Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ruffian who wrote (297413)	3/20/2009 8:50:47 PM
From: FJB	Respond to of 793897

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

To: Ruffian who wrote (297413)	3/20/2009 10:16:25 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793897

OBAMA’S “VOLUNTEER CORPS” THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS JUST PASSED A PLAN TO SET UP A NEW “VOLUNTEER CORPS” IN THE UNITED STATES. THIS NEW “VOLUNTEER CORPS” WOULD WEAR “UNIFORMS.” "CHILLING. BUT EVEN MORE CHILLING ARE SOME OF THE DESCRIPTIONS IN THE BILL ITSELF OF WHAT THIS NEW VOLUNTEER CORPS COULD BE. IT DISCUSSES THE POSSIBILITY THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS IN THE UNITED STATES MAY BE, EXPECTED TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE” OR MAY BE “REQUIRED TO PERFORM A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF NATIONAL SERVICE." Here, I added the link for you. michaelsavage.wnd.com Now I could say... OMG you must have flown in on one of those black helicopters I've been hearing about. But that is not really what I am thinking. I believe in the strength of the free exchange of ideas. We lived that on ODAs...It is now more important than ever to listen attentively to each other while learning to recognize, appreciate and honor our differences and resolve to use our various and combined strengths to climb out of the hole together. We cannot, in these times, afford to miss a single good idea or consequence -- intended or unintended. Somewhere and within our collective wisdom we are far more likely to find one good workable solution together than none alone. We need to dig it out. uw

To: Ruffian who wrote (297413)	3/26/2009 3:02:34 AM
From: KLP	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793897

Red State: Promoting Statism in the Name of Service redstate.com Posted by hogan (Profile) Wednesday, March 25th at 10:26AM EDT 15 Comments With all the focus and attention on the TARP, the so-called “stimulus” bill, the nationalization of huge chunks of our economy and the various issues economic – lost in the weeds have been a host of destructive “programs” being developed and passed by the Obama-Democrat machine. Right now on the floor of the United States Senate is one of the most disturbing pieces of legislation I have seen in a long time. HR 1388, the “Serve America Act” is cloaked in feel-good rhetoric and supposedly noble goals, but it is nothing more than another Washington power-grab – this time targeted at non-profits and education – and ultimately at indoctrinating a whole new generation of Obamanistas into forsaking individual liberty and free will for the Statist worldview. The bill is far too onerous to detail here – and given Republican support for it, it would seem somewhat futile. But, the legislation is far too destructive not to spend some time on, and one of the few remaining patriots in Washington – Jim DeMint (R-SC) – gave an excellent speech yesterday explaining the bill’s misguided approach and his opposition. And here are just a few of the lowlights in the legislation: 1. The bill will substantially increase the size and reach of an existing federal government program; 2. The bill will burden taxpayers with more than 5 billion tax dollars at a time when we should be cutting back, not spending more; 3. The bill will steer funding and volunteers for public service away from churches, individuals, neighbors, and others who would like to lend a helping hand and toward organizations selected by bureaucrats; 4. The bill is full of vague language and has insufficient safeguards to prevent left-wing special interest groups from using tax dollars to advance their agenda in the name of “community service;” 5. The bill risks politicizing charity and community service by funneling funds and volunteers toward the preferred organizations picked by ideologues; 6. The first 25% of this bill is really education legislation, and should be in an education bill at the state level; and 7. The bill will compound the disincentives created by new limits on federal tax deductions for charitable giving, thereby decreasing the role of families, churches and other local organizations in their communities. When you look at the details – one realizes that it’s far worse than even that… more along the lines of full-scale indoctrination camps toward Statism. The legislation will, in many circumstances, force our children to participate in charitable activity as part of school – and that activity may well be chosen by or approved by a bureaucrat. The bill causes a federally chartered, Washington-based institution to, essentially, pick priorities and winners and losers in the charitable universe – undoubtedly putting many charities at a significant disadvantage… None of this even considers the lack of Constitutional basis for such a massive federal intervention into local charities and volunteerism… but when does that ever stop anyone in Washington? And when coupled with the soon-to-be-reduced lower tax deductions for charities, the Obama-Democrat machine is massively shifting the focus of charity from the individual to the State. As usual, your typical group of unprincipled, spineless Republicans is supporting it – and it’s hard not to forecast swelling numbers given the total eclipse of fortitude among Senate Republicans and the lack of direction from their leadership. Already co-sponsoring the Senate companion (S.277) are Senators Gregg, McCain, Hatch, Cochran, Wicker (MS pork alert!!), and Snowe. And Senator Isakson waxed on about its virtues on the Senate Floor just yesterday… hardly surprising, unfortunately. This is wrong-headed legislation and no Republican should support it. That a Senator is “well intended” is irrelevant and insulting. These people supposedly are grown-ups… entrusted with our nation’s financial well-being and bound by an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. The “power of 41” the Wall Street Journal lauds in today’s editorial regarding card-check is hardly very powerful when it only manages to stop something that would empower union thugs through the patently offensive elimination of the right to have a secret ballot, but cannot stop a massive, pork-laden, non-stimulating “stimulus” bill and the take-over of American business… and now American charity… by the federal government.