Things to Remember Come One November in the Not So Distant Future

REFORMING NATIONAL SERVICE LAWS: The House passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (H.R. 1388) to reform national service laws. The vote was 321 yeas to 105 nays.

Votes: Donnelly, yea; Visclosky, yea

TAXES ON BONUSES: The House passed a bill (H.R. 1586) that will impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses causing incoming to rise over $250,000 paid to employees or executives whose companies received financial aid under the Troubled Assets Relief Program. The vote was 328 yeas to 93 nays.

Votes: Donnelly, yea; Visclosky, yea

http://www.post-trib.com/news/1489613,vote.article

Good old Pete sending kids to "summer camp" (whether they wanna go or not) and voting for an illegal 90% special income tax. I hear next his Dem buddies want to extend that tax to employees of companies which DID NOT get bailout money. At this rate it won't be too long until they work their way down the list to auto workers and to electricians & plumbers working on stimulus projects. Gee, I wonder if there's a tax hike he'll ever vote against on principle? Na! Good old Pete.

Mirage wrote:

[color=red]REFORMING NATIONAL SERVICE LAWS: The House passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (H.R. 1388) to reform national service laws. The vote was 321 yeas to 105 nays.

Votes: Donnelly, yea; Visclosky, yea

What the hell is your problem with the GIVE Act? It expands opportunities for volunteerism. It provides incentives fro citizens of all ages to do their part to make the country a better place. Seems pretty wholesome to me.

Well we could start here for example:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/house-readies-passage-volunteerism-critics-pricey-forced-service/

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.

Mirage wrote:

Well we could start here for example:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/house-readies-passage-volunteerism-critics-pricey-forced-service/

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.

"Some critics"? Like that lunatic Ann Coulter?

Summary: On Bob Grant's radio show, Ann Coulter suggested that President-elect Barack Obama's "civilian national security force" would lead to "a lot more Waco raids, Elian Gonzalez snatchings." In fact, Obama's comments about the necessity of a "civilian national security force" referred to expanding the Foreign Service, AmeriCorps, and the Peace Corps.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200811060010

From Obama's July 2 speech Today, AmeriCorps -- our nation's network of local, state, and national service programs -- has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife, Michelle, once left her job at a law firm and at City Hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. And these programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America's greatest resource -- our citizens.

And that's why as president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem -- they are the answer.

So we are going to send -- we're going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment, and skill sets; you'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda, and make their own change from the bottom up.

Mirage wrote:

Well we could start here for example:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/house-readies-passage-volunteerism-critics-pricey-forced-service/

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.

Leave it to Fox to twist and distort a very good program to make it appear like it is part of some vast conspiracy. President Obama has never suggested that volunteers could replace our military. He has said that building better relations internationally is more likely to be accomplished by expanding programs like Doctors without Borders than at gunpoint. Then again, if you try to twist reality so it fits into your "NWO"
set of beliefs, I guess it will. Luckily for our country, democracy has been proved to work over and over.I guess you missed this line in your link.But the bill's opponents -- and there are only a few in Congress -- . It seems the majority of our elected officials know a good idea when they see one.

Problem is Obama said what he said. No twisting required.

Mirage wrote:

Problem is Obama said what he said. No twisting required.

No, but intellectual honesty is required. Context does matter. What's important is what a person means.

Here is a link to Obama's voluntary service agenda, which was an integral part of his campaign.

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN FOR UNIVERSAL VOLUNTARY CITIZEN SERVICE

If you take a few minutes to read it, you will see the same points that were in that speech. He spoke about this many times during the campaign, so there is no sinister, hidden agenda at work here.

So you're basing your opposition to the GIVE Act on one quote, taken out of context, from one speech last July by Obama? That's really pathetic.

If you have objections to parts of the bill, then let's hear them. Your contention in this thread is that supporting this bill is a reason to oppose those House members who voted for it. You've got to be able to do better than you've done so far if you expect people to rally against a bill that expands opportunities for volunteerism.

