Universal Service

One -- COUNT 'EM -- ONE try and I'm done.

Spike said:
Would you like to explain how national service in exchange for college tuition is welfare like you claimed earlier? And how miltary service for college tutition is not?
Click to expand...

When one goes into the military, they do so voluntarily. They walk into the recruitment office under their own power and control. They then voluntarily sign a contract to serve at the pleasure of the United States government; and during that term of service they will be paid a monthly wage for that service. In addition, they are offered incentives other than the monthly wage just like any other employer does with any prospective employee. One of those incentives is college tuition. Another is veterans services such as healthcare, housing assistance, etc. This is an at will contractual agreement which is in addition to the wages paid for service.

In the case of college students doing community service they do not receive any wage during the term of that service. The incentive is not awarded until the terms of that service are met. If a person works 99 hours and fails to complete the required 100 hours, they not only do not receive any wage they also do not receive the incentive. They will have worked for nothing. They will not receive their welfare incentive.

Tying welfare payments to requiring useful work is not new. Welfare payment recipients in New York are required to do useful work as a requirement for receiving welfare payments. They can be seen on the streets of New York in special attire sweeping streets, etc.

The system is also ripe for abuse as those who apply for the $4,000 welfare payment get those for whom they are supposed to be working to pad their timesheets. Remember, the ingenuity of man knows no bounds when it comes to screwing their fellow man out of his hard earned wages.

Do not ask for another response in your usual circular argument method as that response will not be tendered. I have explained this quite clearly.
 
jimpeel said:

In the case of college students doing community service they do not receive any wage during the term of that service. The incentive is not awarded until the terms of that service are met. If a person works 99 hours and fails to complete the required 100 hours, they not only do not receive any wage they also do not receive the incentive. They will have worked for nothing. They will not receive their welfare incentive.
Click to expand...


Quick question - is it not possible to replace the word, "welfare" with "scholarship"? That's how I see this incentive, as a part of a scholarship program (neither word has been used in any of the articles I looked at). While attending college I was required to "give back" a certain number of hours to my community for some of the scholarship money I received. I did so because of several reasons: 1) I believe in community service and have practiced that, without monetary incentive, for years; 2) it's the least I can do for any money given to me to further my education; 3) it's win-win. I have never looked on it as a welfare program and I still don't. In fact, most of the scholarships me and my son are looking at now as he prepares for college are those that require a certain amount of community service and I'm glad it does because I believe this kind of work helps shapes a human being regardless of the background.

I'm just not understanding why the word and stigma of "welfare" is being branded here.
 
When one goes into the military, they do so voluntarily. They walk into the recruitment office under their own power and control. They then voluntarily sign a contract to serve at the pleasure of the United States government; and during that term of service they will be paid a monthly wage for that service. In addition, they are offered incentives other than the monthly wage just like any other employer does with any prospective employee. One of those incentives is college tuition. Another is veterans services such as healthcare, housing assistance, etc. This is an at will contractual agreement which is in addition to the wages paid for service.
Click to expand...


So what you're saying your whole argument defining this as welfare rests on the idea that in one case they voluntarily do national service in return for small wages and college tuition and in the other case they voluntarily do (much safer) national service for just college tuition.

You're not making much of a case here for there being anything much different, alarming, or welfare related about it.
 
That's what I've been asking and neither Cerise or Jim have been able to explain how the system is "welfare".

It's a college tuition in exchange for national service does not fit the defintion of welfare in the least. The only difference between this and military service is that by joining the military you also earn a small wage as well for doing more dangerous work.

There's really nothing welfare about either.
 
...it's almost anti-welfare. In this case, doing work for no pay..as opposed to welfare, which is pay for no work.
 
it's that there's this really strong cultural undercurrent in america that views government involvement in ANYTHING as fundamentally wrong and indicative of a "socialism" and a "welfare state." this goes beyond the simple cynicism many of us have about "bureaucracy" as reflected in comments like "oh, great government cheese."

unfortunately this view is so ingrained that any reason for its existence is long-forgotten and it has become a bumper sticker.

an irrational bumper sticker that is unable to understand that there are many, many things that are not effectively privatizable, and that all things cannot be run at a profit in a freewheeling laissez-faire way. (strangely, the strongest adherents to this view are perhaps the least entrepreneurial folks on the planet, you know, cash register monkeys and the like, but i digress.)

there are many things - like supporting education and certain other longer term projects - that businesspersons and other keeper monkeys of capital would be utterly insane to invest in because of the lack of knowable return on investment and shorter term profitability.

however, the minute government tries to get involved, all we hear and see is that same old bumper sticker. yawn.
 
