here's more: Govt mandated free labor, otherwise known as slavery - Page 2

doggin94it · 11-07-2008, 10:43 AM

[quote=Guido Monzino;2846694]+ a billion

I too had to do this at my high school. It was definitely a positive thing. But you know what? If me (or moreso my parents at the time) had decided that wasn't right for me, then I could have gone to a different school. Mandating this, or any other choice across the board is just scary.

I will say it until I am blue in the face: IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT TO MANDATE TO ITS PEOPLE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIVES OR MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEM.

Government should exist soley to defend liberties, not take them away.[/quote]

1) The government [B]already [/B]sets educational standards (whether its state government setting the curriculum or federal government setting funding requirements)

2) So long as the federal government funds public schools, the federal government has every right to condition that funding on requirements of its choice.

JetPotato · 11-07-2008, 10:43 AM

[QUOTE=pauliec;2846731]Can I be your campaign manager?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

But let's try to diversify the staff a little as we go forward...;)

doggin94it · 11-07-2008, 10:43 AM

[quote=BrooklynBound;2846757]MANDATED "volunteering" -- yeah, that's not double speak or anything.

[I]Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.[/I][/quote]

It's not mandated volunteering - its mandated community service.

BrooklynBound · 11-07-2008, 10:47 AM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2846800]It's not mandated volunteering - its mandated community service.[/QUOTE]

What crime did my future children commit?

RutgersJetFan · 11-07-2008, 10:47 AM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2846785]If its optional, I'm all for it (although not sure where the funds to pay for that credit would come from). The difference between college and HS, to me, is that in HS, the state gives you educational mandates; in that environment, mandating community service as part of education is pretty unobjectionable. In college, you choose your own educational course, with the institution you are attending setting some basic guidelines. The government should have nothing to say about it.

On the other hand, if the government wants to condition its Pell grants or student loans on community service . . . that's something else I can get behind.[/QUOTE]
Agreed pretty much on all counts.

Obama's platform when he ran for student assistance was a $4,000 credit for those who fulfilled community service standards. I distinctly remember this directly from his mouth simply because I started researching immediately if this was only going to apply to undergrads (of which I've still yet to find out). Which, personally, I think is a fantastic idea.

doggin94it · 11-07-2008, 10:49 AM

[quote=BrooklynBound;2846805]What crime did my future children commit?[/quote]

None. How is that relevant to this thread?

BrooklynBound · 11-07-2008, 10:52 AM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2846811]None. How is that relevant to this thread?[/QUOTE]

So why are they being required to spend time on something that they may or may not want to do? The government would be taking their time because “they know what’s good for us.”

nuu faaola · 11-07-2008, 10:58 AM

I don't believe the OP is accurate. I'm pretty sure this is an optional program intended for people who want or need big tax credits to help pay for college.

Obama is saying he'll make the cost easier to handle, but you have to earn it. Which is a wonderful idea, imo.

I do not think the federal government has ability to compel mandatory service requirements in public schools around the country. Those kinds of decisions are left to individual districts.

It is possible the department of education could make extra money available to districts that impose such requirements, but I really doubt it.

JetPotato · 11-07-2008, 11:02 AM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2846797]1) The government [B]already [/B]sets educational standards (whether its state government setting the curriculum or federal government setting funding requirements)

2) So long as the federal government funds public schools, the federal government has every right to condition that funding on requirements of its choice.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for supplying yet ANOTHER reason why the FEDERAL government should stay OUT of education. Education is a LOCAL issue. When the federal government intrudes, it impedes progress and parental involvement. Not to mention the Constitution explicity says so.

doggin94it · 11-07-2008, 11:19 AM

[quote=Guido Monzino;2846834]Thank you for supplying yet ANOTHER reason why the FEDERAL government should stay OUT of education. Education is a LOCAL issue. When the federal government intrudes, it impedes progress and parental involvement. [B]Not to mention the Constitution explicity says so.[/B][/quote]

Say what?

And states are free to turn down federal funding for public schools if they choose; there's absolutely no way the federal government can force states to take those funds. Aside from trying to figure out how states would make up the shortfall in your ideal educational paradigm, the simple fact that the states are making the decision to take that money confirms that education decisions [B]are[/B] being made by the states. Each state that accepts federal money for education is saying, in essence, "the strings that accompany this money are worth the benefit of getting this money". Is it your position that states should not have the option or ability to make that decision?

JetsFan2012 · 11-07-2008, 11:21 AM

[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2846807]Agreed pretty much on all counts.

