(12-06-2017 12:59 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ironically, one of the main reasons those people went to school and got an Art History and Sociology degree, is because YOUR generation told them to, and told them that if they got a college degree that they would have a job waiting for them. It seems like nowadays all that Boomers want to do is ***** and moan about how awful my generation is, without taking a good hard look at the opportunities they themselves had, that fact that a good portion of my generation was raised by them, and that the rungs of the ladder up are being pulled up more and more each day (for example, they won't fricken retire and free up salaries for new employees).

We've now gone off of tax policy, but this sure is a fun tangent.

yeah, my generation effed up. don't make me carry the burden for this. In any case, it was your guys who did most of the effing.

I'd jump in here, but as a GenXer, I'm too jaded and cynical to bother.

If the shoe fits...

As a kid growing up in the 50's and 60's, I remember a book cover being handed out (remember book covers? Remember books?) that showed the relative life time earnings among those with college degrees, those with only HS diplomas, and those who dropped out of HS. The message was clear.

The government relentlessly beat the drum that the way out of poverty was college, and millions got the message. But the message was incomplete. It should have been to get educated or trained in something that one could use to get a job. That part never came through. The government did all it could to enable people to get useless or poorly marketable degrees.

It took me a long tie to realize what we were doing. Since I don't run the government, I could do little about it. The best I could do was advise kids (yes, I was in a position to advise a lot of kids) that no mater what they studied, at least have a business minor, just in case you don't find that dream job running an art museum. At least one has thanked me for it. That Art History degree just is not good for much.

I also wanted to send my kids to college. One majored in math and business, graduated summa *** laude, and eventually ended up working as a systems analyst, whatever the heck that is, for a major company for the last 25 years. Success story. The other majored in English, became a teacher, and has since left the profession.

when my eldest grandson graduated, I advised him to use the experience he gained working summers with his other grandfather and go into plumbing. he and I both foresaw a useless degree and a lot of debt.

College is certainly a good choice for some, but a bad choice for others. I wonder what the GenXers and Millinneals are telling kids these days. Is it the same old tired "college will set you free"?

We end up with a bunch of overeducated unskilled workers who think the world owes them a comfortble living. After all, they did as told and went to college. Now they are working MW jobs and upset they cannot support a family on that, so let's raise the MW until they can.

I think a lot of them need to learn a skill instead of shoving burgers for $15/hour.

Agreed on learning a skill. Relevant question, though: how do they afford the training for said? If you're a twenty-something who has an expensive degree with limited applications in the field, you're likely under a non-negligible amount of debt, as well, which makes it harder to get that training.

My nephew, the one with the Art History degree and business minor, added debt to become a paralegal. he is NOT willing to add more debt to become a lawyer.

I think maybe we need to be able to forgive some debt for those who subsequently learn a major skill - plumbing, electrical, HVAC, carpentry. So if a person who graduates with a "soft" degree subsequently wants to go back to a technical school to learn a valued skill, maybe 1/2 the old debt is forgiven on graduation?

(12-06-2017 09:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 12:59 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  yeah, my generation effed up. don't make me carry the burden for this. In any case, it was your guys who did most of the effing.

I'd jump in here, but as a GenXer, I'm too jaded and cynical to bother.

If the shoe fits...

As a kid growing up in the 50's and 60's, I remember a book cover being handed out (remember book covers? Remember books?) that showed the relative life time earnings among those with college degrees, those with only HS diplomas, and those who dropped out of HS. The message was clear.

The government relentlessly beat the drum that the way out of poverty was college, and millions got the message. But the message was incomplete. It should have been to get educated or trained in something that one could use to get a job. That part never came through. The government did all it could to enable people to get useless or poorly marketable degrees.

It took me a long tie to realize what we were doing. Since I don't run the government, I could do little about it. The best I could do was advise kids (yes, I was in a position to advise a lot of kids) that no mater what they studied, at least have a business minor, just in case you don't find that dream job running an art museum. At least one has thanked me for it. That Art History degree just is not good for much.

I also wanted to send my kids to college. One majored in math and business, graduated summa *** laude, and eventually ended up working as a systems analyst, whatever the heck that is, for a major company for the last 25 years. Success story. The other majored in English, became a teacher, and has since left the profession.

when my eldest grandson graduated, I advised him to use the experience he gained working summers with his other grandfather and go into plumbing. he and I both foresaw a useless degree and a lot of debt.

