Actually, I join you in opposing HR 1444. But that's no reason to oppose what was in the bill that the President signed.
That is all.
slipping mandatory service under the radar?
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
Actually, I join you in opposing HR 1444. But that's no reason to oppose what was in the bill that the President signed.
That is all.
Even the original bill is bad enough, increasing allotments for expanding programs, programs that are intended to become mandatory not just by a school district, but by our federal government. Think about it; in order to graduate you must do community service work in any districts that adopt this legislation. So, already it is mandatory if a school district adopts that requirement for graduation. What causes districts to adopt this requirement? Why, throw extra dollars their way! And now look, all these programs are all nice and tidly like in place.
If the districts adopt the plan, they would require it. She isn't lying, it is what is.
If your school district decides to adopt this program in order to gain some of the cash, the requirement would be there. And if you don't think more cash for schools isn't a huge incentive then I think you live in some other reality than the rest of us.
First, you have to show me that such a requirement exists in the bill. That is what I believe is horseshit. As far as I know, there is no requirement in the bill that any school district accepting funds under this bill must make service mandatory.
I'll be glad to be proved wrong and agree with you that this bill is a bad one, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it is.
Based Chad
Was it me?
Yes, It is only a small number of legislators in this splinter group, and most of them don;t actually believe their own beliefs. They're like noahides. Real, but not real, know what I mean?
It's in the bill big mouth. Go read the damned link you posted. What the hell do you think allotments for elementary and secondary shools are tokens to the zoo??? In fact, I am unaware of ANY school in the several districts near me that DO NOT already have this requirement, now if they expand they can get even MORE money.
Did you not read earlier posters that know of the manadatory graduation requirements? How do you think districts get students to participate? Ask them pretty please??? No, they make it part of the curriculum for elementary and part of graduation requirements for high schoolers.
Last edited:
Your local school districts may require it, but not because the federal government mandates it. There is nothing in the bill that conditions receipt of federal funds on school districts requiring mandatory service of their students.
Schools can get money with voluntary service programs the same as if they have a mandatory service requirement. All that the bill requires is a service program, whether mandatory or voluntary.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
AGAIN___________Districts put the programs in place and then REQUIRE students to participate...requiring participation by any other word is a MANDATE. The Federal governement MANDATES the prgrams be put in place in order to receive the funds. Annually, the the programs are accessed as to how successful they are i.e. PARTICIPATION. In order to guarentee participation districts either REQUIRE it or make it a part of the curriculum...as to volunteers running programs that recieve funds such as soup kitchens etc, those are fine...but again that is not what this discussion was about it was about the students who are REQUIRED to serve at those soup kitchens etc!
But that's a local school district mandate, not something handed down from the feds. If you have a problem with local school district mandates take it up with your local school board.
Basically, the federal government says that it will help fund community service initiatives (something that it has done for decades). I find that pretty unobjectionable.
It incentivizes it for the cash, Dung. In order to receive the money some participation must be shown, in order to ensure the participation they do what? Beg? No. They require.
This directly creates an incentive for what you say you are against.
And they remove the direct requirement only to try to slide it in under some other legislation. It won't be long before this is added as an amendment to some bill for kids that nobody can vote against, sometime during an election year, probably on some made up "crisis" that will allow them to shove more manure in our mouths and tell us how great it is we have plenty to eat.
This directly creates an incentive for what you say you are against.
And they remove the direct requirement only to try to slide it in under some other legislation. It won't be long before this is added as an amendment to some bill for kids that nobody can vote against, sometime during an election year, probably on some made up "crisis" that will allow them to shove more manure in our mouths and tell us how great it is we have plenty to eat.
Based Chad
Was it me?
Lol. Finally. Damo is getting some revolutionary fire in his belly!
It does get taken up at local levels. It just gets pretty impossible to take on what has become sacred cows aka allotments. The point that you wish to brush aside is that the Feds know how these programs will be/are run and that they tie dollars to participation which only occurs in large numbers due to local requirements that are tied to grades or graduation...that you wish to split this hair is silly. It's a mandate by any other name.
