XCR Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I didn't report on this earlier, as I figured it would die in committee.
After all, nobody would vote for COMPULSORY "community service" from school age children without parental consent, right?

WRONG!

If it was going to be voted on, the media would let us know, right?

WRONG!

It came out of committee yesterday, and is being voted on in the house TODAY! As of now there are 37 co-sponsors too.

HR 1388 is what I'm talking about. I don't know how to attach a PDF to a post, but there is a PDF of the bill from GPO (authenticated US government information). Go here and it'll pull up:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1388rh.txt.pdf

So now we'll have our little "national force" of elementary and secondary students (there are categories for other people as well) in uniform!

This includes a study on:
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 over come civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational back grounds.
Doesn't matter if your kid is in public school, private school, or anything else. READ THE BILL!

But even more importantly, call your congressman NOW. N-O-W.
This will be voted upon TODAY.

If YOU don't act, then YOU watch our nation degrade. TODAY.
The staffer at my congressman's office said that I was the first person she'd spoken to on the matter, and she didn't even know what the bill was.
I'm betting ALL of them are that way - it's a tightly held secret!

Let's kill this thing before it goes to the senate!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Thanks for the heads up Bravo, I saw this bill just this morning on the congress.org website.

I actually had a draft letter to my rep started in regard to this bill. This will, no doubt, lead to Obama's wishes for the civil defense force. Fox news has an article on this today and mentions funding of 1.3 Billion.

These guys are firing so much at us, that if we're not diligent one or two are going to get through!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
I didn't report on this earlier, as I figured it would die in committee.
After all, nobody would vote for COMPULSORY "community service" from school age children without parental consent, right?
Well, legislators did vote for COMPULSORY education of children, so I don't know why they wouldn't vote for compulsory community service. After all, there IS a significant educational aspect to such service.
So now we'll have our little "national force" of elementary and secondary students (there are categories for other people as well) in uniform!
What's it to be called? Obamajugend? :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Update:

4:40 P.M. - The Clerk was authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1388

It got voted on today, but then sent back for corrections.

IF YOU DON'T GET ON THE PHONE ASAP TOMORROW MORNING, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
According to my congressman's office - as of this morning - it appears this bill passed the house, 321 for, 105 against.

If you folks don't care about your kids being conscripted (or more to the point, the camel's nose going under the tent of "society has a right to claim your services and labor") then don't contact your senators.

Just set there and do nothing.

That's all it takes for evil to triumph.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
I don't really have a problem with the concept. I think its time for a lot of kids to get off their dead asses, put down the X box, unglue the cell phone from their ear, and contribute something to society. I don't know what all the panic and paranoia is about. Their are more important things to be concerned about than this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
Bravo, I think you'd save yourself a lot of grief to give up and look for Galts Gulch. The above poster is merely validating the reality of this country and the world.

I see this fight equal to being stranded in the middle of the Atlantic ocean and trying to swim out. The odds are, well, not so good :)

We are all already slaves and via compulsory schooling so are our children. This recent bill is just a minor encroachment. I see it more as a reminder of who's boss than anything else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Lex, once again I question if you and I weren't compatriots in some other life. Maybe we shared a fox hole. Sure sounds like it.

Just for giggles, let me throw an aside.... since you brought up Galts Gulch.

This morning I loaned my copy of that book to a fellow here I work with. According to him, since the economic crisis it's one of the most purchased books out there. I didn't know that, but I'll buy - he said that one of the talking heads he listens to calls it "mandatory reading". When he asked me if I'd ever read it, I just laughed and told him that back in '92 I had named my cat John Galt. I liked hearing people say "who is John Galt?" when I told 'em the cat's name ;)

I offered to loan him the rest of Rand's writings when he finished that one.

Not sure if I'm pushing the envelope too much or not, but I've decided that A.S. is the next book I'm reading to my kiddo (as soon as we get done with Unintended Consequences - edited on the fly by me LOL!). Might substitute The Fountainhead instead, still haven't decided that.