College is certainly a good choice for some, but a bad choice for others. I wonder what the GenXers and Millinneals are telling kids these days. Is it the same old tired "college will set you free"?

We end up with a bunch of overeducated unskilled workers who think the world owes them a comfortble living. After all, they did as told and went to college. Now they are working MW jobs and upset they cannot support a family on that, so let's raise the MW until they can.

I think a lot of them need to learn a skill instead of shoving burgers for $15/hour.

Agreed on learning a skill. Relevant question, though: how do they afford the training for said? If you're a twenty-something who has an expensive degree with limited applications in the field, you're likely under a non-negligible amount of debt, as well, which makes it harder to get that training.

My nephew, the one with the Art History degree and business minor, added debt to become a paralegal. he is NOT willing to add more debt to become a lawyer.

I think maybe we need to be able to forgive some debt for those who subsequently learn a major skill - plumbing, electrical, HVAC, carpentry. So if a person who graduates with a "soft" degree subsequently wants to go back to a technical school to learn a valued skill, maybe 1/2 the old debt is forgiven on graduation?

Interesting! I like it. I had a bit of a similar thing at Rice, actually--a loan through the state that turned into a grant if I graduated on time with a 3.0 or higher GPA. So, something like that, perhaps, where you can take out a loan to learn a trade as well, but if you graduate in a timely fashion, much of your old debt is forgiven, and the loan to learn the trade becomes a grant?

This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.

It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.

(12-06-2017 09:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 12:59 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  yeah, my generation effed up. don't make me carry the burden for this. In any case, it was your guys who did most of the effing.

I'd jump in here, but as a GenXer, I'm too jaded and cynical to bother.

If the shoe fits...

As a kid growing up in the 50's and 60's, I remember a book cover being handed out (remember book covers? Remember books?) that showed the relative life time earnings among those with college degrees, those with only HS diplomas, and those who dropped out of HS. The message was clear.

The government relentlessly beat the drum that the way out of poverty was college, and millions got the message. But the message was incomplete. It should have been to get educated or trained in something that one could use to get a job. That part never came through. The government did all it could to enable people to get useless or poorly marketable degrees.

It took me a long tie to realize what we were doing. Since I don't run the government, I could do little about it. The best I could do was advise kids (yes, I was in a position to advise a lot of kids) that no mater what they studied, at least have a business minor, just in case you don't find that dream job running an art museum. At least one has thanked me for it. That Art History degree just is not good for much.

I also wanted to send my kids to college. One majored in math and business, graduated summa *** laude, and eventually ended up working as a systems analyst, whatever the heck that is, for a major company for the last 25 years. Success story. The other majored in English, became a teacher, and has since left the profession.

when my eldest grandson graduated, I advised him to use the experience he gained working summers with his other grandfather and go into plumbing. he and I both foresaw a useless degree and a lot of debt.

College is certainly a good choice for some, but a bad choice for others. I wonder what the GenXers and Millinneals are telling kids these days. Is it the same old tired "college will set you free"?

We end up with a bunch of overeducated unskilled workers who think the world owes them a comfortble living. After all, they did as told and went to college. Now they are working MW jobs and upset they cannot support a family on that, so let's raise the MW until they can.

I think a lot of them need to learn a skill instead of shoving burgers for $15/hour.

Agreed on learning a skill. Relevant question, though: how do they afford the training for said? If you're a twenty-something who has an expensive degree with limited applications in the field, you're likely under a non-negligible amount of debt, as well, which makes it harder to get that training.

My nephew, the one with the Art History degree and business minor, added debt to become a paralegal. he is NOT willing to add more debt to become a lawyer.

I think maybe we need to be able to forgive some debt for those who subsequently learn a major skill - plumbing, electrical, HVAC, carpentry. So if a person who graduates with a "soft" degree subsequently wants to go back to a technical school to learn a valued skill, maybe 1/2 the old debt is forgiven on graduation?

Tell your paralegal nephew to get IP experience. Good IP paralegals pull down *very* good money.

So very, very presidential...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati...ck-schumer

Either Ted "Leave the Blonde in the Pond" set the bar or he didn't. I'm willing to agree with anybody who will disavow Teddy regarding any punishment to anyone for sexual misconduct. But the left continued to lionize Teddy after he killed Mary Jo Kopechne, and it sickens me that anyone ever tolerated that, much less embraced it.