Obama's platform when he ran for student assistance was a $4,000 credit for those who fulfilled community service standards. I distinctly remember this directly from his mouth simply because I started researching immediately if this was only going to apply to undergrads (of which I've still yet to find out). Which, personally, I think is a fantastic idea.[/QUOTE]

Right, until it goes into effect and every college in the country raises their tuition by $4,000.

doggin94it · 11-07-2008, 11:21 AM

[quote=BrooklynBound;2846816]So why are they being required to spend time on something that they may or may not want to do? The government would be taking their time because “they know what’s good for us.”[/quote]

Hey, BB - why are they being required to attend school at all? How many kids, given the choice, would choose to go to school (whether that's at home or in a public or private school)? Does your "so why are they being required to spend time" question apply to that as well? Or is your position that the government can require people to spend time on "something they may or may not want to do" for some things but not others? And if so, where do you draw the line?

doggin94it · 11-07-2008, 11:22 AM

[quote=BrooklynBound;2846816]So why are they being required to spend time on something that they may or may not want to do? The government would be taking their time because “they know what’s good for us.”[/quote]

BTW, I really can't stand Ayn Randian Objectivism as a philosophy.

RutgersJetFan · 11-07-2008, 11:25 AM

[QUOTE=pauliec;2846870]Right, until it goes into effect and every college in the country raises their tuition by $4,000.[/QUOTE]

This was a funny post. Unfortunately it reminded me of rising tuition costs and my student loans. What should have made me laugh has now made me cry on the inside.

dermlord · 11-07-2008, 11:27 AM

>>>Hey, BB - why are they being required to attend school at all? How many kids, given the choice, would choose to go to school (whether that's at home or in a public or private school)? Does your "so why are they being required to spend time" question apply to that as well? Or is your position that the government can require people to spend time on "something they may or may not want to do" for some things but not others? And if so, where do you draw the line?

They are required to attend school so that the government/taxpayer doesn't have to support them for their entire lives. If the government gives me the OPTION to clean the street in front of my house AND a get a tax refund because the garbage man will be fired, that's fine, I might take it or leave it. But if the government MANDATES for me/my kids to clean the streets, and then charges me for the garbageman anyway, well... And you know the democrats will never CUT anything, they need to expand the government rolls : employment, welfare, whatever... in order to assure themselves of votes.

JetsFan2012 · 11-07-2008, 11:30 AM

[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2846879]This was a funny post. Unfortunately it reminded me of rising tuition costs and my student loans. What should have made me laugh has now made me cry on the inside.[/QUOTE]

It's only funny because you can actually imagine it happening.

JetPotato · 11-07-2008, 11:31 AM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2846867]Say what?

And states are free to turn down federal funding for public schools if they choose; there's absolutely no way the federal government can force states to take those funds. Aside from trying to figure out how states would make up the shortfall in your ideal educational paradigm, the simple fact that the states are making the decision to take that money confirms that education decisions [B]are[/B] being made by the states. Each state that accepts federal money for education is saying, in essence, "the strings that accompany this money are worth the benefit of getting this money". Is it your position that states should not have the option or ability to make that decision?[/QUOTE]

Yes. States should not be given that option. The Department of Education is one of the most wasteful organizations in this nation and actually hinders educational progress. Billions of dollars every year are flushed down the toilet as our kids get dumber.

Put the onus on local governments. This creates greater accountabilty and PARENTAL involvement. Tax credits can be given if parents decide to use private schools. Free choices, free market = higher quality schools

doggin94it · 11-07-2008, 12:39 PM

[quote=Guido Monzino;2846889]Yes. States should not be given that option. The Department of Education is one of the most wasteful organizations in this nation and actually hinders educational progress. Billions of dollars every year are flushed down the toilet as our kids get dumber.

Put the onus on local governments. This creates greater accountabilty and PARENTAL involvement. Tax credits can be given if parents decide to use private schools. Free choices, free market = higher quality schools[/quote]

So, to recap, you are both [B]for[/B] state control of education and [B]against[/B] allowing states a broader range of choices in how they control education?

FF2® · 11-07-2008, 12:42 PM

[QUOTE=Piper;2846685]I love the federal mandate. My kids also go to parochial school and have the requirement already.

I can't wait to hear the public school constituant response. I can't wait to hear the libs who cried about 'big brother' and how Bush administration was gutting our rights.

It will be great theatre.[/QUOTE]

Actual many public schools already require community service. Our high school does, its fantastic.

Oakliusmaximus · 11-07-2008, 01:57 PM

I’ve been mulling this topic for a while now and I see a lot of problems with it.

