Obama to Force America's Youth to "Volunteer"

Another example of how Obama is out of touch, elitist (he thinks he always knows what's best for us), and cannot think or discern in logical order or steps.

This needs some explaining...seems to me the "socialist army" thing and the conclusions are better conclusions about the above comment itself than Obama.

God forbid a politician thinks he knows what's best for us. In fact that criticism is just a big pile of naivitae. That's the way Democracy works: a bunch of head strong jokers go around talking about how much they know what is best for the country, and if more than half agree you've got yourself an elected leader.

Let's ask ourselves...which Politician doesn't think he knows what's best for us?

Ron Paul: Sure does, and passionately
Ralph Nader: Yup, him too
Dennis Kucinich: As well
Al Gore: Uh Huh
Clinton: Yep
Clinton's Husband: him too
Dubya: Really does
Dick Chenney: Absolutely
Giuliani: does
John McCain: hell yeah
Barack Obama: him too.

Now let's ask ourselves, would we want a candidate in charge who didn't think he know what was best for us?
What exactly would that candidate's method be for coming to a conclusion?
"Well, I think we need to balance the budget...but I'm always wrong...so let's deficit spend?"

When Obama wins the presidency... McCain can do all the volunteering he wants!

They could give us a tax break and take it out of his salary.

Not true. How many kids go through school forced into doing reports and not caring at all about the subject matter?

Our school had a program for the unruly students that made them do volunteer work and it didn't seem as though any of them lost their indifference, even temporarily.

Dude! You must still be in high school being forced to learn things. Feel free to join the conversation when you want to learn something.

Troglodyte,

What is this, your third post? You have far less credibility here than membersonly. Flaming him does not improve our perception of you...

When forced to act your also forced to care.

Actually, the opposite is true. Forced to do something for a time, you generally resolve never to do it again once you have a choice.

Troglodyte.. I like it, I think I may have to change my name. I would however invite you all to re-read member's post and tell me what he said doesn't come off sounding like he's pissed about having going to school. Being forced to participate in anything also forces you to have an interest, positive or negative your going to react. You can't deny that. That was the point I was trying to make.

No, you said I had no interest in learning.

I hated my high school because it was rigidly structured, competition oriented and didn't teach a broad enough range of subjects to keep my interest, so I turned to other sources.

I'm not bitter, or pissed. And it had nothing, like you said, to do with not wanting to learn. As I said, I love to learn.

I mentioned, however, that many of the kids in high school that I knew were indifferent to the subjects, despite being forced to study/write about/report on them.

To the extent that a person cares about himself or herself, yes, they will have an interest. But you can't say that they'll care beyond that, or take any sort of interest in what's actually happening beyond how it affects them (which, actually, undermines the value of community service, which is generally done for others, not yourself).

Perhaps we can move beyond the fact that i dissed 1 comment that you made. I've never advocated for what Obama is proposing, I'm simply saying that once your involved in something be it forced or voluntary, your going to have an interest. Even if it's purely on a survival level i.e. get me through this class I hate. Indifference is a plague in this country, and I'm open to ideas on how to get the public involved. I don't doubt your willingness to learn, otherwise I don't think we would be having this conversation.

Feel free to join the conversation when you want to learn something.

That sounded, to me, a little like you saying I don't enjoy learning. I guess not. I apologize.

Indifference is a plague in this country, and I'm open to ideas on how to get the public involved.

And I agree. However, forcing someone to do something is not getting them involved with it. Someone hating what they're doing is not the same as caring about the issue they're involved it.

I simply think it's misguided to say that forcing an activity on someone engages them in a way that helps. Sure, the task is completed, but does the person actually care that he/she helped someone? Do you think someone that hates picking up trash on the side of the road (and thus, "cares" about the issue of littering) really better than indifference, or similar to someone who believes that environmental protection is an issue that affects everyone?

And your solution is?

Like you, I'm open to solutions.

What I'm saying is that your reasoning is a bit off.

What I'm saying is that there's a difference between caring about an issue because the activities involved (that you're forced into) are a matter of personal taste and caring about an issue because you're not indifferent towards it, or are passionate about it.

This is the problem as I see it. Simply doing nothing is getting us nowhere. I'm not keen on Obama's plan but at some point the country needs to face the reality of the disconnect of the public and the problems that it is facing. I have hard time believing that forced activism won't have a positive effect in that at least a sizable percentage of the people will begin to care.

That may be true, and I can't disagree. It could very well ignite a passion in someone that otherwise would never have considered the issue or activity.