And as for the idea that it was just an innocent mistake by a young man, be advised that he was older than Roy Moore was when his improper sex acts are alleged to have happened. I almost said "improper acts" but ole Roy has been guilty of a lot of improper acts long after that, they just didn't involve sex.

I've been thinking about posting this for a while, but OwlNumbers bringing it up now makes it impossible for me not to...

Courtesy of the immortal Art Buchwald...

(12-12-2017 08:09 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  I've been thinking about posting this for a while, but OwlNumbers bringing it up now makes it impossible for me not to...

Courtesy of the immortal Art Buchwald...

What is old is new again.

(12-12-2017 08:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:09 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  I've been thinking about posting this for a while, but OwlNumbers bringing it up now makes it impossible for me not to...

Courtesy of the immortal Art Buchwald...

What is old is new again.

As Julius Caesar would say...

(12-12-2017 08:09 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  I've been thinking about posting this for a while, but OwlNumbers bringing it up now makes it impossible for me not to...
Courtesy of the immortal Art Buchwald...

Well, what about Chappaquiddick? Were/are you outraged by Teddy's behavior? Was his behavior better/worse than Roy Moore's? Than Bill Clinton's? Than Donald Trump's? Why, in each case? And what was your relative degree of outrage in each one?

My guess is, if you lean left, you are outraged by Moore and Trump, but you make excuses for Ted and Clinton. And if you lean right, vice versa.

I don't know what it means, but I was--and remain--outraged by Teddy, not so much by Clinton, pretty much so sick of Roy Moore before the allegations--and frankly not convinced of the truth of the allegations--that they didn't register much, and not really sure exactly what to think about Trump. I probably have to admit that my greater disgust with Teddy than with Bill is probably at least in part because I agreed with Bill on a lot more policies. But I still think what Ted did was the worst of the four, by far.

(12-13-2017 12:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:09 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  I've been thinking about posting this for a while, but OwlNumbers bringing it up now makes it impossible for me not to...
Courtesy of the immortal Art Buchwald...

Well, what about Chappaquiddick? Were/are you outraged by Teddy's behavior? Was his behavior better/worse than Roy Moore's? Than Bill Clinton's? Than Donald Trump's? Why, in each case? And what was your relative degree of outrage in each one?

My guess is, if you lean left, you are outraged by Moore and Trump, but you make excuses for Ted and Clinton. And if you lean right, vice versa.

I don't know what it means, but I was--and remain--outraged by Teddy, not so much by Clinton, pretty much so sick of Roy Moore before the allegations--and frankly not convinced of the truth of the allegations--that they didn't register much, and not really sure exactly what to think about Trump. I probably have to admit that my greater disgust with Teddy than with Bill is probably at least in part because I agreed with /bill on a lot more policies. But I still think what Ted did was the worst of the four, by far.

A woman died. None of these other allegations against anybody resulted in a death.

At the time, i was amazed by Teddy's story. Wasn't it nine hours between the accident and him calling it in?

So the response to a misogynistic tweet from the current POTUS to a sitting Senator in 2017 is "What about Chappaquiddick?"

Where's the Picard face palm emoji?

Not to make you feel old, but I'm old enough to be Lad's dad (assuming '15 is the year he graduated) and *I* wasn't born when Chappaquiddick happened. :-)

If it makes you feel better, I don't have a good explanation of why he got a pass on that, though I do think it's why he never became President or got the nomination. It's an older generation of Dems mostly that seem to have the undying loyalty to the Kennedys. I'd suspect the fact that it happened the year after RFK's assassination and 6 after JFK's was not irrelevant to the reaction.

(12-13-2017 12:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:09 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  I've been thinking about posting this for a while, but OwlNumbers bringing it up now makes it impossible for me not to...
Courtesy of the immortal Art Buchwald...

Well, what about Chappaquiddick? Were/are you outraged by Teddy's behavior? Was his behavior better/worse than Roy Moore's? Than Bill Clinton's? Than Donald Trump's? Why, in each case? And what was your relative degree of outrage in each one?

My guess is, if you lean left, you are outraged by Moore and Trump, but you make excuses for Ted and Clinton. And if you lean right, vice versa.

I don't know what it means, but I was--and remain--outraged by Teddy, not so much by Clinton, pretty much so sick of Roy Moore before the allegations--and frankly not convinced of the truth of the allegations--that they didn't register much, and not really sure exactly what to think about Trump. I probably have to admit that my greater disgust with Teddy than with Bill is probably at least in part because I agreed with Bill on a lot more policies. But I still think what Ted did was the worst of the four, by far.