I’m not really sure if this is meant to be mandatory service for everyone or not. I’ve seen several places where Obama has referred to setting a goal for all students to complete up to 50 hours of community service a year. But what does “all students” mean? Even private school students? And what happens if the goal is not met? Are there going to be repercussions for the students who don’t do enough?

Additionally, he has said he wants to offer a $4,000 tax credit for college students who complete 100 hours. Again, I don’t know if this applies to everyone. It is better that people might now be working for some of their Federal assistance rather than just filling out a form and qualifying, but is everyone really going to be okay with giving $40 an hour to even middle and upper class students? I guarantee whatever work they will be doing will not be worth $40/hour; otherwise they would be able to sell their time for this amount already.

The idea of putting a bunch of lazy kids to work doesn’t sound too bad. I agree that it would benefit many of them to help others, see for them selves how good they might have it and contribute to their community. But that’s a one size fits all solution to something that’s not necessarily even a problem. Some kids are already spending their time well. For example, my little sister stayed with us for a week last month while my parents were out of town. I’m absolutely amazed she was able to get everything she needed done after school, religion class, work and cheerleading practice. She’s on two squads; her high school one and one that competes nationally which she is extremely dedicated to. Some nights she didn’t get home until almost 10:00, and then it was homework time; yet she has a 4.0 average and will probably be going to UT after next year. 50 or 100 hours a year doesn’t sound like much. But that’s someone else’s time, I have no right and nor does anyone else, to tell them how best to use it.

Then there’s the problem of deciding what kind of service is acceptable community service. Does a church bake sale to benefit the homeless count? What about going door to door like Jehovah’s witnesses? Does anyone really think that politicians are going to be fair and unbiased in selecting what type of service is appropriate? I don’t, I see a whole new brand of special interests lining up at the government trough because it’s cheaper to get “volunteer” work by making a political donation or two than it is to pay someone for their time. I don’t know that it will actually happen this way but it seems likely. And very importantly, the application process for charities will call for the Federal government to distinguish between what is good and what is not. That’s not their job. I don’t want them doing that.

And the whole idea would require a whole new federal bureaucracy. Developing service guidelines, tracking students, clocking students, developing an application process, a chaperone program; this will all take money and resources away from other opportunities that could otherwise be developing.

There’s more but my lunch hour is about up and this is too long as it is. Overall, this is a bad idea. On a small scale, individual level, I’m all for it. I would have no problem sending my daughters to a school that mandates a small amount of community service. I did some as a kid and it was great. But it has to be our choice. We have to weigh those benefits with their costs on our own.

11-07-2008, 10:43 AM	#21
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,516	[quote=Guido Monzino;2846694]+ a billion I too had to do this at my high school. It was definitely a positive thing. But you know what? If me (or moreso my parents at the time) had decided that wasn't right for me, then I could have gone to a different school. Mandating this, or any other choice across the board is just scary. I will say it until I am blue in the face: IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT TO MANDATE TO ITS PEOPLE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIVES OR MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEM. Government should exist soley to defend liberties, not take them away.[/quote] 1) The government [B]already [/B]sets educational standards (whether its state government setting the curriculum or federal government setting funding requirements) 2) So long as the federal government funds public schools, the federal government has every right to condition that funding on requirements of its choice.

11-07-2008, 10:43 AM	#22
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,192	[QUOTE=pauliec;2846731]Can I be your campaign manager?[/QUOTE] Yes. But let's try to diversify the staff a little as we go forward...;)

11-07-2008, 10:47 AM	#24
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2846800]It's not mandated volunteering - its mandated community service.[/QUOTE] What crime did my future children commit?

11-07-2008, 10:47 AM	#25
RutgersJetFan Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 29,953	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2846785]If its optional, I'm all for it (although not sure where the funds to pay for that credit would come from). The difference between college and HS, to me, is that in HS, the state gives you educational mandates; in that environment, mandating community service as part of education is pretty unobjectionable. In college, you choose your own educational course, with the institution you are attending setting some basic guidelines. The government should have nothing to say about it. On the other hand, if the government wants to condition its Pell grants or student loans on community service . . . that's something else I can get behind.[/QUOTE] Agreed pretty much on all counts. Obama's platform when he ran for student assistance was a $4,000 credit for those who fulfilled community service standards. I distinctly remember this directly from his mouth simply because I started researching immediately if this was only going to apply to undergrads (of which I've still yet to find out). Which, personally, I think is a fantastic idea.