I apologize if I offended you with any of my comments and look forward to arguing (or agreeing) with you on future issues.

No worries.

Hakuna Matata!

As if capitalism weren't already a false utopia.

Seriously?

Not even close.

Where success and achievement are not only allowed, but encouraged . . . where working hard takes you farther . . . where dreams CAN and even DO come true for those willing to try . . .

No, capitalism is not a false utopia.

Putting barriers up, limiting the human spirit, and stealing from people that work for their worth, to subsidize the lackluster, whose worth is not measured in character but in 'being' . . . that is a false utopia.

We've seen the blood-letting of those experiments throughout the world, and throughout history. We really should be able to recognize the destruction it brings.

Where success and achievement are not only allowed, but encouraged . . . where working hard takes you farther . . . where dreams CAN and even DO come true for those willing to try . .

Where is this place? I want to move there.

Oh, please. The "American Dream" line is tired. It's almost common sense that it doesn't exist. When a small fraction of people control the majority of the country's wealth, when we have glass ceilings and unacceptable levels of poverty and people without health care you can't possibly say that the system is as great as we say it is.

I'll be the first to admit that capitalism is better than communism, but the popular notion that capitalism is as good as it gets is ridiculous. And the ridiculous promises it makes, the stuff like where working hard takes you farther . . . where dreams CAN and even DO come true for those willing to try . . . , that makes it as much a false utopia as any other.

Capitalism is a system under which few do make it to the top from the bottom, but most simply have a better position to keep hold of the means of production.

You can't have a system where anybody can do anything when your entire system relies on hierarchy. If everybody makes it to the top, who's on the bottom working?

Putting barriers up, limiting the human spirit, and stealing from people that work for their worth, to subsidize the lackluster, whose worth is not measured in character but in 'being' . . . that is a false utopia.

More evidence for my case. Capitalism is as limiting as any other system. Again, the hierarchy. The glass ceilings. The unfair compensation workers receive compared to the capitalists.

As for the meritocracy argument, what kind of "character" should be rewarded? If it's hard work, what about all of the factory workers that put their being into their product and never make it any farther up the chain? Should they be rewarded less than the fortunate children who inherit the means of production and the vast wealth that comes with it? Because, well, they are.

Question: What do you think of a human life being valued at one and a half million dollars?

I have an American dream...maybe it's an American delusion.

Where is this place? I want to move there.

Are you sure? The fact is, some fail. The good news is that many learn from failure and overcome. But alas, some do not. Happiness is not a given, but an opportunity.

If it's hard work, what about all of the factory workers that put their being into their product and never make it any farther up the chain?

There any number of reasons that someone may stay at their positions, far be it for me to question their choices.

I dunno I worked hard and rose from having nothing to having a good career, a great family, and pretty much everything I had hoped for as a kid. The "dream" was still alive for me.

The "dream" was still alive for me.

I'm happy for you. But as I said, just because a lucky few make it up (or have the illusion of doing so), doesn't mean that it's possible for everybody.

There any number of reasons that someone may stay at their positions, far be it for me to question their choices.

"Choice" is a big assumption.

"Choice" is a big assumption.

Not only is it a big one, it is also, primarily, a wrong one...at least, that's what the numbers tell us. A few decades ago education was the most predictive factor of future earning, now, it's not that predictive...but what your parents make is...in fact, that is the most predictive factor. And this comes at a time when colleges are a rip off (with fewer and fewer tenured professors to boot).

I mean, what does the choice argument say when presented by science and evidence? Usually more choice...everyone's just making bad choices. It's little more than a religion.

But as I said, just because a lucky few make it up (or have the illusion of doing so), doesn't mean that it's possible for everybody

Possible? Sure it is - but is it likely - no.

Not everyone comes to the game with the same skills, drive, background situation, willingness to take risks, scope of their dream, etc.

It takes a lot of factors coming into play but by no means is it impossible for the majority of people to reach their "American dream" It's damn hard and involves a ton of work and planning among other things.

That doesn't mean it isn't still out there though or that it isn't obtainable

SS

I see your concern but...think about this for a second

The hundred hours for college students in exchange for a tax credit unfairly puts the burden of this coerced volunteerism on poor kids.

It's not just poor kids who need help with college these days...It's everyone who is not rich or upper middle class, so around, or at least 3/4 of students. Very few can foot a $200k college bill, and that's what a BA costs at some schools (4 years @ $50k), and in a short time that will be most schools. Even state schools are tough to afford.

