Obama Calls For Mandatory Government Service

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I am in favor of some form of mandatory public service between the ages of 18 and 21 and have been so for years. Look at it this way:

(1) You administer it the same way the draft was... a certain precentage will always drift towards the military... then you have things like the CCC of the depression, vista (not the sucky software) and the peace corps etc.

(2) you give everyone who practisipates the same package of benefits military service does including health and education, eventually evolving into a national health plan.

(3) It provides a period in a young adults life where they serve something greater than themselves (much needed these days of chronic narcissiests) and helps the community at large... not to mention it provides a rite of passage... once don, now you are an adult with all the rights and responsiblities.

I say go for it.




posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Whats a matter of interpretation, val? Im curious.

You interpret that Obama means its mandatory to serve, because he says

"If you want the 4000 dollars, you have to serve" ???


Thats not a "matter of interpretation"

Thats a matter of you showing us your true ignorance.
It's a matter of you leaving out certain quotes, sentences, and paragraphs, that are key to the "other side of the story" and that make you wrong.

To put it in context with the private sector


Your employer offers you a paycheck to come to work
it is mandatory for you to work IF you want your paycheck

if you dont want your paycheck, guess what? Don't go to work.
There's nothing mandatory about it.

I know lots of lazy people who dont have jobs because they dont want to work, and they're not in jail.

I seriously can't believe someoen could be so blind as to extract something out of thin air that never existed in the ways you, and the OP have tried.

Good thing Hal caught it though.

Nice work Hal.

Showing up the neo-cons never looses its appeal.

Obama never said anything about "mandatory service" and it doesnt matter how you "interpret" it at all



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Another common neo-con tactic: Change the subject when you're wrong.

Im not allowing it to get changed, so please don't derail your own thread, llyod.
I'm not a neocon Andrew, but maybe you're a socialist if you believe in forcing people to work for the government.


Barack Obama, never, one time, in that entire article, says anything remotely close to "required service"



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.

For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we'll require 100 hours of public service. You invest in America, and America invests in you - that's how we're going to make sure that college is affordable for every single American, while preparing our nation to compete in the 21st century.

Which part of tieing federal assistance to schools contingent upon developing Service Programs do you not understand? This is not voluntary in any shape, form, or fashion, it's an ultimatum.

Source


So why post an article, and leave out the important parts, to make it look like he did say it?
Do you have comprehension problems Andrew?


I believe that kind of goes against the T&C a little bit where:
That's your opinion. Show me where it's misleading or inaccurate.



Omitting certain paragraphs, and titling it with the title you did, pretty much goes against this #1 rule in Simon Gray's "law of posting"

[edit on 7/12/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]
I omitted nothing. You can't quote a whole article Andrew, that's why a link was provided to the source. Try clicking on them once in a while before you whine.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by LLoyd45
 


You did omit.
Nothing in there is making anything "mandatory"

"to recieve this, you have to do this"

there's nothing mandatory about that.

Implementing "service opportutnies" ina public school does not make it MANDATORY that the students in that school have to participate

When you were in school, did you participate in football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, track, etc?

If so. Its a implemented OPPORTUNITY for the students to participate in

Its not mandatory

You really, really, should give up on this one Llyod. Obama is not making anything mandatory, and you know it.



Furthermore, there's nothing opinionated about your violation of the T&C

You post "obama makes it mandatory!!!"

And the very article you give us to read says "obama makes it a choice with more incentives"


Thats posting a thread with a title and "supporting" paragraph that is completely misleading and inaccurate.


Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact

[edit on 7/12/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I do NOT perceive it as mandetory.

I do not see that performing 100 hours service for $4000 credit is mandetory service.
100 hours service for $0 is mandetory service.

I perceived you, hal, as saying that 100 hours IS mandetory, but they will get $4k credit for performing it.
Apologies if I mistook you.

I see the OP source as saying ALL of this is mandetory via Obama.
I do NOT see Obama saying ANY of this is mandetory.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by LLoyd45
 


You did omit.
Nothing in there is making anything "mandatory"

"to recieve this, you have to do this"

there's nothing mandatory about that.

Implementing "service opportutnies" ina public school does not make it MANDATORY that the students in that school have to participate

When you were in school, did you participate in football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, track, etc?

