Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HR 1388 "The Give Act"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Skyowl's Wife
    replied
    This crap passed the house yesterday, WRITE or call your Senators! OBJECT!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Lostinoz
    replied
    House Readies Passage of Volunteerism Bill...

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...orced-service/

    House Readies Passage of Volunteerism Bill Critics Call Pricey, Forced Service

    The legislation will expand the1993 AmeriCorps program to match the renewed interest in national service since President Obama's election, which backers say is crucial in tough economic times.
    By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

    FOXNews.com
    Wednesday, March 18, 2009

    WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives is expected to pass a measure Wednesday that supporters are calling the most sweeping reform of nationally-backed volunteer programs since AmeriCorps. But some opponents are strongly criticizing the legislation, calling it expensive indoctrination and forced advocacy.

    The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act -- sponsored by Reps. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y, and George Miller, D-Calif. -- was approved by a 34-3 vote in the House Education and Labor Committee last week.

    The legislation would create 175,000 "new service opportunities" under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional "corps" to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation.

    It is the first time the AmeriCorps program, which was created by President Clinton in 1993, will be reauthorized, and supporters say it will have additional funding to match the renewed interest in national service since President Obama's election and the acute need for volunteerism and charity in tough economic times.

    "National and community service can help make Americans a part of the solution to get our country through this economic crisis. I hope the House and Senate will join us in moving as quickly as possible to help President Obama sign this critical bill into law," Miller, chairman of the health committee, said after the bill was passed.

    But the bill's opponents -- and there are only a few in Congress -- say it could cram ideology down the throats of young "volunteers," many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a "Congressional Commission on Civic Service."

    The bipartisan commission will be tasked with exploring a number of topics, including "whether a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation."

    "We contribute our time and money under no government coercion on a scale the rest of the world doesn't emulate and probably can't imagine," said Luke Sheahan, contributing editor for the Family Security Foundation. "The idea that government should order its people to perform acts of charity is contrary to the idea of charity and it removes the responsibility for charity from the people to the government, destroying private initiative."

    Others say they are concerned that the increased funding will be used to promote one ideology over another.

    "It's allowing taxpayer funding of the left-wing organizations," said Larry Hart, director of government relations for the American Conservative Union.

    "I think this is a problem that is rife throughout the federal government. When you dramatically expand the program, then you dramatically expand the ability for these left-wing advocacy organizations to get more funding. I don't see a lot of attention being paid to that, even from those who are critical. That's where the focus should be. Republicans tend to say its not that they oppose the program, they just want to spend less money. It's the program that's bad."

    South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson was one of three Republicans to oppose the legislation in committee. Wilson questioned the utility of the cash-strapped federal government making such huge investments in what he says should be community-inspired projects and programs.

    "Volunteerism is part of the American spirit of generosity, and we all stand in support of those who will share their time," said Wilson, who was voted against the bill with Minnesota Rep. John Kline and California Rep. Tom McClintock.

    "However, while our economy and our government is in financial trouble, it is not the best use of taxpayer dollars to spend the level of money on new and existing programs included in this bill."

    Aides to Miller say they are awaiting estimates from the Congressional Budget Office on how much the GIVE Act would ultimately cost. In addition to all of the funding that goes to organizations in the forms of grants and administrative costs, AmeriCorps volunteers typically receive stipends and college scholarships when they complete one of the several available programs.

    For example, a participant in the National Civilian Community Corps, which is a 10-month residential commitment, now receives $4,000 in living expenses and a $4,475 in money toward school. That conceivably would increase under the new legislation.

    But regardless of the budget estimate, the financial benefits outweigh the cost, Miller's spokeswoman said.

    "The millions of Americans who volunteered in 2007 generated benefits worth $158 billion," Rachel Racusen said in a statement to FOXNews.com. "A cost-benefit analysis of AmeriCorps, for example, shows that every dollar invested in the programs yields almost $4 in direct, measurable benefits. Investing in service helps low-income students achieve in school, prepares future workers for green jobs, provides assistance to veterans returning from war, and rebuilds homes and communities after disasters."

    Many of the provisions in the GIVE Act can be found in Obama's 2010 fiscal year budget blueprint issued in February. The administration proposes $1.3 billion for the Corporation for National and Community Service, which administers AmeriCorps. CNCS received an estimated $260 million in fiscal 2009.

    But some critics on the right suggest that the president's push for national service goes too far, and the recent congressional steps toward expanding the federal role in volunteerism and "civilian service" smacks of a larger agenda. They point to a campaign speech the president made last July in which he suggested national security could be entrusted to a civilian force.

    "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded," Obama, who worked as a community organizer in Chicago early in his career, said during a Colorado Springs rally.

    At the time, Obama was discussing expanding the USA Freedom Corps -- created by President George W. Bush in 2002 -- Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, as well as beefing up the cadre of foreign service officers abroad and programs in which veterans help veterans back home.

