Forced Servitude In America?

reply to post by Memysabu

Well I gotta differ with you here.The republic would still be working great if we had made our elected officals honor thier oaths to the constitution.A true democracy will not work as the many always win over the few.Our biggest mistake was in allowing woodrow wilson to take us off the gold standard and we had plenty of advance warning to never do this.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson

Now that we have allowed this to happen officals pay no attention to the constitution.We need to get back to constitutional government if we want to get out of this mess.

The differance between McCain and Obama?One likes lockeed martin and the other prefers boeing

As if College Students didn't have enough to worry about already why not throw on 100 hours of community service. I thought he was supposed to appeal to the young crowd? He won't get my vote if he's gonna pull this crap. They just keep making higher education harder and harder to get.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Now when presented with a plan that will ask people to do something in exchange for the money being handed-out ("If you want this money, you will have to work for it) they are unhappy.

Wait. What do you mean by this? Forcing people to do community service hurts those of us who want to do community service. As I previously said, as someone who helped direct my university's community service efforts in college, forcing people to do community service harms the community. It takes resources, it forces those of us who want to help to babysit.

People are not getting a choice. Obama is not saying you can choose to do this. He is saying you WILL do this. Its not as if we are getting hand outs to go to high school or college, with the exception of federal need based aid. I would have no problem making this optional, or linking it to NEED-BASED federal aid. But forcing it is wrong, and is unconstitutional.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


I think that every American who voted for GWB, ever, should do mandatory community service to help repay our national debt (war part).

I think it's fair enough

reply to post by The Nighthawk


Nighthawk,

Our Parents thought that about us in the 60's and it is foreordained we should think the same about our children. Your gray hair is showing.

I catch myself sounding like my Father a lot lately. I think when we start to loose our memories, we forget what we were like when we were young and dumb and thought we knew more than our elders. It is a rite of passage.

On topic-

Obama does look worse as time goes on. I'm starting to see he is less qualified to be President than I am and I'm no way Jose, qualified to run for office; neither is he it appears.

The more I listen to him, the more I think he is out of touch with most of us. I just don't see this Ivy Leaguer empathizing with people who can't afford Junior College and have to work washing dishes or mopping floors. Look at his ridiculous jab at people who can't speak French or German when visiting Europe. I doubt anyone below the top 15% or so of wage earners could ever afford to go. Maybe one trip when they are young or after retirement if they are lucky. I make an upper-middle class income by their standards and I could not afford to go to Europe for pleasure.

This world traveled, pampered man can't possibly have a clue about us and our needs. At least McCain has been in the trenches and is somewhere near being a moderate.

reply to post by 5thElement
I already have.

Thousands of volunteer hours.

12+ years in service to the country.

Willing to do more... and you have done ... what?

Excercised some of the liberties I have helped earn for everyone. I do not begrudge our differences - I celebrate them as living evidence that my efforts were justified.

Please do not misunderstand. I disagree with a great deal that the USA government has done. I am also willing to accept without apology my portion of responsibility. I only ask that I also be extended the same liberty.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness
We are not talking about force here.

It is an inducement, a motivational tool to encourage citizens to contribute to that which they are already receiving the benefits of.

Think of it as getting to drive the car for several years before you are ASKED to pay for the continued unrestricted use of it. INHO - a pretty good deal.

You may also choose to decline the offer.

The problem with this is what?

Originally posted by kerontehe
It is an inducement, a motivational tool to encourage citizens to contribute to that which they are already receiving the benefits of.

What exactly is it about "you will do community service in high school and college - you have no choice" that is an inducement? Forcing people to do anything does not motivate them.

I am beginning to wonder how many people on ATS actually have done community service. It has been a major part of my life for years, especially in college (20+ hours a week), because I am getting the sense no one seems to get what happens when you FORCE PEOPLE to do community service. During my undergraduate years I occasionally had to work with people or place people who were forced to do community service due to some sort of administrative sanction against them. It was a nightmare every time. They didn't want to be there, it showed they didn't want to be there, and it slowed down any project we were working on. In one case, they almost destroyed a community greenhouse project.

Originally posted by kerontehe
Think of it as getting to drive the car for several years before you are ASKED to pay for the continued unrestricted use of it. INHO - a pretty good deal.

That is not what this is at all. I have no idea how you came up with this.