If so. Its a implemented OPPORTUNITY for the students to participate in

Its not mandatory

You really, really, should give up on this one Llyod. Obama is not making anything mandatory, and you know it.
If school funding is contingent upon them making you participate in a Servive program, then the school will see that you participate or you will not graduate.

School funding now is also contingent upon them providing the military with your childrens contact information as well. When you fill out enrollment forms at the beginning of the school year, it's stated in very small writing that you're giving consent. Most people overlook it in their haste.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 

Ha, so you did in this post. Sorry, the memory is the first thing that goes, but I still don't see how you think it is mandatory when if you don't want to do it you don't have to.



I would guess that there will be a lot of students that would do anything to get this tax incentive. Another misleading part of the original article is that it means that all Americans have to serve, but on Obama's sight they are only going to increase it up to 250,000. I imagine they will have to turn people away.


Expand Corporation for National and Community Service: Obama will expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 slots today to 250,000 and he will focus this expansion on addressing the great challenges facing the nation.


And earlier, it says that the problem is that there is not enough funding for all the people who want to serve.


Insufficient Federal Support for Service: While more than 500,000 people have served in AmeriCorps, the program turns away tens of thousands of applicants a year because of limited funding.

www.barackobama.com...

It seems funny to me that so many people are being turned away from doing something as anti-American as this (/sarcasm). For most young people this would be great experience and look good on their resume.

You anti-Obama folks are using a really good program to try to spread yet another rumor because you can't see the forest for the trees.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Furthermore, there's nothing opinionated about your violation of the T&C

You post "obama makes it mandatory!!!"

And the very article you give us to read says "obama makes it a choice with more incentives"


Thats posting a thread with a title and "supporting" paragraph that is completely misleading and inaccurate.


Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact

[edit on 7/12/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]
Sorry if you disapprove of the title Andrew, but I didn't write the article. You are required to use the actual heading from the source by posting rules. That was the ACTUAL title... Sorry if you don't like it.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by LLoyd45
 


Please refer to the "basketball, baseball" statement again in my previous post

he is saying that federal monies are contingent upon participation in the program, fact

that the schools have to implement these programs to PROVIDE OPPORTUNTIES for the kids to PARTICIPATE

the words opportunities and participate derive from "choice"

and "choice" has nothing to do with force, mandatory, etc.


He is demanding that kids be given the choice to participate in their local schools if they want to.

He is not demanding mandatory service

:shk:

i should just copy and paste this ... it'd make it much easier to respond to anything you reubttle with



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
I see the OP source as saying ALL of this is mandetory via Obama.
I do NOT see Obama saying ANY of this is mandetory.

Then we are in agreement.


I know, sometimes it is hard to tell.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
If John McCain had suggested the very same thing, you'd praise him for it.

No I wouldn't


The double-standards you all wear on your sleeve so proudly makes me laugh..

You are projecting. No one said it would be okay if McCain did this.
So I guess you are laughing at yourself for projecting and assuming.


Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
that neocons suffer from selective reading.

Newsflash .. those of us voting for Ron Paul are not neocons.


Originally posted by vor78
Is the word require that difficult to comprehend?

Obamatrons only see what they want to see. This NAZI behavior of Obama's is being dismissed ... but if it was to be suggested by Bush43 I can't help but wonder if they would wake up and see it for what it is .. slavery to the state.

Obama says it's his GOAL to MAKE ALL students participate.

IE ... He wants to make it mandatory for every underage child to have to work and you betchya' it will be in 'approved' places and 'approved' settings. That's how these things work.


Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
I believe that kind of goes against the T&C

It's always funny when YOU pull out the T&C rule books.
What is truly amazing is the trolling that you get away with on this board. Your continual devaluing of ATS members and your constant name calling is what is against the T&C. You should have been banned a very long time ago - IMHO.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Please refer to the "basketball, baseball" statement again in my previous post

he is saying that federal monies are contingent upon participation in the program, fact

that the schools have to implement these programs to PROVIDE OPPORTUNTIES for the kids to PARTICIPATE

the words opportunities and participate derive from "choice"

and "choice" has nothing to do with force, mandatory, etc.

No, what he's saying is: If schools wish to receive their funding they WILL participate in the program. If not, they will not be fully funded. Which part of that do you not understand?


He is demanding that kids be given the choice to participate in their local schools if they want to.

He is not demanding mandatory service
He's not offering them basketball camps or computer classes Andrew, he's going to have them picking up trash and other unpleasant tasks no one else wishes to do.