    "This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up," Obama said in the speech.

    "Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda," Lee Cary of the conservative American Thinker wrote at the time about Obama's remarks.

    "(His words) were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers," Cary wrote.


    The Senate is mulling over a similar piece of legislation, the "Serve America Act," sponsored by Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. It was given a special endorsement by the president in his address before Congress on Feb. 24.

    House committee staff insist the GIVE Act will not change the voluntary nature of service. Supporters add that the critics are a minority who prefer to agitate than assist.

    "Resistance to expanded public service programs can be expected from the ideologically sclerotic, those who occupy the negative ground between government as the problem and government as our enemy," former Democratic Colorado Sen. Gary Hart wrote in a recent op-ed on the Huffington Post Web site.

    Leave a comment:


  • cbprice797
    replied
    Yea this goes along with my thread about the State of National Emergency. The government can do many things and will do them unless the people make known their disgust and their will to make the government CEASE their actions.

    Leave a comment:


  • herbalpagan
    replied
    Thank you for your explainations! I appreciate understanding better. I was thinking more along the lines of an "apprenticship" or the Peace Corp, not the lack of choice and such. :eek:

    Leave a comment:


  • cwconnertx
    replied
    Originally posted by herbalpagan View Post
    Ok, I am a bit confused. I always believed that people should give to their community and country. I think that in some ways a stint at national service (similar to the peace corp) should be made manditory for most youth to instill in them good work ethic and a sense of community and charity.
    I do not believe that the government should indoctrinate our children in any way. So, I am a bit confused. This legislation doesn't seem to leave much in the way of freedom or charity. Could someone explain to me why manditory community service is enslaving someone rather than helping them learn. I am not averse to understanding. From a parents point of view, I wouldn't let my children participate in many school programs that I thought were of the indoctrinating type, like DARE, group counseling sessions and so on.
    I've just seen so many parents let their kids wander aimlessly and get in trouble for lack of guidance. While I think the majority of my kids wouldn't have needed this, a couple would have benefited from the work experience and structure. Am I just not seeing the picture with this?

    Just come down to my plantation for a little involuntary forced service and you'll understand a little better.

    Seriously, I think mandatory service is an anathema to freedom. Anytime you take someone's freedom away, that is not right in my book. I know some high schools require service to graduate now, and if that were the case when i was in high school, I would currently have a GED. I felt all sorts of pressure to "donate." I'm sorry, but I don't do coercion.

    Where does it stop, First a little mandatory "volunteer" work (can there be such a thing). Then I tell you what your profession is going to be. And how much you are going to make doing it. Thank you very much comrade.

    I just see freedom being lost every day. If they want to offer the option of a service program that is fine with me, but it has to be a free choice. The problem is if you have an opportunity to go in the private sector and make 100,000 a year but they require you to "volunteer" for 10,000, they have effectively stolen 90,000 from you. How about more, say you were an athlete or actor with the potential to make millions, or were starting your company and were going to make billions (the next Bill Gates).
    I know the other side of the argument is the public good, creating community, etc. That is how they start the march to communism. Donating your time shares the burden, so what if you lose 90,000 it is for the common good. Well if they can take 2, 3, 4 years of your freedom, when why can't they take just a little of your property. Or sieze your business for the "common good"

    I have never been looking harder at sailboats than right now. international waters never looked better. The very fact that people are thinking that this might not be a bad thing, tells me that i can expect a knock on the door and a boot on my throat sooner rather than later.

    Do you want to live safe, or would you rather live free?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lostinoz
    replied
    Originally posted by herbalpagan View Post
    Ok, I am a bit confused. I always believed that people should give to their community and country. I think that in some ways a stint at national service (similar to the peace corp) should be made manditory for most youth to instill in them good work ethic and a sense of community and charity.
    I do not believe that the government should indoctrinate our children in any way. So, I am a bit confused. This legislation doesn't seem to leave much in the way of freedom or charity. Could someone explain to me why manditory community service is enslaving someone rather than helping them learn. I am not averse to understanding. From a parents point of view, I wouldn't let my children participate in many school programs that I thought were of the indoctrinating type, like DARE, group counseling sessions and so on.
    I've just seen so many parents let their kids wander aimlessly and get in trouble for lack of guidance. While I think the majority of my kids wouldn't have needed this, a couple would have benefited from the work experience and structure. Am I just not seeing the picture with this?
    Well HP, you pretty much touched on it when you said that the majority of your kids would not have needed this, so, I believe it should be a parent's CHOICE for their child to participate and not made mandatory.

    What it is leading to is taking away parental rights and having the government become the "parent" by teaching them what THEY would have the youth do with regards to "volunteer" work and "giving" to the community. Being forced to do something takes away from having the compassion or will to do this on their own. Sure, there are a lot of parents who don't give a rat's patootie what their kids do and I feel sorry for them, but it is not the government's place to raise children.

