Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Join the US Army for the love...of money
Share:
by Jarrett Martineau | February 18, 2008 at 12:06 pm
3197 views | 2 Recommendations | 22 comments
Photos
Anyone....anyone...?
The U.S. Army is having such a hard time recruiting new soldiers that it is about to offer a truly breathtaking incentive to high-school graduates who sign up—a $40,000 signing bonus, to be applied to buying a home or starting a business after their service is complete.
This comes on top of standard-dipping measures
that the Army has recently had to take to meet its enlistment
targets—accepting more dropouts, more criminals, and more people who
score poorly on aptitude tests.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (22)
at 12:53 on February 18th, 2008
The US Army would give sign up bonuses and distribute the money on a yearly basis. Example $4000 for a 4 year enlistment would be given out in $1,000 encrements yearly instead of a one lump sum. After that the $1,000 would be taxed leaving the enlistee with about $600. The GI Bill is an even bigger joke. When one would go to register for college you would have tp pay the entire registration fee out of your pocket. So let's say you got hit with a $12,000 semester fee the army would reimburse you about $700 per month thereafter and you would only get this amount for each month you served though they would tell you that you qualified for let's say $30,000 you would have to serve a total of 43 months and wait just that long to get that amount back. The US Army is also is a good place to get harassed. When not fighting foreign forces soldiers can face entrapment, racism, bigotry right here at home while living on base in the good old USA. Every hick town that surrounds a US base has it's police force enter Army property to pull over soldiers without probable cause. The US Army is a good place to be if you wanna kill different types of people, that is if the US Army doesn't kill you first. That $40,000 bonus sounds good it you add another zero to it. You would need the extra money to fill up your gas tank.
at 16:48 on February 18th, 2008
Did you ever serve?
at 06:43 on March 8th, 2008
I served in the US Army.The real story behind the bonus is not how much the amount is. Mercenary armies are ineffective against a patriotic force. Machiavelli had discussed that in "The Prince" when referring to Cesare Borgia.
One joins to serve their country and to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. Thanks for the question.
"De Oppresso Libre" "Sua Sponte"
at 14:57 on February 18th, 2008
Wow, that did sound like a really good deal, until I read Ace Preston's comment. Now I think a US army career is perhaps not for me.
at 16:55 on February 18th, 2008
Besides the usual aimless rants by someone - I think that this is a good thing. For years now I've heard how our military men and women are underpaid and I do agree with that sentiment. Unless some other commenter is right, $40K is a good amount of money and will go a long way towards starting a business or buying a house.
The funny thing is that just a couple of weeks ago I talked to a guy at the gym who said he was joining and that he might not get the $40K bonus. He told me that even if he didn't get the bonus he would still be joining. Obviously this substantial bonus is meant to get people in the Army but is that a bad thing? I guess it is if you think America is what is wrong with the world.
at 16:58 on February 18th, 2008
One last thing - I wonder if a teacher who got a bonus to teach in a bad neighborhood would be derided by some people as much as the military is now. Shouldn't teachers want to teach for the love of teaching alone?
at 17:50 on February 18th, 2008
Financial and education incentives for joining the army are nothing new. The amount, however, perhaps reflects inflation and a decrease in interest from this generation of American youth. The thing that disturbs me about the signing bonus is that it will foster the already prevalent socio-economic lopsidedness reflected in new recruits. On the other hand, with out conscription or a draft, this will always be the case so might as well provide some more incentive.
at 18:23 on February 18th, 2008
Ryan,
I hate to disagree with you but I must here. The Heritage Foundation did a study comparing the demographics of the military in 1999 versus 2003. What they found was that as a percentage of the total force the richest quintile of neighborhoods represented 19% of the military in 1999 and 22% in 2003. Conversely, the poorest quintile of neighborhoods represented 18% of the military in 1999 and 15% in 2003. So not only do people coming from the richest quintile neighborhoods represent a greater portion of the military they were actually overrepresented in 2003 according to this data (Here's the chart: LINK).
Here's a link to the whole report from Heritage: LINK.
But since I know that you are a smart guy you will have probably lasered in on the fact that I said this study focused on the makeup of the whole military and not on new recruits. Well, fortunately for us, the Heritage Foundation did a follow-up study and found this:
Here's a link to the newer report from Heritage: LINK.
For a good chart on the changes in our military's recruitment demographics from 2003 to 2005: LINK.
If you have conflicting information I would love to see it.
at 18:33 on February 18th, 2008
OOOHHHH! Well if it's from the Heritage Foundation. Then......
at 20:30 on February 18th, 2008
Do you have anything meaningful to add Mountaineer?
at 21:35 on February 18th, 2008
Yes I do, as a matter of fact, "Big T"...whatever that stands for...
Let's take a look at the ole "Heritage Foundation'. I am not going to go into ALL of the donations they get from Exxon-Mobile, I want to touch on something MUCH more disturbing about this "STINK tank"...