"When one goes into the military, they do so voluntarily."

This college thing would be voluntary so that's not it.

"during that term of service they will be paid a monthly wage for that service"

Not sure how getting money differentiates military service from welfare more than this college program. Welfare recipients receive money.

About the college program: "they do not receive any wage during the term of that service".

Which you would think would logically separate it from welfare even more because, as Bish said, it's work for no pay as opposed to pay for no work.

What about unpaid internships that count towards college credit? Is that welfare too?

I guess getting any clarification is going to be "circular" though.
 
2minkey .. holycow, I never thought I'd say this but .. that made a lot of sense and was very well said.

spike .. I've stopped reading your posts, as I have certain others.

And for the record, the government does provide Federal Grants for many who attend college .. does that qualify as getting 'paid for attending school'? They don't receive a wage but they still get money.
 
2minkey said:
an irrational bumper sticker that is unable to understand that there are many, many things that are not effectively privatizable, and that all things cannot be run at a profit in a freewheeling laissez-faire way. (strangely, the strongest adherents to this view are perhaps the least entrepreneurial folks on the planet, you know, cash register monkeys and the like, but i digress.)
Click to expand...

Well put. Ever notice that bizarrely this bumper sticker tends to gravitate towards another one blaming Greed for many of societies ills?
 
nalani said:
spike .. I've stopped reading your posts, as I have certain others.

And for the record, the government does provide Federal Grants for many who attend college .. does that qualify as getting 'paid for attending school'? They don't receive a wage but they still get money.
Click to expand...

Well crap nalani, if you had read my posts you'd have seen that I had already brought that up. ;)
 
spike said:
Well crap nalani, if you had read my posts you'd have seen that I had already brought that up. ;)
Click to expand...

I know you mean that half jokingly but honestly, I can't get through the crap that you spew over and over again and it is circular .. but the usual suspects that you argue with for the sake of arguing do the exact same thing .. so I've just stopped reading them. What I brought up was a one sentence question. When I read what you attempt to bring up, all I hear in my head is 'Huh? Come on .. come on .. prove it .. let's see it ... where is it written in stone .. show me .. show me .. come on ... " You could make your point stronger and have more people read them if you took a look at your approach, that is, if you really want people to read them. If you want to argue for the sake of arguing then that's up to you. It's a waste of time but it's up to you, nonetheless.
 
Here's the way I put it:


"It's unclear to me how public service relates to welfare as it really doesn't fit the definition at all. You can get college tuition for public service already, you can also get college grants without public service now.

So it seems strange to be so alarmed at this public service plan."

I'll try to be better.
 
2minkey said:
however, the minute government tries to get involved, all we hear and see is that same old bumper sticker. yawn.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if the government didn't break more than it fixes & didn't waste three times more than it needs then we'd be more trusting. They tell us one thing & it ALWAYS is wrong.

This war of ideas has been around since our inception. It's a founding part of our culture.

nalani said:
And for the record, the government does provide Federal Grants for many who attend college .. does that qualify as getting 'paid for attending school'? They don't receive a wage but they still get money.
Click to expand...

The very essence of welfare. It's not the governments place to pay for your education. Given all the options out there, it's one of the least offensive, but forcing your neighbors to pay for your education is still welfare.
 
nalani said:
Quick question - is it not possible to replace the word, "welfare" with "scholarship"? That's how I see this incentive, as a part of a scholarship program (neither word has been used in any of the articles I looked at). While attending college I was required to "give back" a certain number of hours to my community for some of the scholarship money I received. I did so because of several reasons: 1) I believe in community service and have practiced that, without monetary incentive, for years; 2) it's the least I can do for any money given to me to further my education; 3) it's win-win. I have never looked on it as a welfare program and I still don't. In fact, most of the scholarships me and my son are looking at now as he prepares for college are those that require a certain amount of community service and I'm glad it does because I believe this kind of work helps shapes a human being regardless of the background.

I'm just not understanding why the word and stigma of "welfare" is being branded here.
Click to expand...

Scholarships come from private entities. Even the Pell grant is private.

Welfare comes from the distribution of other people's money taken by force, or threat of force, by the United States government in the form of taxes. One need do nothing to get welfare. In the case of some states they are now requiring some pittance of work to qualify for welfare.

Welfare started as abbrogation and abdication. Remember those words.

Welfare used to be called charitable contributions back in the day. Churches and other charitable organizations took in funds from voluntary contributors and distributed those funds based on need.

