read…………..Those wanting these works projects are the first to find the exits as they trample their right counterparts at the exits.

My point was simply. Everyone wants it………NO ONE volunteers as evidenced by my assertion that they are trampling the right who are also fleeing to the exits.

Of course, the argument is largely specious. I fully think that you are capable of honestly supporting the military whether or not you served in it and one can honestly support teachers (that's a major part of this nanny state we are talking about — teachers for the Mississippi delta) whether or not one has volunteered.

Finally, you are selectively grabbing your stats. You quote that the peace corps has not fulfilled all its slots and I believe it. But you also ignored another stat in the comments which is that AmericaCorps has 4 times as many volunteers as needed. Honestly, I don't see the harm in providing programs for people who wish to to serve their nation. The major harm as I said way above is in finding the funds for it.

NANNY STATE KING.

AS I see it that is precisely the point. NEITHER left nor right have stepped in to fill these positions up to now. Once again the government is stepping in to fund programs that have failed because of the lack of volunteers. Now if the left is so thrilled about this notion of public service then why are there only 7600 Peace corpsmen when the quota is 16,000. Surely the left who are such big advocates of helping the needy, world peace and the like bound to fill these slots.

No?

The point is well taken that these programs fail because the people advocating them do NOT volunteer to serve in them. The left in this country accounts for about 150 million plus people. Surely out of that amount of people you can fill a few thousand volunteer jobs.

No? Of course not because as CO states. Those wanting these works projects are the first to find the exits as they trample their right counterparts at the exits.

In my neighborhood, these CETA jobs gave the local drug bums push brooms to lean on during the day and upgraded dope choices at night. When the CETA funding ran dry, the drug bums were back on the corner smoking stems again.

Just wait until soldiers are converted into social workers and the military goes “green” and engages in other forms of PC “progressive” “evolution” [sic].

It's always there — when leftists talk about “rights _and responsibilities_” (or “duties”) and when the participation of all young people (typically) is mentioned.

* * *

“Mandatory service would require a constitituional amendment but given the courts these days, it does not really matter what the constitution says.”

Nor has the Left (who have promoted judicial activism) stopped to consider what the Constitution says or means, for decades. They want what they want, period.

I'm just wondering if the same gooey drivel used during HillaryCare would be used when describing “national” (federal government) service — that people would be “asked to contribute” or “asked to participate” in something compulsory.

I can guarrantee that the world will change, and you can either cower in fear, or you can deal with it.

No one is serioulsy talking about mandatory service yet. I merely made a statement of prnciple, not of policy.
And, yes. one day non-Latino whites will be a minority. You can't stop that by law or faith or fear.

Mandatory “service” would quickly turn into the same state that secondary or even college is today. The children of the elite would end up in NYC or DC intering for powerful people and the children of blue collar children would end up picking up trash along the road. This would last until someone realize that black children are not getting the choice “service” jobs. Then the government would instittute a quota system where 15% of teach for America or the Peace Corps would be required to be black. People would then realize that “service” in nothing more than a return to involuntary servitude.

Also, courts in the past have ruled that mandatory service is unconstitutional. The constitution gives the government the ability to raise an Army but not to raise teachers. I would say that Mandatory service would require a constitituional amendment but given the courts these days, it does not really matter what the constitution says.

Let's have EVERYONE show how patriotic they are by not screaming to high heavens:
“Not me, someone else, please. I'll love my country by denigrating everyone else, but I can't be expected to actually do anything.”

For the most part, “national service” has translated into “military service” or politics — neither of which are a good fit for many Americans, for various reasons. But because there's been very little attempt to emphasize any other service type, it's become fashionable to denigrate those who do not serve in the currently common fashion, or conversely to (sometimes) misunderstand those who do.

We need more avenues, and it needs to become integrated with our culture, in the same way military service is. We all reap benefits from being American, but there have been only narrow ways to give back.

Where in 'national service' do you see anything about service being nandatory?

Actually, I think that's a good idea, . Let's have EVERYONE show how patriotic they are by not screaming to high heavens:
“Not me, someone else, please. I'll love my country by denigrating everyone else, but I can't be expected to actually do anything.”

We fund our volunteer military, don't we?
We fund volunteer elected officials, don't we?

National SERVICE has the word 'service', meaning that the money will be earned by doing jobs that need to be done.

While the overall budget is a concern, of course, i don't see any reason to treat funding for national service as in any way different than other necessary funding.