Here's the Heritage Foundation's mission statement:
"Our Mission: Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." (www.heritagefoundation.org)
I like this mission statement...their cause is a good one.
But something is VERY WRONG: the Heritage Foundation promotes the REAL ID Act.
I want every American to dig in and research the REAL ID Act and then ask themselves "How does a national id card promote limited government?"
We should also ask "How does the REAL ID Act promote individual freedom?"
In reality, the REAL ID Act stands in opposition to both these ideals.
REAL ID expands the power of the federal government by creating an electronic infrastructure for innumerable regulations future Presidents, Premiers, and Congresses can impose.
The REAL ID Act limits the freedom of the individual by expanding the presence and power of the federal government. How is the individual more "free" when an ever-present federal government is brought in on all the transactions of daily life?
The irony is that the Heritage Foundation calls itself a "conservative" think-thank. You can't call yourself a think tank if your ideas are stupid.
Maybe the Heritage Foundation needs to add "Valuing and Promoting the Ideals of the Constitution" to their mission statement.
Now that's a goal that would really be "conservative."
So before you go TOUTING studies done by the Heritage Foundation, why don't you do your homework "T"?
Sapphira...
at 22:33 on February 18th, 2008
First off, you totally discount everything that comes from an organization because you have one (misguided) disagreement? That doesn't make sense.
Secondly, do you even know what the REAL ID Act is? I'm not sure where you get your information from but it is not a "national id card." Anyone who wants to know why Heritage is for the REAL ID Act can click HERE.
Have a nice night.
at 23:12 on February 18th, 2008
Don't you DARE tell me what I do and do NOT know. I KNOW what the REAL ID Act is, and you sir, have once again exploited your ignorance.
at 23:47 on February 18th, 2008
Simple question: Is the REAL ID Act a national ID card? For further clarification does a "national ID card" mean one that is produced and maintained by the Federal Government? Because I think there is a difference, for you, between reality and your ability to "figure out" a conspiracy others can't see.
at 23:51 on February 18th, 2008
One last thing: if you are going to ridicule me can't you at least do it in a way that grammatically makes sense? If you need a clue as to what I'm talking about you might want to look up the definition of "exploited." If you need any more help I'll be right here.
at 18:37 on February 18th, 2008
Big T,
I appreciate the facts very much. One thing I must point out though, and I admit to not being up on my numbers here, is these percentages should be contextualized within the general population. The stats which the study documents does not tell us the proportion to the general population; the numbers are only meaningful in documenting the makeup of the army when the actual number of 'rich' people in the army are presented as a proportion of the amount of rich people in America and likewise for 'poor' people.
I think that makes sense...what do you think?
at 20:28 on February 18th, 2008
My only problem with that is that the military is not an unbiased sample of the population. There will be significantly more young people in the military as a percentage of the military population than there are in the overall population in general. And besides, people do not go into the military to get "rich" and might be misleading to compare the wealth of military members to the general population.
What Heritage endeavored to do was take a snapshot of what was the financial backgrounds of families of new recruits and a snapshot of the financial makeup of the areas (determined roughly by zip codes) where those recruits came from; which responds to the question of what financial background new recruits are coming from.
Touching on my first point again - that the population sample of the military is different than the general population - could be used to mislead. For example, I think we would all agree that most recruits are young - right? Well, young people are poorer than older people because they haven't had the opportunity for advancement and higher salaries.
My point is, and Heritage's point as well, is that if you look at the median income level of recruits it will be very low because they are young and young people don't make that much money. What Heritage has done is do some demographic work on the familial backgrounds of recruits and has presented its findings.
I hope I answered your question adequately and thank you for your response Ryan.
at 18:24 on February 18th, 2008
And Ryan, thanks for being reasonable in your comment. T
at 19:30 on February 18th, 2008
don't forget the army/war based video games! hit the ones old enough to have been corrupted by consumeristic captialism with money; and hit the ones too young for money but not too young for real-life simulating game violence.
did they succeed in putting military recuitants inside high schools?
at 05:36 on September 15th, 2008
best greetings
dear sir
it's gives me much pleasure to write to america army ; I am an inventor from Morocco ; age 13/03/1975 , I would lik to join to american army or american Navy , please any assistance to me for join ,contact me soon .
thank you with best wishes
Mr : aziz El kabboury
college El hansali at bouhmad rabia
zip 23000 beni mellal
morocco
at 14:21 on September 25th, 2008
MY, name is Demanya Alpha Yorm and i will like to join the U.S Army i hope to here from you soon Sir
at 14:26 on September 25th, 2008
it's gives me much pleasure to write to America army ; I am a Ghanaian ; age 25\03\1984 , I would like to join to American army or American Navy , please any assistance to me for join ,contact me soon .