Is it wrong for taxpayers to fund welfare of any kind.

[MasterJedi]

There's nothing inherently wrong for it but you have to have limits and cutoffs and the same types of restrictions as say working a job. Like drug tests, things like that. If people can't pass it then there should be some type of public works process where they have to work say fixing roads or stuff like that that's not really skilled and can be trained. You work, you get fed, if you want to get out of it work your ass off and you can but no long stays on welfare.

[MasterJedi]

There's nothing inherently wrong for it but you have to have limits and cutoffs and the same types of restrictions as say working a job. Like drug tests, things like that. If people can't pass it then there should be some type of public works process where they have to work say fixing roads or stuff like that that's not really skilled and can be trained. You work, you get fed, if you want to get out of it work your ass off and you can but no long stays on welfare.

So workhouses, basically?

With obviously humane conditions, etc etc. If someone is just going to be living off of welfare, has no way to possibly get ahead and doesn't really care then why not get some actual work out of them instead of just constantly giving them everything. Obviously this would be a last step after everything else has failed.

[MasterJedi]

There is literally not enough work that is of any value to any person to keep every low-skilled worker occupied. The term "zero marginal product worker" has been popping up for good reason. What you're advocating would both cost more than "welfare" and add to the sum total of human misery. But you probably already knew that.

That's a recycled corporate argument, which supposes an economic utopia without welfare. In the real world, a welfare recipient who sweeps streets is often more economically useful to the public than someone who sits on their duff. The exception is welfare mothers with children.

Well, if you want someone sweeping the street, hire him to do that, instead of keeping him on welfare.

but we can't have the free market running things, that's unconservative and unamerican (see bans on tesla sales and the vw/uaw fiasco)

These are the people who will never be off welfare anyways, so why not make them work for it instead of doing nothing.

[MasterJedi]

There is literally not enough work that is of any value to any person to keep every low-skilled worker occupied. The term "zero marginal product worker" has been popping up for good reason. What you're advocating would both cost more than "welfare" and add to the sum total of human misery. But you probably already knew that.

That's a recycled corporate argument, which supposes an economic utopia without welfare. In the real world, a welfare recipient who sweeps streets is often more economically useful to the public than someone who sits on their duff. The exception is welfare mothers with children.

Well, if you want someone sweeping the street, hire him to do that, instead of keeping him on welfare.

but we can't have the free market running things, that's unconservative and unamerican (see bans on tesla sales and the vw/uaw fiasco)

These are the people who will never be off welfare anyways, so why not make them work for it instead of doing nothing.

Because there is too much people and not enough work? Either we accept than some people won't work, or we reduce the lenght of the work week to allow more people to work. Sure, we could create useless street sweepers jobs like someone wanted, but, it's like the USSR. Creating useless jobs to have full employment.

So you're suggesting something that would never happen without reducing everyone's pay instead of something like bridge/road repair which would benefit the whole country? Most people will obviously only be on welfare a short time and that's what it should be there for. For the people who will never be productive I'd rather make them work for a living while still getting that welfare.