11-07-2008, 10:49 AM	#26
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,516	[quote=BrooklynBound;2846805]What crime did my future children commit?[/quote] None. How is that relevant to this thread?

11-07-2008, 10:52 AM	#27
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2846811]None. How is that relevant to this thread?[/QUOTE] So why are they being required to spend time on something that they may or may not want to do? The government would be taking their time because “they know what’s good for us.”

11-07-2008, 10:58 AM	#28
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,255	I don't believe the OP is accurate. I'm pretty sure this is an optional program intended for people who want or need big tax credits to help pay for college. Obama is saying he'll make the cost easier to handle, but you have to earn it. Which is a wonderful idea, imo. I do not think the federal government has ability to compel mandatory service requirements in public schools around the country. Those kinds of decisions are left to individual districts. It is possible the department of education could make extra money available to districts that impose such requirements, but I really doubt it.

11-07-2008, 11:02 AM	#29
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,192	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2846797]1) The government [B]already [/B]sets educational standards (whether its state government setting the curriculum or federal government setting funding requirements) 2) So long as the federal government funds public schools, the federal government has every right to condition that funding on requirements of its choice.[/QUOTE] Thank you for supplying yet ANOTHER reason why the FEDERAL government should stay OUT of education. Education is a LOCAL issue. When the federal government intrudes, it impedes progress and parental involvement. Not to mention the Constitution explicity says so.

11-07-2008, 11:19 AM	#30
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,516	[quote=Guido Monzino;2846834]Thank you for supplying yet ANOTHER reason why the FEDERAL government should stay OUT of education. Education is a LOCAL issue. When the federal government intrudes, it impedes progress and parental involvement. [B]Not to mention the Constitution explicity says so.[/B][/quote] Say what? And states are free to turn down federal funding for public schools if they choose; there's absolutely no way the federal government can force states to take those funds. Aside from trying to figure out how states would make up the shortfall in your ideal educational paradigm, the simple fact that the states are making the decision to take that money confirms that education decisions [B]are[/B] being made by the states. Each state that accepts federal money for education is saying, in essence, "the strings that accompany this money are worth the benefit of getting this money". Is it your position that states should not have the option or ability to make that decision?

11-07-2008, 11:21 AM	#31
JetsFan2012 Waterboy Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 0	[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2846807]Agreed pretty much on all counts. Obama's platform when he ran for student assistance was a $4,000 credit for those who fulfilled community service standards. I distinctly remember this directly from his mouth simply because I started researching immediately if this was only going to apply to undergrads (of which I've still yet to find out). Which, personally, I think is a fantastic idea.[/QUOTE] Right, until it goes into effect and every college in the country raises their tuition by $4,000.

11-07-2008, 11:22 AM	#33
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,516	[quote=BrooklynBound;2846816]So why are they being required to spend time on something that they may or may not want to do? The government would be taking their time because “they know what’s good for us.”[/quote] BTW, I really can't stand Ayn Randian Objectivism as a philosophy.

11-07-2008, 11:25 AM	#34
RutgersJetFan Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 29,953	[QUOTE=pauliec;2846870]Right, until it goes into effect and every college in the country raises their tuition by $4,000.[/QUOTE] This was a funny post. Unfortunately it reminded me of rising tuition costs and my student loans. What should have made me laugh has now made me cry on the inside.

11-07-2008, 11:27 AM	#35
dermlord Practice Squad Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 43	>>>Hey, BB - why are they being required to attend school at all? How many kids, given the choice, would choose to go to school (whether that's at home or in a public or private school)? Does your "so why are they being required to spend time" question apply to that as well? Or is your position that the government can require people to spend time on "something they may or may not want to do" for some things but not others? And if so, where do you draw the line? They are required to attend school so that the government/taxpayer doesn't have to support them for their entire lives. If the government gives me the OPTION to clean the street in front of my house AND a get a tax refund because the garbage man will be fired, that's fine, I might take it or leave it. But if the government MANDATES for me/my kids to clean the streets, and then charges me for the garbageman anyway, well... And you know the democrats will never CUT anything, they need to expand the government rolls : employment, welfare, whatever... in order to assure themselves of votes.

11-07-2008, 11:30 AM	#36
JetsFan2012 Waterboy Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 0	[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2846879]This was a funny post. Unfortunately it reminded me of rising tuition costs and my student loans. What should have made me laugh has now made me cry on the inside.[/QUOTE] It's only funny because you can actually imagine it happening.