To be fair to me, Chappaquiddick happened >20 years before I was born. Hard for me to have an opinion on it when it was, quite literally, old news (Kennedy died during my first semester at Rice).

Similarly, Bill's "indiscretions" happened while I was in elementary school. Again, not much comprehension of what happened.

So yes, what happened at Chappaquiddick was heinous. It was also ~40 years ago and both parties involved are now dead.

Bill Clinton shouldn't be called on to speak at any Democratic event from now on. He probably shouldn't have been in 2012. And the "feminist" response to his issues at the time was horrific.

If you want a read on the present-day difference between Dems and Reps when it comes to things like this, I'd suggest you note that the majority of Democratic senators called on sitting Democratic senator Al Franken to resign because of credible accusations of things that I personally believe are far less heinous that those Moore was credibly accused of (because at least one person in Moore's case was a minor). Meanwhile, no sitting Republicans have called on the sitting Republican president to resign due to his multiple allegations, which seem to fit the pattern that he described himself taking part in on tape.

Next question?

(12-13-2017 08:49 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  To be fair to me, Chappaquiddick happened >20 years before I was born. Hard for me to have an opinion on it when it was, quite literally, old news (Kennedy died during my first semester at Rice).
Similarly, Bill's "indiscretions" happened while I was in elementary school. Again, not much comprehension of what happened.
So yes, what happened at Chappaquiddick was heinous. It was also ~40 years ago and both parties involved are now dead.
Bill Clinton shouldn't be called on to speak at any Democratic event from now on. He probably shouldn't have been in 2012. And the "feminist" response to his issues at the time was horrific.
If you want a read on the present-day difference between Dems and Reps when it comes to things like this, I'd suggest you note that the majority of Democratic senators called on sitting Democratic senator Al Franken to resign because of credible accusations of things that I personally believe are far less heinous that those Moore was credibly accused of (because at least one person in Moore's case was a minor). Meanwhile, no sitting Republicans have called on the sitting Republican president to resign due to his multiple allegations, which seem to fit the pattern that he described himself taking part in on tape.
Next question?

So dems circled the wagons when it was their guys who were accused and then republicans circled the wagons when it was their guys who were accused. Par for the course.

As far as Franken, at least democrats have put some restrictions on their their hypocrisy by admitting that they cannot simultaneously attack republicans for allegations while defending one of their own for similar allegations. I congratulate them for having progressed on the issue. I hope republicans can make similar progress.

I was alive during Chappaquiddick, and in fact spent the following summer in the area. I still remember the stores with the signs in their windows, "Don't ask any questions."

(12-13-2017 08:48 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  So the response to a misogynistic tweet from the current POTUS to a sitting Senator in 2017 is "What about Chappaquiddick?"
Where's the Picard face palm emoji?
Not to make you feel old, but I'm old enough to be Lad's dad (assuming '15 is the year he graduated) and *I* wasn't born when Chappaquiddick happened. :-)
If it makes you feel better, I don't have a good explanation of why he got a pass on that, though I do think it's why he never became President or got the nomination. It's an older generation of Dems mostly that seem to have the undying loyalty to the Kennedys. I'd suspect the fact that it happened the year after RFK's assassination and 6 after JFK's was not irrelevant to the reaction.

Why he got a pass on it is team over country, the same problem we have today.

(12-06-2017 09:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My nephew, the one with the Art History degree and business minor, added debt to become a paralegal. he is NOT willing to add more debt to become a lawyer.
I think maybe we need to be able to forgive some debt for those who subsequently learn a major skill - plumbing, electrical, HVAC, carpentry. So if a person who graduates with a "soft" degree subsequently wants to go back to a technical school to learn a valued skill, maybe 1/2 the old debt is forgiven on graduation?

My problem with forgiving debt is that it just encourages the incurring of more irresponsible debt. "Don't have the money, no problem, just borrow it and if it doesn't work out, well, they'll forgive it and it'll be nothing."

We need to discourage bad behavior, not incentivize it.

Well, Jaao, I am old enough to be your father. In fact, I have two sons older than you. I remember when all this came about. I would suggest that you and baker-13 bone up on your history before you start throwing this around.