Originally posted by kerontehe
You may also choose to decline the offer.

The problem with this is what?

The sources I've found are divided: some say this is required, some say it is optional. Either case, I'm against it, although I'd go along with it if it was optional and tied to some sort of money. The problem with tying COMMUNITY SERVICE to MONEY is that people do the community service for the money. They don't care. They just want the money. They will do whatever it takes to do the motions with as little effort as possible. Again, this HARMS those of us who do community service for the right reasons and are trying to help our community.

Oh that is just terrible! What is Obama? A muslim or something? School kids free time should be spent doing something vitally important, like surfing the web or playing the Wii for hours at a time with their ipod blaring in one ear and their bluetooth squelching in the other, all while high on meth.

reply to post by Lilitu


Actually school kids free time should be THEIR free time, to do with as they please (as long as it doesn't violate any laws) with only their parents having any external say. That includes watching TV, playing Wii, or sitting in their room playing with themselves if they so choose. It isn't the government's business and should be strictly between the minor and their guardian as to what their free time is spent doing.

The last thing they need is more Big Brother handholding dictating where they should be, what they should be doing, and how long they should be doing it. I think they get more than enough of that under the states' mandatory school attendance programs. The sad thing is, even if Obama loses in November, many states will probably latch onto this idea and make it a mandatory participation program. After all, should we expect anything less than draconian policy from agencies that have conducted a blatent assault in trying to criminalize a parent's right to home school their child?

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
People are not getting a choice. Obama is not saying you can choose to do this. He is saying you WILL do this. Its not as if we are getting hand outs to go to high school or college, with the exception of federal need based aid. I would have no problem making this optional, or linking it to NEED-BASED federal aid. But forcing it is wrong, and is unconstitutional.

No he isn't. The only person claiming that is Goldberg. Please point out where Obama has said this, outside of Goldberg's spin. In fact, Goldberg moderates himself further into the op-ed piece. And I know, reading beyond the hyperbolic headline is hard for a lot of people on ATS. After all, they wouldn't be able to engage in their favorite activities, knee-jerk reactions and uninformed opinionating, if they did that. From the op-ed:

No, national service isn't slavery. But it contributes to a slave mentality, at odds with American tradition. It assumes that work not done for the government isn't really for the "common good."

In fact, if you read Goldberg's piece, he doesn't seem to have a problem with linking federal-aid with work; his problem (outside of the fact Obama is the one suggesting it), is that it would reduce true volunteerism in the country. While he compares contrasts the spirit and level of volunteerism in America and other countries, he provides no evidence that: a) volunteerism was higher in those countries before national service was implimented or b) that volunteerism suffered after it was implimented or c) that volunteerism would be higher if there was not compulsory service.

In fact, what evidence he presents, the cultural differences between the United States and the countries is question may even show us the opposite of what he is claiming:

Indeed, there's ample evidence that countries with intrusive and expensive welfare states stifle their citizens' spirit of charity and volunteerism precisely because people conclude that every problem should be solved by government.

Despite the fact that Americans already feel we are paying oppressive taxes and that our welfare state is crushing the nation, we've continued to have a healthy skepticism of government. And perhaps because of this we've had a stronger spirit of service. There is no reason to assume it would change if students were asked to perform as well.

Here's what Obama actually said, without Golberg's hyperbole:

Just as we teach math and writing, arts and athletics, we need to teach young Americans to take citizenship seriously. Study after study shows that students who serve do better in school, are more likely to go to college, and more likely to maintain that service as adults. So when I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service.We'll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we'll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.

Certainly, Obama does say he would tie federal assistance on school districts developing programs. But this is a far cry from Goldberg's purposeful and calculated hysteria over indentured servitude or slavery. As most school clubs for high-achievers or gifted students have volunteerism requirements, I have little doubts most school districts would be able

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by Lilitu

 

Actually school kids free time should be THEIR free time, to do with as they please (as long as it doesn't violate any laws) with only their parents having any external say. That includes watching TV, playing Wii, or sitting in their room playing with themselves if they so choose. It isn't the government's business and should be strictly between the minor and their guardian as to what their free time is spent doing.

