Should unemployed people on welfare work for it?

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Do you think people who are on government assistance like welfare and food stamps and unemployed should work for their assistance? Why or why not?

Do you feel this is a fair way to compensate for the assistance if they're unemployed? Explain why you think it is or isn't.

Also, should people unemployed show some form of proof that they are looking for a job instead of taking the free ride because the hand out is there as some simply just want the hand out?

Now of course people who are working, are on disability, etc wouldn't really be forced to do this. We're just covering the unemployed people able to work on welfare here.

 

[Fannie]

I don't know about anywhere else but this would cause problems here. We have Disability Living Allowance for those physically or mentally unfit for work but many who I would consider fit for work are approved and vice versa. I actually saw an article this morning about a man with a portion of his brain missing who was declared fit for work by our Department of Work and Pensions. I think your suggestion is the wrong way to weed out moochers as it would be harder on the people who really are unfit for work who have been declared otherwise.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

I don't know about anywhere else but this would cause problems here. We have Disability Living Allowance for those physically or mentally unfit for work but many who I would consider fit for work are approved and vice versa. I actually saw an article this morning about a man with a portion of his brain missing who was declared fit for work by our Department of Work and Pensions. I think your suggestion is the wrong way to weed out moochers as it would be harder on the people who really are unfit for work who have been declared otherwise.

Reread my post.. I strictly said "unemployed and able to work". I bet 90% of people (not including disabled) on welfare are fit to work, or close to it.. They either can't find work, or they would rather take a free ride because they're too lazy to work. This work would consist of basically the work volunteers would do, or simply a community service job. If a volunteer is willing to work for nothing, why can't a fit unemployed person do the same work for welfare and food stamps? That is the question.
If you really want to get technical... Even a mentally disabled person could pick up trash for a couple hours a day, js.

 

[Fannie]

That's still 10% of people on welfare not getting paid because they've been wrongly deemed ifit to work. I don't know where you would get that number from anyway. I have no clue what the numbers are, only that definitely there are people facing this problem in my country and any amount is something to consider.

 

[RegalSin]

BEGIN OF IMAGINARY EXAMPLE

Well lets pretend I am unemployed. The person who I am "dependent" on is barely able to pay the rent, car insurance, as well as food. I have a bill for my college which is because financial aide on purposely gave me the money early and wanted it back but I was stupid. I also had a robbery brought you by the patriot-act. I can't see out of my eyes correctly so I am unable to drive, and the operation is going to cost $7000. The insurance will not cover the operation at all even if it will solve my problems and allow me to fly in the military. Did I mentioned that I am an art major as well?

The person who puts me there taxes was fined $200. $200 dollars that I gave them for bills. The next year it was $500, and so forth. Somebody broke into my place more twice already. They did it when we all left for school.

I am not a drug dealer, or user. I am not rapist, I am an outcast because my skin color is too light or too dark and my hair does not grow in a direction it is accepted. I do not speak any other language but English.

Should I go on welfare or should I apply to be considered homeless and then apply for public assistance like this other art student who's family owns food stores but somehow they were kicked out of the house for over etc years. That is how they are going to college. Then again they speak two languages and are not even born in the USA.

My father actually paid me to find the letter for my child support because it was going to increase. Most of our conversations in my latter point of life was about the child support. He screwed up with my mother and was devalued her. So he blames her for leaving him. Yet he now lives with this other woman with my half brother who never ever ever lived outside of the house or suburb at all. While I lived from one-bedroom, to one-bedroom with a view of a brick wall.

How many stories I could talk about rodents. I remember the rat swimming in my younger sibling fish tank. The rat in the bird cage. The rats running like lighting from my bunk-bed which was in the living room of the one-bedroom. The angry rat trapped on a glue-trap. Our dog tearing up rats, along with the jumbo roaches that move like lighting who are not afraid of us advancing on them,

Should I take our welfare or should I try to actually find a job and then somehow work my life into a right direction. I did go to college and all inside a one-bedroom being told to take out the trash, walk the dog, blah blah

Should I go on welfare? Should I claim myself as homeless and go on public assistance. Should I get insurance. I do not know. All I know is that I need help because I am not stupid and have potiential to make great income but again nobody cares about my life. I have to work and make proof of my work

Free-ride? Oh great your like my imaginary jailbird uncle from my imaginary example. He says I would get more compared to him.

Did I mention that no store will hire me because they raised standards which prevented me from being able to get a summer job? So every-time they ask for experience all I can say is that I was in college.

Then the same father that would cry about child support even if I live inside a one-bedroom and never joined a gang or bs like that. Live inside a house with a pond, shed, garage, boat, Mercedes, and so forth. While I am thankful for the dog he gave my sibling ( even if it cost us extra to care for ) and going places with him in his red-car ( as wit Stan when his dad and mom was separated ). He lives inside of a house that have three bathrooms. Funny because my brother was messing around with "gangs" and was literally stabbed in the back.