11-07-2008, 11:31 AM	#37
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,192	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2846867]Say what? And states are free to turn down federal funding for public schools if they choose; there's absolutely no way the federal government can force states to take those funds. Aside from trying to figure out how states would make up the shortfall in your ideal educational paradigm, the simple fact that the states are making the decision to take that money confirms that education decisions [B]are[/B] being made by the states. Each state that accepts federal money for education is saying, in essence, "the strings that accompany this money are worth the benefit of getting this money". Is it your position that states should not have the option or ability to make that decision?[/QUOTE] Yes. States should not be given that option. The Department of Education is one of the most wasteful organizations in this nation and actually hinders educational progress. Billions of dollars every year are flushed down the toilet as our kids get dumber. Put the onus on local governments. This creates greater accountabilty and PARENTAL involvement. Tax credits can be given if parents decide to use private schools. Free choices, free market = higher quality schools

11-07-2008, 12:39 PM	#38
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,516	[quote=Guido Monzino;2846889]Yes. States should not be given that option. The Department of Education is one of the most wasteful organizations in this nation and actually hinders educational progress. Billions of dollars every year are flushed down the toilet as our kids get dumber. Put the onus on local governments. This creates greater accountabilty and PARENTAL involvement. Tax credits can be given if parents decide to use private schools. Free choices, free market = higher quality schools[/quote] So, to recap, you are both [B]for[/B] state control of education and [B]against[/B] allowing states a broader range of choices in how they control education?

11-07-2008, 12:42 PM	#39
FF2® Believes Sloppy Guy was involved JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 46,552	[QUOTE=Piper;2846685]I love the federal mandate. My kids also go to parochial school and have the requirement already. I can't wait to hear the public school constituant response. I can't wait to hear the libs who cried about 'big brother' and how Bush administration was gutting our rights. It will be great theatre.[/QUOTE] Actual many public schools already require community service. Our high school does, its fantastic.

11-07-2008, 01:57 PM	#40
Oakliusmaximus Veteran Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston Posts: 453	I’ve been mulling this topic for a while now and I see a lot of problems with it. I’m not really sure if this is meant to be mandatory service for everyone or not. I’ve seen several places where Obama has referred to setting a goal for all students to complete up to 50 hours of community service a year. But what does “all students” mean? Even private school students? And what happens if the goal is not met? Are there going to be repercussions for the students who don’t do enough? Additionally, he has said he wants to offer a $4,000 tax credit for college students who complete 100 hours. Again, I don’t know if this applies to everyone. It is better that people might now be working for some of their Federal assistance rather than just filling out a form and qualifying, but is everyone really going to be okay with giving $40 an hour to even middle and upper class students? I guarantee whatever work they will be doing will not be worth $40/hour; otherwise they would be able to sell their time for this amount already. The idea of putting a bunch of lazy kids to work doesn’t sound too bad. I agree that it would benefit many of them to help others, see for them selves how good they might have it and contribute to their community. But that’s a one size fits all solution to something that’s not necessarily even a problem. Some kids are already spending their time well. For example, my little sister stayed with us for a week last month while my parents were out of town. I’m absolutely amazed she was able to get everything she needed done after school, religion class, work and cheerleading practice. She’s on two squads; her high school one and one that competes nationally which she is extremely dedicated to. Some nights she didn’t get home until almost 10:00, and then it was homework time; yet she has a 4.0 average and will probably be going to UT after next year. 50 or 100 hours a year doesn’t sound like much. But that’s someone else’s time, I have no right and nor does anyone else, to tell them how best to use it. Then there’s the problem of deciding what kind of service is acceptable community service. Does a church bake sale to benefit the homeless count? What about going door to door like Jehovah’s witnesses? Does anyone really think that politicians are going to be fair and unbiased in selecting what type of service is appropriate? I don’t, I see a whole new brand of special interests lining up at the government trough because it’s cheaper to get “volunteer” work by making a political donation or two than it is to pay someone for their time. I don’t know that it will actually happen this way but it seems likely. And very importantly, the application process for charities will call for the Federal government to distinguish between what is good and what is not. That’s not their job. I don’t want them doing that. And the whole idea would require a whole new federal bureaucracy. Developing service guidelines, tracking students, clocking students, developing an application process, a chaperone program; this will all take money and resources away from other opportunities that could otherwise be developing. There’s more but my lunch hour is about up and this is too long as it is. Overall, this is a bad idea. On a small scale, individual level, I’m all for it. I would have no problem sending my daughters to a school that mandates a small amount of community service. I did some as a kid and it was great. But it has to be our choice. We have to weigh those benefits with their costs on our own.