"Obama's 'The Give Act' = Mandatory Civil Service"

[orphia nay]

The conspiracy nutbags are saying that HR1388, "The Give Act" is bringing in compulsory civil service in the USA. That I've only heard about this in conspiracy circles rings an alarm bell, so that's why I'm starting this topic in this sub-forum.

I first heard about this at a conspiracy/woo forum, where someone cut'n'pasted this article: http://albanysinsanity.wnymedia.net/blogs/2009/03/14/obama-requires-you-to-serve-hr1388-the-give-act-to-reform-the-national-service-laws/

Read what they're saying at ATS:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread446549/pg1

However, googling news articles found this:

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-18-2009/0004991109&EDATE=

Pelosi Statement on House Passage of the GIVE Act

WASHINGTON, March 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement after the House overwhelmingly passed a bill this afternoon to dramatically expand national service opportunities and help Americans play a role in the economic recovery. The bill, the Generations Invigoration Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act, passed the house by a vote of 321 to 105.

[...]

"The GIVE Act will create 175,000 new service opportunities - more than tripling the number of volunteers nationwide. And it will reward those who volunteer with real investments in their education. It also expands the diversity of our nation's volunteer corps - encouraging Americans from middle school students to retirees to give to their communities.

[...]

That's hardly a significant proportion of the population. Surely compulsory national service would involve millions of positions.

I might go and read the actual bill itself, but I thought others might be interested in this in the meantime.

[fullflavormenthol]

Basically it appears to me that it merely seeks to expand programs like the AmeriCorps into something that it was intended to be, before it was cut down and reformatted under the Bush administration. The truth is that some people won't go into the military, but will still serve their country if given the proper vehicle. Hell, give educational incentives to peopel willing to help rebuild their communities and volunteer their services to the nation.

[Bobert]

This ElectricUniverse guy over at ATS may need to be put on suicide watch over this.

[fromdownunder]

In Australia, there has been a "work for the dole" (unemplyment benefits) scheme, which requires some unemployed people to perform 15 hours per week training or community service per week for 6 months and retaining unemployment benefits over this period. This has been happening for quite a few years, without any problems, except in many, many cases the nature of the work

It's not that intrusive, and for somebody like me, there is a better benefit. Over 55's can perform 15 hours + of Community Service per week, retain benefits, and not have to look for paid employment any more - ever.

The real problem is actually finding enough real work that really needs doing. Counting the number of hairs on a caterpillar by touch probably does not count as real work, but this is the sort of garbage that employers/welfare agencies think up to "help" the un/under employed. And in most cases, it really does not help people find real work - they are only "trained" to do something that really did not need doing in the first place.

If there is real stuff to do out there, fine, it's a good scheme. If there is not, the whole concept goes up like a popped balloon. It can be argued that there is always "real" stuff that needs doing, but for most of this you need capital management structures, plans, and on-going financial commitment to do so. And if it was really that good, the Private Sector would have taken it up in the first place - and paid people to do it.

Norm

[LightinDarkness]

As usual the woos blow this out of proportion and its hard for those of us who have valid reasons to dislike this bill to be heard. I am a big supporter of service learning. In college I was on the leadership board for one of the top service-learning organizations in the country, its something I really believe in and strongly support.

But I believe it must be voluntary. It must come from a desire to improve the community for no monetary gain whatsoever. Any incentive's means hordes of people show up just to get the incentive, particularly when the government is throwing money at them (the lines of accountability are not direct and therefore easier to circumvent without concern for moral codes). Which is why this is a bad idea.

But not for the reasons the woos claim.

[orphia nay]

As usual the woos blow this out of proportion and its hard for those of us who have valid reasons to dislike this bill to be heard. I am a big supporter of service learning. In college I was on the leadership board for one of the top service-learning organizations in the country, its something I really believe in and strongly support.

But I believe it must be voluntary. It must come from a desire to improve the community for no monetary gain whatsoever. Any incentive's means hordes of people show up just to get the incentive, particularly when the government is throwing money at them (the lines of accountability are not direct and therefore easier to circumvent without concern for moral codes). Which is why this is a bad idea.

But not for the reasons the woos claim.


