2014-10-11T20:06:37-04:00 2014-10-11T20:06:37-04:00 Sgt Jennifer Mohler 274158

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>No. Some people can't make it no matter how hard they try.

2014-10-11T20:08:38-04:00 2014-10-11T20:08:38-04:00 SSG V. Michelle Woods 274177

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>No but I believe offering other options that contribute to bettering society would be beneficial for able-bodied persons. <br /><br />Think about if a single parent was forced to join the military in exchange for government assistance. <br /><br />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.

2014-10-11T20:23:25-04:00 2014-10-11T20:23:25-04:00 PO1 William "Chip" Nagel 274248

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2014-10-11T21:53:49-04:00 2014-10-11T21:53:49-04:00 MAJ Jim Woods 274250

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.  <br /><br />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.

2014-10-11T21:53:54-04:00 2014-10-11T21:53:54-04:00 MSgt Private RallyPoint Member 274263

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2014-10-11T22:04:38-04:00 2014-10-11T22:04:38-04:00 LTC Paul Labrador 274294

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>NO! They should find a job.

2014-10-11T22:33:19-04:00 2014-10-11T22:33:19-04:00 SPC(P) Nick Bondgien 274301

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>*Provided the successful completion of this test:<br />*UA/Hair toxology ~ neg result<br />*No felonies <br />*No wife beaters(misdemeanor)<br />*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.<br />* Continual UA's / Hair or other suitable tox screens randomly delivered at a 12:1 ratio throughout the first (4yr) enlistment.<br />* Failure to comply would result in Lifetime Suspension/Denial of Benefits<br />* No Govt. interjection on Military Implementation and Practice.<br />* 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. <br /><br />No Excuses. Max Effective range of an Excuse is 0 (beeeeeeeeeeeep) Meters.<br />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.<br />My two Lincolns 

2014-10-11T22:40:48-04:00 2014-10-11T22:40:48-04:00 LT Brent Williams 274339

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2014-10-11T23:29:12-04:00 2014-10-11T23:29:12-04:00 CSM Private RallyPoint Member 274395

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2014-10-12T00:26:57-04:00 2014-10-12T00:26:57-04:00 SGT Private RallyPoint Member 274610

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2014-10-12T09:42:39-04:00 2014-10-12T09:42:39-04:00 SSgt Private RallyPoint Member 274620

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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?

2014-10-12T10:02:27-04:00 2014-10-12T10:02:27-04:00 LCpl James Robertson 275060

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Yes, I believe a lot of people would be glad.

2014-10-12T15:32:50-04:00 2014-10-12T15:32:50-04:00 SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member 275110

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2014-10-12T16:20:55-04:00 2014-10-12T16:20:55-04:00 SSG Billy Wilkerson 629440

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>REALLY?????????????????

2015-04-29T16:40:27-04:00 2015-04-29T16:40:27-04:00 LTC Private RallyPoint Member 630414

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>They should be required to work a certain number of hours towards the public good: picking up trash, etc

2015-04-29T22:01:58-04:00 2015-04-29T22:01:58-04:00 SGT David T. 670455

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2015-05-15T12:08:01-04:00 2015-05-15T12:08:01-04:00 SFC Christopher Perry 673133

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2015-05-16T13:54:37-04:00 2015-05-16T13:54:37-04:00 SrA Edward Vong 673188

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>No, serving should be something one does out of their own free will.

2015-05-16T14:27:25-04:00 2015-05-16T14:27:25-04:00 PFC Tuan Trang 673191

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>No, i think it should<br /> stay same, dod stay as dod, civilian stay as civlian, they should not be losing benfit just because they decided not to join.

2015-05-16T14:26:10-04:00 2015-05-16T14:26:10-04:00 SGT Anthony Bussing 673384

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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...<br /><br />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...

2015-05-16T15:54:40-04:00 2015-05-16T15:54:40-04:00 SSgt Private RallyPoint Member 675169

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2015-05-17T16:33:57-04:00 2015-05-17T16:33:57-04:00 MAJ Ken Landgren 675174

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>They don&#39;t have the mettle for the military and will be whiny.

2015-05-17T16:36:57-04:00 2015-05-17T16:36:57-04:00 SPC Charles Brown 675178

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.<br /><br />Great question <a class="dark-link bold-link" role="profile-hover" data-qtip-container="body" data-id="294852" data-source-page-controller="question_response_contents" href="/profiles/294852-sgt-alicia-brenneis">SGT Alicia Brenneis</a>.

2015-05-17T16:40:38-04:00 2015-05-17T16:40:38-04:00 SSG (ret) William Martin 675610

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I already have challenges by the new ME-ME-ME self entitled generation. Please don't make it worse.

2015-05-17T20:24:06-04:00 2015-05-17T20:24:06-04:00 SGT Richard H. 675641

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>This poll should be "who wants to lead conscripts who don't want to be there?".

2015-05-17T20:34:10-04:00 2015-05-17T20:34:10-04:00 Capt Private RallyPoint Member 675644

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The military should not be a dumping ground. <br /><br />Forced military service should only be used when at war and there is not enough who step forward.

2015-05-17T20:34:54-04:00 2015-05-17T20:34:54-04:00 LTC Gavin Heater 675652

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2015-05-17T20:39:16-04:00 2015-05-17T20:39:16-04:00 SGT Michael Touchet 675764

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I don't think they would necessarily qualify for military service. So only if they qualify for service.

2015-05-17T21:38:33-04:00 2015-05-17T21:38:33-04:00 LTC Jason Mackay 675883

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I do not want a single person who did not raise their hand and volunteered for service. Would rather fight at 50% strength.<br /><br />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.

2015-05-17T22:40:36-04:00 2015-05-17T22:40:36-04:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 675960

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I just asked my wife this and I really like her answer, however I will re-phrase for clarity.<br /><br />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... <br /><br />1. Voluntarily join the military as a regular recruit (officer or enlisted, as applicable)...if that doesn't work out go to option 2<br /><br />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.

2015-05-17T23:51:23-04:00 2015-05-17T23:51:23-04:00 TSgt Jackie Jones 675978

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Can you imagine the work ethic of that bunch?! We already do the job of many---

2015-05-18T00:00:26-04:00 2015-05-18T00:00:26-04:00 SCPO David Lockwood 676254

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2015-05-18T06:59:04-04:00 2015-05-18T06:59:04-04:00 SFC Stephen Carden 676287

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2015-05-18T07:41:38-04:00 2015-05-18T07:41:38-04:00 MAJ Private RallyPoint Member 676399

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Certainly not the military. Only if they can meet psysical &amp; 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.

2015-05-18T08:49:45-04:00 2015-05-18T08:49:45-04:00 MAJ Private RallyPoint Member 677616

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2015-05-18T16:08:53-04:00 2015-05-18T16:08:53-04:00 SGT Kevin Brown 677885

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2015-05-18T17:43:04-04:00 2015-05-18T17:43:04-04:00 SSG(P) Brian Kliesen 699413

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2015-05-27T12:47:46-04:00 2015-05-27T12:47:46-04:00 2014-10-11T17:38:00-04:00