When the government welfare state was born, the government abbrogated the responsibility of the churches and other charitable organizations and those organizations abdicated their responsibility to the government. They said "Fine. You take over and we'll watch."

As time wore on, the churches and other charitable organizations stayed pretty much the same size; but the government welfare state grew exponentially and encompassed more and more Americans. This led to the state we are in today where the voters vote themselves largesse from the public coffers by electing the peron who promises to fill their outstretched hand the fullest.

In turn those who would fill those hands struggle to find new and better ways to glean the funds from the providers to appease the teeming masses yearning to spend freely.

It is, after that, but a matter of time until the Republic finds itself in its death throes unless change comes -- usually in the form of violent revolution. That, unfortunately, is the exception rather than the rule.
 
jimpeel said:
It is, after that, but a matter of time until the Republic finds itself in its death throes unless change comes -- usually in the form of violent revolution. That, unfortunately, is the exception rather than the rule.
Click to expand...



coup d'état :shrug:
 
jimpeel said:
Scholarships come from private entities. Even the Pell grant is private.

Welfare comes from the distribution of other people's money taken by force, or threat of force, by the United States government in the form of taxes. One need do nothing to get welfare. In the case of some states they are now requiring some pittance of work to qualify for welfare.

Welfare started as abbrogation and abdication. Remember those words.

Welfare used to be called charitable contributions back in the day. Churches and other charitable organizations took in funds from voluntary contributors and distributed those funds based on need.

When the government welfare state was born, the government abbrogated the responsibility of the churches and other charitable organizations and those organizations abdicated their responsibility to the government. They said "Fine. You take over and we'll watch."

As time wore on, the churches and other charitable organizations stayed pretty much the same size; but the government welfare state grew exponentially and encompassed more and more Americans. This led to the state we are in today where the voters vote themselves largesse from the public coffers by electing the peron who promises to fill their outstretched hand the fullest.

In turn those who would fill those hands struggle to find new and better ways to glean the funds from the providers to appease the teeming masses yearning to spend freely.

It is, after that, but a matter of time until the Republic finds itself in its death throes unless change comes -- usually in the form of violent revolution. That, unfortunately, is the exception rather than the rule.
Click to expand...

Ummm.. ok .. first, you should know that the Pell Grant is not private. The Pell Grant Program is a need-based, undergraduate grant program funded by the federal government.

Second, though I thank you for the unrequested history (according to jim) of welfare but your response has nothing to do with the questions posed though it is well-thought out and well-written. I'll pose the question in the most simple of terms at the end of my rant :D However, reading your response did prompt this memory from my youth: When I was in intermediate school I used to hate doing cafeteria duty. All students had to do their turn as cafeteria workers and that meant giving up part of your study hall and recess and you had to eat lunch alone after everyone else was done. I remember saying to my mom that I didn't think it was fair and that the kids on free and reduced lunch should be working those rounds rather than the ones who pay full price for their meals. I'm wondering how I feel about that now that I'm an adult. Is it right to make students of non-working age work for their meals because their parents don't have the means to provide enough and have to depend on the FDA lunch program? Which brings me to Gonz's response ..

The very essence of welfare. It's not the governments place to pay for your education. Given all the options out there, it's one of the least offensive, but forcing your neighbors to pay for your education is still welfare.
Click to expand...

I didn't expect it to but this thread has really been thought-provoking for me. That's a fair point made and it brings me back to the lunch program recollection. Should others have helped to pay for ones education because they could not afford it all and wanted to better themselves? I say "help" because it's but it's hardly enough to pay for an entire year of education, but speaking from experience, it's a huge help. I still say yes .. yes we should because you're right - it is one of the least offensive programs and in the end it produces a tax-paying member of the workforce and that helps pay for all the other federally funded programs - including the military. I support the Pell Grant because it helps better lives and further education. For my 4 years of college I have collected a little over $10k in Pell Grants. Since graduating three years ago I have paid over $12k in federal taxes (almost as much in state taxes) and that is on top of what is collected from each paycheck. That $10k investment the federal government made on me has been paid back quite well and will continue to pay in spades as long as I'm employed at this level.

Oh yeah .. I guess I should mention that I'm pretty anti-welfare. Maybe that's not accurate .. I'm anti 'learn to live on welfare'. I'm glad it's there for deserving families who are in need for a short period of time. I hope I never have to go there. But those who've raised families on the system .. generations, even ... seriously piss me off.

Ok, back to the question ... why is the term of 'welfare' being brought into this when the students/young adults in question will be working for this incentive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top