1) I see what you are saying but I disagree that it is the federal government's fault that local school districts impose mandatory service requirements on their students. The fault lies with the local school districts. Basically, you are opposed to the decades-long practice of the federal government supporting volunteerism.
2) Make up your mind. Sometimes you get pissed when certain things are "slipped into" bills and complain that whatever is being "slipped in" out to be a stand-alone piece of legislation that is debate on its merits. Here you are complaining that setting up a commission to study, among other things, mandatory service requirements is stripped from a larger bill and presented as stand-alone legislation that will be debated on its merits.
I get it, you don't like the Democratic control of Congress but at least attempt to same some semblance of consistency. Otherwise one might think your criticisms are something less than principled.
1) That's garbage. I'm not sure where you are located but the idea that whether a local school district can or should require service to graduate cannot be dealt with on a local level is just plain horseshit.
2) Basically, you oppose federal financial support for volunteerism. I guess we can just disagree on that, but I don't see why we had to do this dance to get here.
Based Chad
Was it me?
you're just denying the impact of the money trail. it;s not a "position" per se, it's a thought disorder.
You're just being a stubborn ass! IT IS PART OF graduation requirements in every school district I know of. You cannot simply walk in and say stop making it part of graduation requirements. School districts and local boards have the power and that power is incentivized by the large amounts of money tied to these programs.
As I have said, if the government wants to make money available for REAL volunteerism GREAT! When they tie it to participation of school children it is no longer volunteerism it is mandates for participation. Pretending that schools can somehow offer these programs and students are going to just jump on board in numbers large enough to keep the funding coming, just for the heck of it, is naive at best and moronic at worst!
I believe that is disingenuous. They know what the effect will be, they set the goal and even wrote it into the legislation, that they removed it from this bill to garner votes only to try to press it later doesn't change the thrust of what they work towards. By incentivizing the "right" action, they work towards their goal and take one more step on that journey. I think it is pretensive to say "I see what you are saying, but I can't help it if they take the bait that is offered...."
That is what they expected to happen, and it should be what we expect to happen as well. Just one more tool in the cartridge of teach the kids WHAT to think rather than HOW to think...
It is bad slipped in, it is bad on its own merits, and it will be bad when it is slipped in on the next "Backrub Bill" (You know, the bills they use to make you feel better after they make up a new "crisis", I named it after what mommy does to you when you wake up sweating and screaming from night terrors) as an Amendment that nobody will be willing to vote against because then they'll be seen as "Voting against the Backrub Bill!" John Kerry especially will be flummoxed as he tries to explain he voted for it before he voted against it...
Well, it seems I am being consistent, so far I have made it clear this is a crappy bill that will make it so that kids will be required, in places that need the money especially, to take part in government sponsored "volunteer" organizations... I have explained how I arrived at that opinion and why I think it is a bad idea, so far all you have done is try to convince me that it's all okay because that one line was removed.
I don't like this legislation whichever direction they try to stick it to us. Government enforced charity is an oxymoron, forced "volunteerism" even more so, whether you give it to churches like Bush did, or if you only give it to more secular charities it remains a bad idea. Even without the line where they say that they will work towards making this a requirement everywhere this is still a bad bill. It was bad when Bush wanted to use it to help out churches, it is still bad when the other side wants to use it to help out and teach what they want... It's craptacular.
1) Who are "they?" Where I'm sitting a bare majority of a Congress dominated by the President's party won't even agree to fund a study on the feasibility of a mandatory service requirement. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. A large majority, however, supports federal support for volunteer programs. I agree with the majority. Federal support for volunteer programs is great. Federal imposition of a mandatory service requirement is a bad thing. But there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can have (as we have had for several decades running) federal support for volunteer programs without mandatory service requirements. That's what this bill does and that's why it's a good thing.
2) I agree with you here. Mandatory service is bad. But that doesn't mean that federal support for volunteer service programs is bad. The bill (which is just to study mandatory service, not to actually impose it) should be debated on its own. If anyone tries to slip it into a Backrub Bill, I'll be right with you opposing it. But again, this is no justification for opposing the long-standing federal practice of supporting volunteer programs.