Oddly enough, the guy that I loaned A.S. to said that he'd seen a bumper sticker that said "who is John Galt?" - I gotta get one of those.

Northwesterner - it seems you lack a comprehension of the fundimental concept of liberty. If one is free, one can not be conscripted (which is what unremunerated labor is defined as). One is responsible for themselves, earning what they make, and nobody BUT NOBODY has a "right or claim" to ANY of what the free individual earns. You have no claim to my earnings or labor any more than I have a "right" to take your wages.

If you don't much care for bumble-headed kids, then maybe you ought to talk about parenting instead of government - because the post you made implied that you have no problem with GOVERNMENT forcibly taking on the roles and responsibilities of PARENTS.

Think about the consequences of that....... then go read Orwell's Animal Farm. Report back on what you find.

Fair warning though - when you talk about forcably taking away the role of parent from the parents, many parents will decide the FINAL line has been crossed. Most folks can tolerate a lot of things - you screw with their kids though, the claws come out.

Now Lex, don't be a jerk - clue me in on the directions to the Gulch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
In my youth I read some of Ayn Rand's books. Back then her ideas sounded great. But, in later years I realized they had some significant flaws, such as when she advocated cigarette smoking. ::)

More importantly, though, she preached that "rational self interest" would keep individuals and corporations from committing acts that are unethical or imprudent. Since humans are not a rational species, what most people practice (in varying degrees) is irrational selfish interest.

Because too many people won't regulate themselves, governments and laws exist.

I agree with Lex. The historical trend is one of increasing governmental control. This bill is just one more step in that direction.

Bravo, people (including you) have been tolerating the government "screwing with their kids" for a long time. I'll be extremely surprised if that changes anytime soon, if ever.

Face it. Whether you like it or not, socialism is the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
what most people practice (in varying degrees) is irrational selfish interest.
Because too many people won't regulate themselves, governments and laws exist.

Actually, I have no problem with people practicign irrational selfish interest - they'll be the risk takers and the ones that get hurt. What we need MUCH less of is governmental interference. Case in point: if it weren't for the governmental interference in the housing market, there never would have been the "problem" of risky loans on this scale - and the ones that did lend at great risk would have been the ones taking the fall-out. Not us. Government intervention caused the problem, and us "intelligent" people now want the government to clean up the mess the government made? Hardly. Let the free market system run its course. Just like Von Mises advocated long ago.
Bravo, people (including you) have been tolerating the government "screwing with their kids" for a long time. I'll be extremely surprised if that changes anytime soon, if ever. Face it. Whether you like it or not, socialism is the future.
Yes, I know. The problem I see is that I don't want to see violence in amirika. Boil that frog too quickly, and it'll happen. I don't want that.........

Socialism has to be our future, 'cause amirika has been a socialist country for far too long. The question then becomes: will we stay that way or turn back (and for the record, I seem to have come to find Claire Wolff's point of view to be rational).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
what most people practice (in varying degrees) is irrational selfish interest.
Because too many people won't regulate themselves, governments and laws exist.

Actually, I have no problem with people practicign irrational selfish interest - they'll be the risk takers and the ones that get hurt.

If they were the only ones to be hurt, I'd agree. Unfortunately, all too often others are hurt. For example, all of the people who bought houses they could afford have had their homes drop in value along with those of the irresponsible buyers who purchased above their means.
What we need MUCH less of is governmental interference. Case in point: if it weren't for the governmental interference in the housing market, there never would have been the "problem" of risky loans on this scale...
I'd have to take issue with the ideas that the root of the problem is CRA loans and that the government is solely to blame.

Lending money for houses that were not truly affordable by the borrowers was done throughout the economic spectrum, and in all geographical areas. It was not a phenomenon limited to minority and poor neighborhoods.