The last thing they need is more Big Brother handholding dictating where they should be, what they should be doing, and how long they should be doing it. I think they get more than enough of that under the states' mandatory school attendance programs. The sad thing is, even if Obama loses in November, many states will probably latch onto this idea and make it a mandatory participation program. After all, should we expect anything less than draconian policy from agencies that have conducted a blatent assault in trying to criminalize a parent's right to home school their child?

I think you are missing the point. Obama's policy is not forced servitude, In a nutshell all it is saying is that if you want a college education and need government assistance then there is no free ride. Do not expect something for nothing. Requiring students to earn that assistance is a good thing and will teach them valuable skills they could not learn any other way.

As for your comment about home schooling, I have administered I.Q. examinations to a few dozen home-schooled students, all of which tested well below the 50th percentile. So much for abuse by "home schooling".

Obama is Mccan't, is bilderburg, did anyone see the recent snippet on the daily show, both obama, and bush talking about 'waving magic wands' to quell those nasty gas prices...a whole lot of i wish i may i wish i might, not even promises.

The bilderburgers just realized that that we want a smooth talking liar, instead of a pugnacious redneck. Obama will not do crap for this country. I think we will see another terrorist attack, and the economy improve somewhat.

Mccan't will of course go to war with iran, or korea, or china, and will spend even more money on 'defense'

and wtf was that with obama supporting the telecom immunity bill? He is bilderburg scum too...

We don't have a single candidat worth a damn, and we won't until we get the seperation of business, and state to the point we have the seperation of church, and state.

it should just be called slave service. "100 hours slave service to you and 50 slave service to you" what a crock of #...

Originally posted by Lilitu
I think you are missing the point. Obama's policy is not forced servitude, In a nutshell all it is saying is that if you want a college education and need government assistance then there is no free ride. Do not expect something for nothing. Requiring students to earn that assistance is a good thing and will teach them valuable skills they could not learn any other way.

Is reading comprehension part of that IQ test? Obama didn't just say college, he also said he would have middle and high school students perform 50 a year and that there would be some sort of federal assistance to the individual school districts based on whether or not they were meeting his goal participation-wise. In other words, to graduate to the next grade you better have done your 50 hours...

You administer IQ tests and have seen home schoolers score below the 50th percentile on those tests. That's absolutely fascinating... considering an IQ test has nothing to do with one's education and is purely designed to determine how well you analyze situations, understand language, think logically, etc... it hasn't got a damn thing to do with how well educated you are. Are you sure you didn't mean to say you administer educational apptitude tests? Those might show this supposed 50th percentile and lower score which I now believe is a complete figment of your imagination anyway.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by burdman30ott6]

It's a big trend in schools to require community service for various things.

I'll say what I always say, forced charity isn't charity, not by definition or intention. All it does is make our generation more resistant to doing charity work because they associate it with having to do things they don't want to do.

Obama will say something bad, then Mc Cain will say something good, just until the polls show them to be 50-50%. After that it's easy to add a few votes where they are needed to obtain the desired result

No he isn't. The only person claiming that is Goldberg. Please point out where Obama has said this, outside of Goldberg's spin. In fact, Goldberg moderates himself further into the op-ed piece. And I know, reading beyond the hyperbolic headline is hard for a lot of people on ATS. After all, they wouldn't be able to engage in their favorite activities, knee-jerk reactions and uninformed opinionating, if they did that.

Your propagandizing is nice and I am sure the Obama campaign would be proud, but speaking from Obama's daily talking points once he realized this wouldn't be a good idea really doesn't convince me of anything. However, as I said, as long as its completely optional I don't care. I know reading beyond the talking points is a lot of work for people on ATS.

In fact, if you read Goldberg's piece, he doesn't seem to have a problem with linking federal-aid with work; his problem (outside of the fact Obama is the one suggesting it), is that it would reduce true volunteerism in the country. While he compares contrasts the spirit and level of volunteerism in America and other countries, he provides no evidence that: a) volunteerism was higher in those countries before national service was implimented or b) that volunteerism suffered after it was implimented or c) that volunteerism would be higher if there was not compulsory service.

Spoken like someone who has truly never spent lots of time doing community service. I suggest you look into the research done by lots of sociology scholars about linking material incentives to do service. It doesn't end up well. The problem is that if you are paying people to do community service then they aren't doing community service, they are in it for the money. People can and do game the system, because (surprise) a few programs like this already exist. They don't last long, nor do they go national, because they are failures.