Should able-bodied, mentally capable adults who receive welfare be required to w

[Leftbehind]

What staggeringly offensive self-satisfied drivel.

Maybe in another 50 years we will be able to support a certain percentage of the population as pure lay-abouts

Oh, so we're aiming for full-employment, now, are we? lol Put in place an economic model that even attempts that and then you might have cause for the demonisation of the unemployed poor, but until then you sound like - as with most libertarians - an ill-informed idiot safely in a middle-class bubble of comfort opining about what must be done with the poor.

There are easy jobs that can be done by the welfare class that would only require a few hours a week (like 8 ) from the large pool receiving aid. We don't have robots that clean trash on the highway, they can do that.  Same with pot holes in the roads.

Ah, yes, those jobs already taken up by state workers - I suppose they'll be out of a job too, and treat like scum to your sort as well.

I'd guess some of them might even have useful skills that can be put to use.

'Might even' - how generous. They all do, but are stuck in an economy which doesn't utilise them.  

Hell, maybe it could even lead to real jobs....nah, that's crazy talk.

Yeah, or it might lead to less jobs around because companies and the state can rely on a reserve army of unemployed to do it without having to pay them. That's certainly what I found in my job - the store was critically understaffed, but could rely on a revolving door of unemployed (up to three at any given week, doing full-time work for two months) to fill the gap. The success rate of said workfare programme? 4%.

Why shouldn't they be asked to give a little back?

Well, how about:
1) most have been paying taxes for social insurances for this very occasion, so they have already been 'giving back'
2) because working for free is degrading and exploitative, given these people have little control of employment in a capitalist crisis.

[Leftbehind]

nope, but good job making up things!

Well exactly. You promote an economic system that doesn't guarantee work for willing people, and one that's prone to crisis and mass unemployment, and then sit there and blame them for their situation, and/or being feckless/stupid/scum.

Something I'm guessing you know a lot about.

Having to constantly argue against it, sure. Most people aren't so deluded as you and have had to face bouts of unemployment (many including workfare).

Is anybodies job "cleaning up the highway"?  I assumed it was all done by people on "community service".  And the guy whose job it is to fix the pot holes is WAY behind and could clearly use any help they can get.  I suppose we could just hire some of the people on public assistance if that makes you happy (it won't).

Presumably, unless America's already replaced all state workers posts with free labour, and in doing so rendered them unemployed earlier. I somehow doubt its a shortage of labour stopping roadworks, as well. But surely, if they're going to be working, then they should be paid a worker's wage?

Really?  Everybody has a useful skill?  Really?  I can't believe how stupid (insert whatever label you call yourself here...I know how you are your ilk are with labels) are.

Of course everybody has a useful skill, and could easily acquire more if the state helped them to - it strikes me that it says more about you libertarians who believe they don't than it does me. Also lol at tarring my ilk without even knowing what it is.

k.....

So replacing actual paid jobs with an army of workfare recieves a consequent employment success rate that's lower than before it was brought in.

cite?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/average-length-of-unemployment-at-all-time-high/?_r=0

If you can show me where I said "make them work for free" that be great....impossible, but great.

They'd be recieving the exact same unemployment entitlements as ever but now expected to work for free.

Look, we get it.  You're a bitter asshole that doesn't understand your political opponents.  It's ok really.  It's a common disease.


Now I believe it's your turn to feel superior and be mean for no reason!

Any mean spiritedness on my part is in retaliation and therefore with reason.

[Leftbehind]

Popping out of their office two times a day to delegate more of their duties and make sure you're run off your feet is the very essence of bourgeois morality.

[Leftbehind]

No, that's how you assume I think of them.  I've actually been poor before.  I know poor people.  I suppose it makes you feel better if you think that's how I feel, but it's not the truth.

Well hang on, it wasn't me that peppered your original post with abusive terms that I think even the most unbiased of observers would describe as hostile and unsympathetic.

I've never been unemployed, but my wife was for several years.  Thankfully she's recently acquired employment again.  Again, your assumptions about me are wrong.  A pattern.

Much like you've been making assumptions about those receiving benefits? Sure your wife wasn't a lay-about?

Of course, again wrong.

How?

Perhaps your definition of "useful skill" is different than every other person on the planet.  Why would they need retraining if they have a useful skill.  Maybe you don't know what "useful" means?

Rather your belief in what's "useful" is predicated on its employability in an often irrational market. All those out of work builders for instance, amidst a housing crisis certainly have useful skills that aren't being utilised, and I'm sure many have took upon other work and/or training in the meantime. The idea that the market is the perfect arbitrator of what's useful is, again, a belief only found in delusional libertarians.    

and I have no problem with that, especially in a time of need.

A rare moment of agreement, then.

After, the comment I was replying to? Really?

I have no idea what you're going on about here.

Just informing you of the success rate and effects of workfare here in the UK.

My issue is with the people that spend their entire lives getting assistance without ever trying to get off.  But I'll concede the point as I'm sure that makes up less than 50% of those receiving help.

And I'm sure it's a minuscule amount that is regularly highlighted and used as a consistent tactic to further demonise benefit recipients, as undeserving poor.

Or you could word that "They'd be recieving the exact same unemployment entitlements as ever but now expected to work for a very small amount for them."

Will they be getting wages on top of their entitlements? No. So the net result is you're using the crash-induced mass-unemployment to force people, many who've paid social security, to now work for free.

I don't think "retaliation" means what you think it means.

Actually it does - I took personal offence to your horrific original post.

[Leftbehind]

Many don't really until their unemployment checks run out. Or they have unrealistic expectations. But that does not mean that I don't understand how tough it is to get a job for some, for the reasons we actually both have stated. Heck, my roommate looked for 18 months during this horrific recession, without success (other than an Xmas gig at UPS). He got a job finally about 4 months ago, and moved out last week. And I know he was looking, and looking assiduously. If he had not been, I would have kicked him out.

Let's try to keep it less personal OK?

If you don't want it to be 'personal', how about stop propagating baseless smears against the unemployed? Carry on in your current tone and you'll deserve all you get.