OTOH These less privileged students will have more opportunity to make connections with established members of society through volunteering than their wealthy counterparts. So, even though it may feel like forcing less fortunate people to be servants in order to get college, the net effect is likely to be more future opportunities for them.

Are you picking on those seniors again? (laughs)

Okay, I accept the fact that you don't agree with the concept of Social Security. Fine. Come up with an alternative that doesn't involve just tossing them out with the trash, making them live in chicken coops, or forcing them to eat pet food to stay alive.

That's all I ask.

why force volunteerism just on the youth? why not retirees, who are costing us a fortune in medicare?

Most of the retirees I know still work to some level or another . . .

Retired folk are only getting a portion of what was stolen from them in the first place. I am ready to accept the refund of the entitlement money pulled from our pockets.

I'm with you Joseph. By definition, volunteerism can't be required.

All of my kids (4) work for community programs per their choice. Among their peers it is something of a competition. My oldest was Youth of the Year for our district Boys and Girls club this year. . . he willingly gave of his time. Had he been require to do so, it would have cheapened that gift.

There are always kids thinking about their resumes who will volunteer.

And it might attract students who didn't feel the urge to pay the $12 to join the community service club.

That sounds like an oxymoron. Un-free freedom.
Or do you mean it has a price? Isn't the real price of freedom the risk of failure? Why should an additional tax be imposed, to follow your metaphor?

It's an oxymoron engraved upon a memorial of the Korean War, a memorial for people who fought against Communists. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!

And... is this really such a bad idea? We already force kids to undergo an education in this country - would a few hours outside of the classroom really be that bad?

From that perspective, no, it wouldn't. It is the punitive sound of a threat to withhold funds that bothers me, which implies that schools in turn will pressure kids who are already so stressed out and overextended in high school.

The other part that bothers me is that I can just imagine the selection of 'official' service recipients, so for example, going to work with an organization like Food not Bombs, would not be service, but going to some boondoggle charity that spends twenty cents out of each dollar on providing services to its target population does count as service.

Many NGOs and other charity organizations are notorious for the level of money that is diverted to salaried bureaucrats and wasteful expenditures.

and a very clever use of slavery.

Like 50 hours of 'volunteer' service would be?

As some one else said:

It's not really forced servitude, and I'll try to explain why. The schools will receive funding if only a small number of students participate, and I'm sure none of them will be forced into it. These schools will always be able to recruit at least SOME kids to participate.

And did you read the speech? Did you even read the quote? How is compelling schools to "develop service plans" slavery? It says nothing about forcing kids to do it, but wanting them to. They have the goal that they will. Not a mandate.

Yes, let the schools do the dirty work of arm-twisting, make it a graduation requirement, or whatever.

"I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year...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."

Now, how do you think schools will react under threat of having their funding yanked for non-compliance with this goal?

It's wonderful to recieve assurances that no one will be forced into anything. And wonderful that schools will be able to devote even more of their time away from academics...I guess that's no longer a core mission though, what would I know.

Surely a restructuring of education will be involved, regardless of whether or not this plan is implemented. I would hope that the service could be incorporated into the (reworked) curriculum, and would function similar to college internships, where schools could help place students into volunteer positions that they were interested in (and that could potentially give them work experience, even if it is unpaid).

As it is, there isn't much education in high school to take time away from.

I can't disagree with your last point!

I don't see how helping the needy and teaching society to care about their community and country is something horrible. Have we really become that lazy and bitter? Where was your paranoia when Bush was getting reelected? Where was it when we invaded Iraq? I guess kids being given financial incentive to feed the homeless or cheer up people at an elderly home or walk a dog that's otherwise would have been stuck in a tiny cage or making our streets clean is where you guys draw the line.

Not sure how Bush elections and Iraq relate to this, can you elaborate?

We invaded Iraq - I have not invaded Iraq, am not planning to invade Iran, and ditto for Afghanistan. I will not be invading any of these. Your democrats and republicans enabled that fiasco, I did not vote to authorize, just to get things straight.

I also played no part in 'electing' nor re-electing George Bush, as I voted for other candidates in both those elections, and gave copious quantities of money to certain democrats in 2004...but not sure what that has to do with Obama's policies, maybe you can elaborate.

The rest of your response is just a lot of innunendo about something with 'me guys' who like to run old ladies over with our cars, or that seems to be the implication?

