I agree she should have to get some job, but not one she doesn't want. This is total bs. You can't force someone to be a hooker to keep their welfare benefits. Anyone who thinks they should be able to, should get a long stay in a small cell with a large, gay man.
What's with your new name, dude? Did you get hammered this weekend for the first time?
In any case, this puts liberals as well as conservatives in a quandry. Conservatives believe, correctly in my opinion, that a person should not be able to continue to get welfare if he/she is rejecting potential employment. On the other hand, conservatives generally don't believe in legalized prostitution.
Liberals in some places have argued in favor of legalized prostitution, and in places like Amsterdam, it is considered a perfectly legitimate profession. If one accepts this super-liberal position, then why should she be able to reject a job as a prostitute? Why should the taxpayers continue to pay for her when she has rejected a perfectly legitimate job. One could argue that the job is a lot cushier than one sweeping the streets, or cleaning office buildings.
Prostitution shouldn't be legal in my opinion, so the answer is clear to me. But as usual, many liberals want to have it both ways on this one.