That's the thing. I can't find anywhere in the act where it says it's mandatory. :con2:

I'm not sure if I can get the search results to work in a link, but you can find HR 1388 at http://thomas.loc.gov

[Holler Hoojer]

That's the thing. I can't find anywhere in the act where it says it's mandatory. :con2:

I'm not sure if I can get the search results to work in a link, but you can find HR 1388 at http://thomas.loc.gov

So what if it's mandatory? In the early days of the Republic there was mandatory public service (well, only for White adult men, but they were the only ones with full citizenship). It didn't seem to hurt anything, and it got a lot of roads and bridges built.

And, certainly when I was young, most of us (who didn't have more "important" things to do) entered mandatory public service as we were either drafted or enlisted. It didn't hurt and probably helped a lot as it kept the military non-professional and provided GI benefits for many of us.

[parky76]

When I was in high school I was forced to perform about 20 hours of volunteer service. I didn't like the idea then...I don't like the idea now.

Its a good thing Obama agrees with me. There will be NO compulsory volunteer service in the USA. CTists can relax.

[rwguinn]

That's the thing. I can't find anywhere in the act where it says it's mandatory. :con2:

I'm not sure if I can get the search results to work in a link, but you can find HR 1388 at http://thomas.loc.gov
They are keying on the Duties of the commission-Section 6104 of the Act.
Here 'tis: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c111DZob0Z:e373070:)

One of the things the commission is to look at (among others) is:
(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.

So, investigating whether such a thing is POSSIBLE= it's Mandatory!

[LightinDarkness]

That's the thing. I can't find anywhere in the act where it says it's mandatory. :con2:

I'm not sure if I can get the search results to work in a link, but you can find HR 1388 at http://thomas.loc.gov

Your right its not mandatory, but by voluntary I mean its something people do with truly altruistic motives devoid of any direct monetary gain. This act basically throws money at whoever does service learning, which will create a whole bunch of people signing up and doing the minimal or otherwise subverting the goals of service learning to get their check.

I've either managed or been in a lot of service learning programs and I've seen what happened when money was involved. I am a purist in this and don't even think we should be giving out awards for service learning (I've been given a few and didn't show up on principle after explaining to award committees that it wasn't a personal snub just against my philosophy on community service). So any program giving out money - and substantial sums of money - for anyone who "volunteers" really frightens me.

[orphia nay]

So what if it's mandatory? In the early days of the Republic there was mandatory public service (well, only for White adult men, but they were the only ones with full citizenship). It didn't seem to hurt anything, and it got a lot of roads and bridges built.

And, certainly when I was young, most of us (who didn't have more "important" things to do) entered mandatory public service as we were either drafted or enlisted. It didn't hurt and probably helped a lot as it kept the military non-professional and provided GI benefits for many of us.

I'm not discussing the advantages or disadvantages of mandatory public service. That's a topic for the Politics forum, I think. The topic here is how people are misinterpreting the bill and claiming "the sky is falling", so to speak. (Although perhaps your comments were addressed more to the conspiracy nuts.)

They are keying on the Duties of the commission-Section 6104 of the Act.
Here 'tis: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c111DZob0Z:e373070:)

One of the things the commission is to look at (among others) is:
(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.

So, investigating whether such a thing is POSSIBLE= it's Mandatory!


:newlol Thanks, rwguinn.

Your right its not mandatory, but by voluntary I mean its something people do with truly altruistic motives devoid of any direct monetary gain. This act basically throws money at whoever does service learning, which will create a whole bunch of people signing up and doing the minimal or otherwise subverting the goals of service learning to get their check.

I've either managed or been in a lot of service learning programs and I've seen what happened when money was involved. I am a purist in this and don't even think we should be giving out awards for service learning (I've been given a few and didn't show up on principle after explaining to award committees that it wasn't a personal snub just against my philosophy on community service). So any program giving out money - and substantial sums of money - for anyone who "volunteers" really frightens me.

Good points. You might want to repost that as a topic in Politics where you would probably get more feedback on it.

[boloboffin]

Well, we've got to get more 24/7 debunkers on the Internet somehow. I don't know about you guys, but six more months and I'm free and clear on my student loans!