END OF IMAGINARY EXAMPLE.

Taking that long imaginary example should that person get welfare or better yet declare themselves homeless and get public assistance???/

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

So people on welfare that can work but don't shouldn't have to do something productive in society to eat, have a place to live, etc? They should just have it given to them while they sit on their ass? I saw a video of a girl who's living off the system and feels she shouldn't have to work so she refuses to even search for a job. She feels society owes her and that everything should be free. Why should the taxpayers, people who are productive to society pay for them? Sounds like a typical liberal logic.. This isn't a matter of helping those in need that are already productive to society.. It's a matter of those that aren't.

@RegalSin learn to type in paragraphs. I didn't even read your post because of that.

 

[Klippy]

I think the welfare system could benefit better with an employment system attached. Imagine applying for welfare, but being given a good wage for honest work and if there is an additional need, the welfare comes in then. There are jobs out there that need done and can be done by many, but I also know welfare is beneficial for those that NEED it. It's a tricky balance.

 

[RegalSin]

Words of advice. In this world we have man, woman, beast, and child. Why don't we group these together? Because a child is just a small person, a beast is something we consume, women are in a separate classification of there own.

With women you have to understand they are built for the home. Back in Rome BC we had these women up for slave trade. Again a slave could become a governor at this time. A wife would have more actions then words depending on her husbands level of power.

Take that idea today. We have "freedom" and now a woman could spend her days inside her hen box living like a "cheap slave" she is. Being wined and dined on. When i went to high-school I probably spent over $100 dollars on one woman I barely knew. Her friend was even trying to get me to buy more stuff for her.

Point being in today's world women are living inside hen houses called apartments and every 30th of the month they lay eggs that nobody eats or impregnate. Again I really doubt you know what your talking about.

Your argument is like this officer I know. He takes a picture of people burning the American flag, yet he lives inside of an house being an officer. He makes the joke about welfare and these people while ignoring people rights that have been violated.

Your argument is extremely week. Did you read my last post. Should that person go out for Welfare or even apply for public assistance, even if they are trying somewhat to get somewhere with there college training.

In fact Osamabama and his HRA bs is robbing people blind. People who are practically poverty stricken already. Should Osamabama care use people who are able to have welfare to pay the tax fine for not having insurance. I mean lets say your healthy and poor but you do not want any medical insurance. Just fine it via welfare.

Also OP IT IS THE WAR FROM 2001 THAT HAS BEEN MAKING A FINANCIAL CRISIS OF THE WORLD. IT IS THE WAR AND NOT WELFARE. AGAIN IT IS THE WAR THAT IS TAKING AWAY FUNDS. Anything else is pure racism. 77% of the USA is European/White, and only 23% is non-European. The upper 14% of that 23% are of African decent. Again 77% of the entire USA is European. Do the numbers and census because I am pretty sure that people in small town who do not want to be military or police for some reason are using welfare right now.

I think the welfare system could benefit better with an employment system attached..

First things first GENUUU FORCEEE..............

There is already a system like that. It is called the volunteer sector. The public sector is funds from the government, the private sector is funds from people like me and you, the volunteer sector does not distribute funds, but is considered employment. People volunteer to prove they have the ability to do work. You might be doing nursing in a hospital ( for free ) when another person is getting paid that X + status of nursing.

To make you understand go search about Germany losing it's work credit program. This is money given by the state to private companies for hiring students in order to graduate with there high-school equivalent. This was and is one of the many ways for many young Germans to even be able to get work. Otherwise they would be unable to graduate or even get jobs.

Another problem is lessening hours. With less hours we take away time for employees to prove there value or worth or even being able to get a raise. Which leads to socialism AkA Gamergate problem.

 

[Fannie]

So people on welfare that can work but don't shouldn't have to do something productive in society to eat, have a place to live, etc? They should just have it given to them while they sit on their ass? I saw a video of a girl who's living off the system and feels she shouldn't have to work so she refuses to even search for a job. She feels society owes her and that everything should be free. Why should the taxpayers, people who are productive to society pay for them? Sounds like a typical liberal logic.. This isn't a matter of helping those in need that are already productive to society.. It's a matter of those that aren't.

@RegalSin learn to type in paragraphs. I didn't even read your post because of that.

To be clear are you suggesting that in order to get any welfare at all you must work? I'm all for everyone able to work doing to this to get welfare but if you mean it to be the only way to get the money people unfit for work and wrongfully denied disability are screwed and have nothing. More homeless on the street, yay!

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

To be clear are you suggesting that in order to get any welfare at all you must work? I'm all for everyone able to work doing to this to get welfare but if you mean it to be the only way to get the money people unfit for work and wrongfully denied disability are screwed and have nothing. More homeless on the street, yay!

Take these as an example..

Person 1 is 100% fit to work but he/she either refuses to work or can't find work. So yes, in order to get assistance this person should work. Why? Because working means you're earning the help and being beneficial to society rather than a burden.

