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

[Darth Plagueis]

ork

[Darth Plagueis]

Option 3.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Option six.

[opebo]

No.  Though I would encourage them to take up a hobby...

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think so. I don't think they should have to do manual labor, eight hours a day for the government to get their check, but I wouldn't oppose tacking on a requirement of ten volunteer hours a month to get their check.

[Maxwell]

I took the Sagestalker option 5.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Options 5 and 6. Also, options 1 and 3 are the exact same thing.

[ElectionsGuy]

As a libertarian, I don't believe anyone should be required to work, however I do think working hard for money and the satisfaction of earning money is important to our daily life, values, role in market economy, etc. If people want to sign up for welfare, which there's no problem with for me, then I think they should be at least looking for a job. I understand that people who are poor need assistance, but people shouldn't have assistance to be lazy, scam the system, or be on it for a lifetime (the "addiction" argument).

Voted for option 6.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Troll thread.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Option six.

[DC Al Fine]

I'd support make-work programs as an option alongside, education, training etc.

[H. Ross Peron]

I'd support make-work programs as an option alongside, education, training etc.

[TNF]

Implement a universal basic income.

[Darth Plagueis]

I personally support negative income + a flat tax.

[dead0man]

I'd support make-work programs as an option alongside, education, training etc.

That's where I'm at.  Maybe in another 50 years we will be able to support a certain percentage of the population as pure lay-abouts, but I don't think we've reached that point yet.  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.  I understand some of them have children that would need to be watched, well that's another job that needs to be done, child care for the working poor or those on aid out cleaning the spray paint off the underpass.  Whatever dumb guy labor that needs to be done.  I'd guess some of them might even have useful skills that can be put to use.  Hell, maybe it could even lead to real jobs....nah, that's crazy talk.

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

[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.

[opebo]

....Maybe in another 50 years we will be able to support a certain percentage of the population as pure lay-abouts, but I don't think we've reached that point yet.

Surely you jest - we've supported the owning class as purely parasitic layabouts for generations, dead0man.  And in a very expensive style too I might add.

[TNF]

We probably achieved the labor productivity and technological ability to go to a 4 day week as early as the 1950s. Case-in-point: a s**tload of useless jobs that produce nothing of value persisting (HR personnel, firms specializing in helping people find jobs, etc) in spite of their general lack of need and/or purpose.

[dead0man]

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?

nope, but good job making up things!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Something I'm guessing you know a lot about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. [/quote]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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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%. [/quote]k.....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, how about:
1) most have been paying taxes for social insurances for this very occasion, so they have already been 'giving back'[/quote]cite?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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


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!

[Torie]

They should be required to work, or look for work (and I mean really look, and maybe have to go somewhere for 8 hours a day to do it), or be training for work. Given that might mean childcare costs might have to be covered, the process might be more expensive than just handing out the welfare checks (particularly for those with no real skill set), but this is not about, and should not be about, money. (Opebo may think work is soul killing; I think it's soul enhancing.) It's hard having self respect when on the dole, it's demoralizing, and leads to, or exacerbates, dysfunctional personal habits.

[opebo]

They should be required to work, or look for work (and I mean really look, and maybe have to go somewhere for 8 hours a day to do it), or be training for work.

That's fine as long as we force you lazy rich to work as well - no retirement, no inheritance.  Just off to the work-camps with you.

[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.

[Goldwater]

I'd support make-work programs as an option alongside, education, training etc.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Implement a universal basic income.

[Torie]

They should be required to work, or look for work (and I mean really look, and maybe have to go somewhere for 8 hours a day to do it), or be training for work.

That's fine as long as we force you lazy rich to work as well - no retirement, no inheritance.  Just off to the work-camps with you.

I have neither retired (never plan to really), nor inherited much to speak of. What work camp do you think you should be sent to, since you in fact basically do meet the "requirements?"