If you think shoving public service down the throats of kids who may not want to do it is going to help them somehow, go ahead. If you think that forcing schools to be the administrators and enforcers of this policy is just a great idea, that's your opinion, and you have a right to it.

I don't share your opinion, apparently you believe that equates me with Satan, but critical thinking doesn't seem to be what you're interested in. Good luck.

Were you fighting to bring people aware of the problems because frankly you don't have any say in this volunteer thing any more then you do iraq. That was the point. You said it's our job to be watchful and paranoid of our government but so many of the people who say that when they completely ignor or go along with the worst of the governments actions.

He never said that he would require them to volunteer. He said that he would give them more money to attend college if they did. The government has little to no say in how much private colleges choose to charge students. They provide what help they can. If they want to give them even more money in exchange for service that helps the community it's beneficial to everyone.

Look at my posting history if you think I am incapable of critical thinking. I just find it very irritating that so many people feel the need to misconstru someones words in order to find something to complain about.

You got me with that quote although I still don't see a problem with the program.

I wasn't referring to giving money to Harvard.

It's voluntary and prepares toddlers for Kindergarten, most parents are rarely at home and can not afford pre school. Obama's plan insures that such children don't get left behind in the fray. The current issues with our education system stems a lot from problems in early enrichment. Parents don't have the time or patience it seems to sit down with their toddlers and educate/prepare them for regular schooling. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with reforming and expanding the education of American children.

Some of us went to pre-K schools as a kid... and we turned out all right. We learned about sandboxes and swingsets and some basic social skills.

That's a bit disingenuous More Than Happy.

Preschool programs are more accelerated these days than even when I was a child in a pre education program - only 19 years ago. There are "Head Start" programs in almost every pre school and such is the type of program that Obama wishes to implement in his plans and extend it. There have been extensive studies proving that such early education is VERY beneficial to children and improves their learning skills significantly. It doesn't insure that the kids will definitely succeed later in their school life - such depends largely on the school system they're placed in and the attitude at home... But all studies do show that the program prepares them for the first couple of years of schooling - which is very inportant... Especially for disadvantaged children who need all of the help they can get.

I watched my little sister - 10 now - go through preschool and she was more than prepared for Kindergarten. I don't think citizens give preschool the credit it deserves. Unless there's a parent always at home, it's important that children are in some type of learning program that furthers their mental and social development.

That's a bit disingenuous More Than Happy.

That's what I had remembered from nursery school, or pre-K, or whatever you want to call it. It wasn't the Communist indoctrination center that people claim it to be whenever Obama tries to say something positive.

Like most public education it will become another giant gravy-train boondoggle, completely adult-centered, with endless levels of service administrators, coordinators, leaders, managers, transportation providers, and every imaginable other title of government-salaried bureacrat, little or no accountability for the results and improvements to the target recipients of all this 'service' and a huge expense overhead to pay the salaries of all these new bloats.

Of course every bit of it will be unionized, with rules governing every minute of every day, stifling of innovation, and institution of seniority rules that enable mediocrity to fourish. High performers will drop off like flies, while their underperforming bretheren climb up the seniority ladder and salary scale.

Well that's a very optimistic view.

It is based on my real-life experience with education bureaucracies, and on conversations with other parents regarding their experiences. Unfortunately I could detail a host of incidents to support each and every word of my statement.

Sorry, almost forgot - also based on conversations with teachers at both my kids schools - and they've both been in a couple of different schools...teachers are being crippled from teaching by administrators, and their unions are keeping them from being able to advance while they wait for 'senior' teachers to exercise seniority rights without regard to any logical criteria, such as qualifications, performance, etc.

An iron-gray world, no wonder teachers are dropping off like flies.

That's funny, I've spoken with many teachers as well and have plenty in the family. They've always informed me that there's improvement needed in every field but they often spoke of how necessary it is that children of all ages have learning outlets available to them. Schooling is always better than no schooling at all - especially in a person's early childhood. NCLB has done a lot of good for our school system and is still being reworked to soften bumps in the act. Obama has more plans for our education system than just early childhood programs and much of it includes reform and offering teachers better pay on merit. He understands that the main focus should be on teachers and I'm happy with that.

Your opinion, while honest and understandable is veering off course. The importance is providing toddlers with a base of knowledge that will assist them in integrating into elementary school. At the moment - with most parents rarely at home these days - a lot of children are being dumped in the school system with little preparation. While there are concerns with the bureaucratic feeling of the current school systems in place nationwide, it's still important that these children have the option to learn over not.