I think that the lack of commitment to civic improvement is a chronic problem in the US. We send the poor to the military, we rail against teachers without spending 10 minutes with local kids, we rage against property taxes and local developments without ever going to a planning meeting, etc. So requiring some commitment of time to making the country, county, town or city a better place to live, sounds like a good way to improve the civic nature of the republic. And tax spending better be an investment, or else its just waste. Sure we pay taxes in different ways, but there are unequal contributions. Asking each to contribute 40 hours a year seems reasonable to me.
I would disagree about the "strong serving the weak being not how the country got to be what it is" (GI Bill, FDIC, Civil Rights Bill, etc) but I agree that it would be pretty much impossible to enforce this kind of thing for all Americans. College grants, maybe even WIIC recipients (not that they have much extra time), could be asked to volunteer. It's a carrot-only kind of program. The stick would be a non-starter, I agree.
Plan B, though after Plan A was "whitewashed" off the change.gov website (in the proper politburo fashion).
No, it's just that Plan A was poorly written. He's been talking about this kind of plan for nearly a year now.
Sure, he's been talking about it since God knows when, but when they get around to articulating the idea on their transition web site, they have to quickly backtrack from "required?" The fact that they can't get this absolutely critical fundamental distinction straight after "nearly a year" either suggests at worst a sensibility that leans toward compulsion in the first place, or that the cops running the policy/web site are of the keystone variety. Bodes poorly either way.
I'm aware of that, I was more talking about Kev's dream of the strong serving the weak without compensation being mandatory. The same kind of thing you people go apoplectic over if it the government tries to do that with socially conservative motives. I'm waiting for him to bust out with the "Jesus would have wanted it that way, so you repugs must not be very good Xtians" meme... None of the receipients of those measures could be considered weak...
Yup...it's official... Hillary Clinton as the new Secretary of State... because you know The One says he's bringing official change to the office and that change means the Clinton regime back in charge... with former First Lady Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State as our highest Foreign Representative... Perhaps somebody can tell me what diplomatic experience she has? What high level ambassadorial expertise she possesses? What treaties she has negotiated and worked with other nations? Obama said he was bringing change to the office... Is this it? But most important, what does such an appointment of someone with no state department experience for one of our highest government offices say about Obama? Recall the whopper that Hillary the C told during primary she was shot at by sniper while she visited Bosnia. What stories can we look forward to now?
Wow. I am AMAZED at how unpatriotic some people are. You just want to leech off of society, enjoying all the rights and freedoms that come with being American, but not doing any work to EARN those privileges. I've heard conservative people say things like, "Freedom isn't free," and they're right. Freedom does have to be earned. If you don't serve your time in the military or in public service, then you haven't earned your freedom at all. It's frankly sad, pathetic and kind of makes you a big pu$$y to let other people fight for your freedom, die for your freedom, and work for your freedom. I guess that's the privilege of being an American; you can let others do military and public service, and talk about how it's their choice. Meanwhile you, with your precious wonderful freedom of choice, get to choose to sit on your ass and benefit from the hard work of others. Hey, that's great. Choice is awesome. That's your right as an American, to not have to do your part. IMO, it's lazy, selfish and greedy. A bit cowardly too, I must say. But don't worry, nobody -- not even Barack Obama -- is going to take away your right to let others earn your freedom for you. Nobody -- not even Obama -- can make you love America enough to want to serve America. Just keep serving yourselves. I guarantee your freedom to do so is not in danger.
Wow. Chew on this: just because your are not COERCED to do public service doesn't mean you WON'T or DON"T do public service. Your logic is why most reasonable people consider rabid liberals complete idiots.
It's rare for someone with state department experience to move up to the Secretary position. How about this candidate. An economist by trade who was a professor at a top school. A former secretary of labor and then secretary of the treasury who then went into private business as the president and director of a large engineering services company. I suppose since this person has no diplomatic experience and has never negotiated a treaty he or she is not qualified. But most importantly, what would the nomination of such a person say about the President. . . . . . . . . well, you can't really ask him about his selection since Reagan is dead, but you can still ask George Shultz about how unqualified he was to head the State Department in 1982.
"Change" Chris... that was the snake oil that your guy peddled... If you're going to stand there and accept an otherwise unqualified former first lady being appointed as this nation's top foreign emissary yet at the same time attempt to extol the "change" he allegedly sold you on then you really are on drugs. Comparing other unqualified Secretaries does not cut it here; your guy said repeatedly he plans to do something different... change... Was that all bull?
You know, I could have gone either way on whether or not her last post/troll was parody or sinceere, but that last one MUST have been sarcastic...
If you're already doing public service, then you shouldn't have any problem with Obama's plan, should you? He can't force you to do something you're already choosing to do.
Well since Republicans are rich and the top 5% of earners pay for 60% of all services, I'd say it's the poor people who aren't doing their part. So I agree with you: poor who don't join the military suck. Thanks for making that point.
Nice point! Repped! Not to mention that poor people have caused this economic downturn by not paying their bills and then blame it on banks and George Bush.
This is 100% spot-on, with the minor caveat that you ignore unscrupulous lenders, middle-class and wealthy property speculators, corrupt or incompetent rating agencies, perplexing and ridiculous derivative products, lazy iBank and finance research teams, greedy investors, a lack of transparency, 35:1 ratios of leverage to cash, government that didn't intervene or even pay attention, low interest rates, and a business press that cheered it all on. But other than that, you pretty much nailed it.
And as the President of Bank of America said today - all that stuff plays a small part but the fact that people didn't pay their bills is about 80% of it. I am certain you have no clue what you are talking about. You know how many people didn't pay their mortgages where I work? Alot. It's simple, we set up a mortgage. We ask them to look it over. They agree and sign it. Many did not pay their bills. And you want to blame everyone else, right? The real shame is most of those poor people should have never been given loans to begin with but the party YOU vote for created laws that MADE us loan to them. Let;s face it Bo, you talk about alot of stuff you have no clue about. It must be an ego thing. You're even reduced to defending people who don't pay their bills, bills they agreed to. Bank Of America > bojendyk