The only way Kennedy avoided some sort of felony manslaughter or negligent homicide was through his political contacts. Nothing else can describe it. he drove off a bridge. he swam to safety. he called his political advisors first, and the police were not notified until until nine hours later, too later to test his blood alcohol. Ask yourself if you would get off so lightly in those circumstances.

I repeat for the peanut gallery (another time-dated reference) - a woman died. In no other incident discussed here was a woman killed. That alone elevates it above all the others.

True, it killed his presidential chances, which were looking pretty good until he killed her. But he was able to enjoy a long Senate career, and was memorialized as the "Lion of the Senate" upon his death. Who memorialized him?

Baker, it is not right to compare dismissing an easily replaced Senator with a President. Franken will replaced by another Democrat, and Schumer will continue to cast 46 votes (now 47) as a bloc, and when the next election in Minnesota is held, a Democrat will win the seat, and nothing changes. BFD. Easy for Democrats to be against Franken. besides, he confessed, sort of, and apologized, sort of. There was a picture.

More properly, you should compare Trump to Bill Clinton. President to President. Bill was way more visibly guilty of what he was charged with (perjury and obstruction of justice), but it was the Democrats in the Senate voting party who kept him from being removed.

I don't know if Trump did the things he was accused of. I don't like Trump. I don't like some of the things he is trying to do. he is an ass. But comparing him to Franken is apples and oranges.

(12-13-2017 08:48 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  So the response to a misogynistic tweet from the current POTUS to a sitting Senator in 2017 is "What about Chappaquiddick?"

Where's the Picard face palm emoji?

Not to make you feel old, but I'm old enough to be Lad's dad (assuming '15 is the year he graduated) and *I* wasn't born when Chappaquiddick happened. :-)

If it makes you feel better, I don't have a good explanation of why he got a pass on that, though I do think it's why he never became President or got the nomination. It's an older generation of Dems mostly that seem to have the undying loyalty to the Kennedys. I'd suspect the fact that it happened the year after RFK's assassination and 6 after JFK's was not irrelevant to the reaction.

Graduated in '11, so close enough. 15 was the number I wore for the Lads.

(12-13-2017 10:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, Jaao, I am old enough to be your father. In fact, I have two sons older than you. I remember when all this came about. I would suggest that you and baker-13 bone up on your history before you start throwing this around.

The only way Kennedy avoided some sort of felony manslaughter or negligent homicide was through his political contacts. Nothing else can describe it. he drove off a bridge. he swam to safety. he called his political advisors first, and the police were not notified until until nine hours later, too later to test his blood alcohol. Ask yourself if you would get off so lightly in those circumstances.

I repeat for the peanut gallery (another time-dated reference) - a woman died. In no other incident discussed here was a woman killed. That alone elevates it above all the others.

True, it killed his presidential chances, which were looking pretty good until he killed her. But he was able to enjoy a long Senate career, and was memorialized as the "Lion of the Senate" upon his death. Who memorialized him?

Baker, it is not right to compare dismissing an easily replaced Senator with a President. Franken will replaced by another Democrat, and Schumer will continue to cast 46 votes (now 47) as a bloc, and when the next election in Minnesota is held, a Democrat will win the seat, and nothing changes. BFD. Easy for Democrats to be against Franken. besides, he confessed, sort of, and apologized, sort of. There was a picture.

More properly, you should compare Trump to Bill Clinton. President to President. Bill was way more visibly guilty of what he was charged with (perjury and obstruction of justice), but it was the Democrats in the Senate voting party who kept him from being removed.

I don't know if Trump did the things he was accused of. I don't like Trump. I don't like some of the things he is trying to do. he is an ass. But comparing him to Franken is apples and oranges.

They're closer together than Trump and Kennedy, if for no other reason than the way society thinks about the way powerful men have treated women has changed in the past 50 years.

My only point was that responses to Chappaquiddick vs Nixon was roughly on par with responses to Franken vs Trump. Nothing more, nothing less.

The fact that we're having this conversation seems to bear that out.

(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.

I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.

(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.

I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.

Wholly concur. My only concern with it is the chance that it could become Heinlein's "Service Guarantees Citizenship" (i.e. the reward for service is the right to vote), which seems anathema to the premise of democracy (because I'm the sort of paranoid who worries about government riffing off of late-50's sci-fi novels).

A GI-Bill-esque thing, though--service guarantees training in the workforce training program of your choice, whether that's classes to become an electrician or college courses to become a screenwriter--seems like it would be fairly effective, assuming you figure out a way to pay for it.