I have no reason to support it and do not feel we need it. Beyond that a loosely put analogy would be declaring a Federal income tax to run the government that has now escalated into massive grants of foreign aid and domestic socialism at a heavy burden to the taxpayer.

The fact remains that Obama said what he said and also that some have already discussed how this vehicle could easily be adapted towards Obama's stated goal which I am very much opposed to.

But it is kinda funny that a bill that purportedly promotes volunteerism costs so much money.

Mirage wrote:

The fact remains that Obama said what he said and also that some have already discussed how this vehicle could easily be adapted towards Obama's stated goal which I am very much opposed to.

His stated goal? It's totally dishonest to take someone out of context like you're doing and make conclusions. I really don't know what your problem is, to be honest. I posted a link to his complete agenda on this subject. I suggest that you read it rather than depending on what "some have already discussed..."

The GIVE Act was originally proposed in 2007, the legislation has wide bi-partisan support and will be reconciled with a similar measure in the Senate called the Serve America Act, which was proposed last September, two months before the election even took place. So there goes your latest "hidden agenda" conspiracy theory.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2857

http://thenewservice.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/serve-america-act/

Quote :

Kennedy-Hatch Serve America Act
September 11, 2008 — Amy Potthast

Friday, Sept. 12, Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced new legislation called the “Serve Amerca Act” to expand national and community service opportunities. After the bill was introduced in the Senate, it was referred to the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

The legislation will seek to expand the number of national service participants to 250,000 (175,000 more than can be currently funded).

http://help.senate.gov/Min_press/2009_03_18.pdf

Quote :

U.S. Senators Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Edward M.Kennedy (D-Mass.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), all members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) today applauded Committee passage of the Serve America Act (S. 277), legislation that greatly expands domestic service opportunities for all Americans.

I don't see how you can possibly claim it's taken out of context. I heard him read it from the teleprompter and I read it myself. He said what he said and I am opposed. And I am also opposed to paying for this volunteer program - period.

Am I not being clear enough that I oppose both any mandatory program and this volunteer program?

Mirage wrote:

I don't see how you can possibly claim it's taken out of context. I heard him read it from the teleprompter and I read it myself.

Because you can't just ignore the rest of the speech. That's how I can claim that it's taken out of context. I can easily explain what he meant, because I read the entire speech... not just some bogus, cherry-picked snippet.

Besides, the words that you and the other wackos made such a big deal about weren't even in the original speech, as prepared for delivery. Don't believe it? Here is a transcript that was released to the press, before the speech was given.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/02/obamas-remarks-on-service/

So it's not even correct to say you heard him read this portion from the teleprompter. How the hell do you know what was on the teleprompter? The fact is you don't. On the contrary, the fact that his prepared remarks were released to the press before the speech without the remarks that you're all bent out of shape over makes it far more likely that those remarks were not on the teleprompter.

Mirage wrote:

Am I not being clear enough that I oppose both any mandatory program and this volunteer program?

Yeah, well as I've pointed out that both the Senate Bill and the House Bill were proposed before the election, so if you oppose them for reasons other than this bogus justification that you've cited in this thread, then that is your right. But to characterize it as part of a "hidden agenda" of Obama's is obviously false if the legislation was already drawn up before he even won the election. Is that "clear enough?"

How the hell do you know what was on the teleprompter? The fact is you don't. On the contrary...

Are you serious? So he ad libed the thing?

The only thing wacko is the urge to spend, spend, spend. Spend on everything and anything. Doesn't even much matter what the title of the bill is anymore or what the money is supposed to go for.

And call it cherry picking or not there is a very real possibility that we are looking at a mandatory service program, whether now or later. Meanwhile in more urgent matters we take two steps back on curbing illegal immigration.

I mean after all when you think about AIG-Gate is it any wonder someone would have a healthy distrust of the words spoken by these pols when their subsequent actions do not line up?

And here we are just yesterday talking about putting the bad S&L assets into a fund, except that is what we were led to believe the S&L bailout was supposed to have already done, not go buy banks.

Say no to this program and then let's get busy on true deficit reduction instead. We can start with foreign aid and the UN.