Many lenders approved questionable loans, without conducting credit checks and investigating the borrowers' ability to repay. CNBC's "House of Cards" is worth watching -- it's rerun perhaps once or twice a week.

Another factor that appears to have contributed greatly to the crisis are "derivatives". I'm not sure I understand them correctly, but these seem to be methods by which a lender can use a loan as collateral for another loan, which means that there are then two (or more?) loans in effect using one tangible asset for collateral. Then there is the 2005 increase in debt leveraging from (IIRC) about 12:1 to 40:1. Both seem to me like recipes for disaster, and both resulted from inadequate government regulation.
Government intervention caused the problem, and us "intelligent" people now want the government to clean up the mess the government made? Hardly. Let the free market system run its course.
As I recall, back in 1929 the government "let the free market system run its course" and the result was The Great Depression. It wasn't until the government began spending humongous amounts of money (for WWII) that the economy recovered.
Socialism has to be our future, 'cause amirika has been a socialist country for far too long. The question then becomes: will we stay that way or turn back
My opinion? No, there's no turning back. For one thing, many industries have replaced human workers with robots. It'll take a while, but I think eventually a substantial percentage -- if not the majority -- of jobs will have this fate. All of those unemployed people will have to be supported.
(and for the record, I seem to have come to find Claire Wolff's point of view to be rational).
Who is Claire Wolff and what is her point of view? (I googled the name, but found nothing that seemed relevant.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
If they were the only ones to be hurt, I'd agree. Unfortunately, all too often others are hurt. For example, all of the people who bought houses they could afford have had their homes drop in value along with those of the irresponsible buyers who purchased above their means.
Actually, if it wasn't for the CRA, the banks wouldn't have stuck their necks out so far - they wouldn't have made loans so flippantly.

Lending money for houses that were not truly affordable by the borrowers was done throughout the economic spectrum, and in all geographical areas. It was not a phenomenon limited to minority and poor neighborhoods.

True, but the fuse was lit with the CRA loans. It just got bigger and bigger...... look at how the funds "ballooned" over time.

If I understand derivatives correctly, it's linked to the fact that we've got a fractional reserve system. It's all bad news. More from the government, in the form of the federal reserve travesty. But yes, as you've set it out (basically) it's the same as what I understand.

Now for the crash of '29. The "let the free market system run its course" sentiment was espoused by (literally) the best economists of the time. Not US economists, but from all over the world. Look up Von Misus, and what he recommended to Hoover. The problems Hoover experienced politically WERE NOT due to the "do nothing" attitude. The population understood what was going on, and why. Besides, as the economists explained, for the government to do anything trying to "make it better" would only drag the problem out much, much longer. More people would be affected (instead of just the bankers, the entire population) and industry would nose-dive. If you look into it, Hoover was the secretary of commerce under Coolidge - he tried to put the brakes on the bubble for YEARS before he was elected. To the extent that between the time he was elected and the time he was inaulgurated, he got ahold of the FED and ordered that they start buying back bonds RIGHT THEN. Attempting to avert the coming "bubble burst".

But then fdr came into power - and decided to "help people". What the economists said would happen (before the crash) did. Exactly. fdr turned a 12 to 18 month problem that was limited to stock owners (which weren't the majority of Americans back then) into a decade-long problem that literally affected everyone.

(and for the record, I seem to have come to find Claire Wolff's point of view to be rational).
Who is Claire Wolff and what is her point of view? (I googled the name, but found nothing that seemed relevant.)
That's 'cause I screwed up the spelling of her name. It's Wolfe. Here's something to check out:

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- opening lines of 101 Things To Do 'Til The Revolution by Claire Wolfe
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,143 Posts
I think it is a good idea executed badly. Fine to encourage community service or helping others in some organized manner, and even to provide such opportunities. But to make this mandatory is forcing it down your throat, and it will not go down well, no matter how sweet the coating.

Did you notice that they're paying the kids off also? Up to $500-1000 for a summer, for up to two summers.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top