    Once the government is invited in, it takes an army to get them out again, meaning into the homes of families.

    NOW, that said, IF a person takes government aid for say college, then yes, perhaps a community work program would be good, but only if the person has the right to CHOOSE if that is the route they want to go. Take the loan, donate time. Don't take the loan, leave them alone..kind of thing.

    The ones this legislation would have the most impact on are the ones who actually care about what their children learn, do, participate in, etc., as the choice to do so will be taken away. Just my opinion of course. :)

    Leave a comment:


  • herbalpagan
    replied
    Ok, I am a bit confused. I always believed that people should give to their community and country. I think that in some ways a stint at national service (similar to the peace corp) should be made manditory for most youth to instill in them good work ethic and a sense of community and charity.
    I do not believe that the government should indoctrinate our children in any way. So, I am a bit confused. This legislation doesn't seem to leave much in the way of freedom or charity. Could someone explain to me why manditory community service is enslaving someone rather than helping them learn. I am not averse to understanding. From a parents point of view, I wouldn't let my children participate in many school programs that I thought were of the indoctrinating type, like DARE, group counseling sessions and so on.
    I've just seen so many parents let their kids wander aimlessly and get in trouble for lack of guidance. While I think the majority of my kids wouldn't have needed this, a couple would have benefited from the work experience and structure. Am I just not seeing the picture with this?

    Leave a comment:


  • Skyowl's Wife
    replied
    Originally posted by cwconnertx View Post
    I hope the reset button is in the voting booth, I fear it may become the go boom button in the trigger guard
    Me too. Am afraid we won't have much country left by the time the voting booth rolls around.

    Leave a comment:


  • cwconnertx
    replied
    Originally posted by Skyowl's Wife View Post
    The brainwashings only continue. They would like to have your children from 2 YO on. One of the provisions I read in there was about "private schools" and how they could step in and "assist" them in "joining" their corps.

    They have referred to homeschoolers as being in "private schools". You read this last week about the NC mom ordered to put her kids in public school to give her kids a "perspective" different than the one she was supplying? Brainwashing.

    And yes, they will be expected to tell their "instructors" if mommy and daddy have guns in the house or spank them. That's part of the UN resolution on the child which will make it illegal to either spank or "force" your child to go to church if they don't wish to.

    Where is OUR "reset" button?


    I hope the reset button is in the voting booth, I fear it may become the go boom button in the trigger guard

    Leave a comment:


  • Skyowl's Wife
    replied
    The brainwashings only continue. They would like to have your children from 2 YO on. One of the provisions I read in there was about "private schools" and how they could step in and "assist" them in "joining" their corps.

    They have referred to homeschoolers as being in "private schools". You read this last week about the NC mom ordered to put her kids in public school to give her kids a "perspective" different than the one she was supplying? Brainwashing.

    And yes, they will be expected to tell their "instructors" if mommy and daddy have guns in the house or spank them. That's part of the UN resolution on the child which will make it illegal to either spank or "force" your child to go to church if they don't wish to.

    Where is OUR "reset" button?

    Leave a comment:


  • cwconnertx
    replied
    Originally posted by Skyowl's Wife View Post
    I agree, Lost, it's more indoctrination.

    In addition, the words "required" and "mandatory" violate the 13th amendment which says "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    CW? Notice of the HR was sent to me, the interpretation is mine.
    Well I would not worry too much about the administrative provisions, those are harmless.

    or to put in in mastercard terms

    Another government commission... 50,000,000+,
    handouts for college for national service $100,000,000+
    Another hitler, uh I mean obama, youth... priceless, and f**king scary

    Leave a comment:


  • cwconnertx
    replied
    Originally posted by Lostinoz View Post
    Conner,

    I believe that is what they are wanting to set up, a way to reach and indoctrinate the youth.

    Is that far off the mark versus what I highlighted in my above post?

    Oz
    The second part is the part ot be worried about, they plan to brainwash people to turn in their evil gun toting freedom loving parents.

    The first part was typical administrative boilerplate, that second part is the scary part.

    Leave a comment:


  • Skyowl's Wife
    replied
    Originally posted by Lostinoz View Post

    (5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

    (6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.
    I agree, Lost, it's more indoctrination.

    In addition, the words "required" and "mandatory" violate the 13th amendment which says "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    CW? Notice of the HR was sent to me, the interpretation is mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Skyowl's Wife
    replied
    You don't fear these people?

    I would also point out that they found a "right to abortion" in a shadow of a penumbra. No matter how you feel about abortion, how they got there is truely alarming. They can twist anything to mean anything and with the correct judge, it will stand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lostinoz
    replied
    Conner,

    I believe that is what they are wanting to set up, a way to reach and indoctrinate the youth.

    Is that far off the mark versus what I highlighted in my above post?

    Oz

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X