How many teenagers do you think will be fighting for an opportunity to do this type of service? Zip,nada, zilch.. All you'll do is encourage dropping out if they're forced to by the schools as a condition of graduating.

Also the tax credit bit is ridiculous for college kids. Hardly any of them will earn enough to benefit from it. They'll be working for zip.. Puh leese..


[edit on 7/12/08 by LLoyd45]



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Actually, I didn't disparage the programs themselves. In fact, in that first post, I said that it could be good for a lot of those kids.

My problem is with the idea of making it mandatory. At best, the language in that passage is ambiguous. I'm definitely not convinced that it is optional.

I'll use another example to illustrate my interpretation. Lets suppose that, tomorrow, a military draft is instituted for everyone 18-25. In exchange for a couple of years of required service, you'll recieve $100,000 at the end. This is very similar to how I interpret the language used in the passage on Obama's site. Sure, you're getting paid for it, but that doesn't mean its optional.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
That analogy is flawed in that students are not being drafted into college in order to get the incentive.

Draft is mandetory, college is voluntary, regardless of what one gets for it.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Well, as long as they didn't make it mandatory for the kids to participate, I think it'd be a pretty good idea. We put lots of money into other projects that don't do half of what something like this could do for our communities.

What would be great is if the parents of the kids could take the tax credit if their kids participated, that is if the children didn't use it themselves. And if it was treated like an EIC credit, they could get the money back on their returns, helping to pay for school.

Just needs tweaking to ensure that it never becomes mandatory, and make sure the tax credit is more easily utilized by the family.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LLoyd45
He's not offering them basketball camps or computer classes Andrew, he's going to have them picking up trash and other unpleasant tasks no one else wishes to do.

Do you even know anything about these programs? They do not go out and clean up trash like you would if you were serving time for breaking the law. They have a choice to go out and serve their time helping the poor, senior citizen, or help with disaster preparedness, tutoring children and many other fulfilling programs. They are NOT going to be serving jail time.



How many teenagers do you think will be fighting for an opportunity to do this type of service? Zip,nada, zilch.. All you'll do is encourage dropping out if they're forced to by the schools as a condition of graduating.

Also the tax credit bit is ridiculous for college kids. Hardly any of them will earn enough to benefit from it. They'll be working for zip.. Puh leese..

You could not be more wrong. In my earlier post I showed how they have to turn so many away from these programs due to lack of funding. The tax credit would probably go to the parents that are paying for their tuition, or goes toward paying off school loans.

You are doing nothing but showing your ignorance, Lloyd.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LLoyd45
...but maybe you're a socialist if you believe in forcing people to work for the government


Sorry but once again a misinterpretation of what socialism is.


Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

Source

Here's another definition...


social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

Source

Where does socialism say that you must work for a government?
Public ownership does not mean government owned, it means owned by the public, that's you and me.

Where does socialism say that it requires a government?
If socialism doesn't even need a government to exist then what makes 'government control' socialism?

Don't confuse socialism with totalitarianism, or political spin.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Misfit
 


I agree to an extent that yes, it is a flawed analogy. No, the two situations themselves are not entirely comparable for the reason you state. My intent wasn't to draw a direct comparison between the two, but to use it to better illustrate my interpretation of the passage on Obama's site.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 

Even if he wanted to make it mandatory, you and I both know people would not allow that to happen. It would be voluntary just as it is right now. He is hoping to expand it to allow more students to be able to do it. They are turning people away because the programs lack the funding.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
That's the problem with making up stories based on a bullet with NO context. People are so stupid sometimes, it makes my heart hurt.

The source in the first post (which I cannot get to work) is from the Constitutional Right, who has a vested interest in making Obama look scary. Congratulations to those who didn't think to look further.

They have a serious agenda and have totally reworked the program in Obama's plan.

Yes, if the students want the $4000 credit, they are REQUIRED to perform 100 hours service. However, it is not MANDATORY to do the service...

From the speech of that bullet's origin:



Source

Create a new American Opportunity Tax Credit to ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for Americans willing to complete 100 hours of public service a year.
...
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.
...
For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000 to make tuition affordable. To receive this credit, we'll require 100 hours of public service. And we'll amend the Federal Work-Study program, so that nearly $250 million will help more than 200,000 college students work in part-time public service jobs each year.


Look a little deeper before you run and scream "socialist"!!!
like an insane person. :shk:

[edit on 12-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]





 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join