Person 2 is like person 1 except he/she has a condition where they can't work in fast paced areas making it more difficult to find a job. I feel this person should still have to do some sort of work to earn the assistance.

Person 3 is physically disabled. This person is missing his/her legs and has to be in a wheelchair.. They get a pass as they can't work. Same with blind people or people with no arms.

Person 4 is missing a few fingers and has 1 eye.. This person can still work. This person can see and this person can function his/her hands. Of course they can't see great and can't use their hands great but they could still work, depending on the job. They don't get a pass, but their work is limited.

Person 5 is mentally disabled and or has a mental problem. Depending on the severity of the mental condition this person could still work. If this person is depressed, they can still work. If they're autistic, they can still work. If they're schizophrenic they can still work. If they have a reading or writing comprehension issue they can still work. Even some mental illnesses or disabilities have jobs they can do. This shouldn't be a crutch they should use. I worked with someone that was autistic so this isn't an "excuse".

 

[Adore]

No. Requiring people on these programs to work would take time away from their job hunt (which is a full time job in and of itself), and likely trap them in the system. Which I can say from personal experience sucks and only partially covers basic expenses.

These programs exist because we pay for them with our taxes. We are entitled to them when we need them. It would be a slap in the face to taxpayers to add another hurdle on top of the painfully bureaucratic and slow system to getting the help one needs, in a time when they often have no other options.

Also, should people unemployed show some form of proof that they are looking for a job instead of taking the free ride because the hand out is there as some simply just want the hand out?

Unemployment benefits run out after X amount of months, depending on how long you've worked somewhere. Usually 6 months. You have to find a job and work there at least X amount of months to receive unemployment after that point.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

No. Requiring people on these programs to work would take time away from their job hunt (which is a full time job in and of itself), and likely trap them in the system. Which I can say from personal experience sucks and only partially covers basic expenses.

Not it wouldn't. That's just an excuse one would use for a reason why they couldn't do the work. If you're playing video games, hanging out with friends, watching tv, sleeping all day, etc then you're not looking for a job. You're mooching off the system which is why I feel it should demand those that can work to do some sort of community service to earn their assistance. Set up the work hours to be 24.. Surely they can work part time, that's 8 hours in 3 days.. If that's not possible.. Then explain to me how some people manage to work 2 jobs and go to college full time?

These programs exist because we pay for them with our taxes. We are entitled to them when we need them. It would be a slap in the face to taxpayers to add another hurdle on top of the painfully bureaucratic and slow system to getting the help one needs, in a time when they often have no other options.

How so? Taxpayers money would actually be going to the programs while the people on the program are working to get the assistance. Meaning the taxpayers feel more comfortable helping those in need, rather than feeling most of the money is going to waste to moochers. Not saying the government should take more money, the money you receive would be payed off through your work. They wouldn't receive any more money than the money they get through the assistance.

 

[Adore]

Not it wouldn't. That's just an excuse one would use for a reason why they couldn't do the work. If you're playing video games, hanging out with friends, watching tv, sleeping all day, etc then you're not looking for a job.

Try finding a job for yourself that pays a substantial wage and get back to me on that. The fact that you're making such flippant assumptions about the lives of unemployed people speaks volumes about your understanding of this topic.

How so? Taxpayers money would actually be going to the programs while the people on the program are working to get the assistance. Meaning the taxpayers feel more comfortable helping those in need. Not saying the government should take more money, the money you receive would be payed off through your work. They wouldn't receive any more money than the money they get through the assistance.

If they're working for the money they receive wouldn't they just earn a salary...? Why should they pay back money that they earned? How would a salaried job not encourage someone to stay in such a system?

 

[Jetfire]

Should people unemployed show some form of proof that they are looking for a job instead of taking the free ride because the hand out is there as some simply just want the hand out?

I'll answer this one because I have an example.

A few years ago, a lady came into my office for an interview. Everything was going well until the very end. She asked me, "Will the government be able to see what I make here?" I said, "Yes, although you're self employed, you will need to report your income at the end of the year." With that being said, the lady rejected my job offer and said that she didn't want to jeopardize her government assistance."

There are many people like her that abuse the program. I strongly feel that the program needs to be reevaluated to catch those who are "taking the free ride" at the expense of the tax payers. Perhaps force them to pay back the amount they used up when tax season comes around?

 

[gimmepie]

You know what would be more effective? Training the unemployed to work in understaffed government departments like the welfare department.

As for the actual topic at hand though, obviously some people should receive exemptions like parents caring for disabled children or people with disabilities or long-term illnesses. But yes I think if you're able to work and are unable to find work over a period of time, you should be placed into a job by the welfare department. My only problem here is that if you're put into a job by the government, you don't need the pension anymore and should be paid the same as any other employee at the workplace and by the employer.

 

[Somewhere_]

You know what would be more effective? Training the unemployed to work in understaffed government departments like the welfare department.

As for the actual topic at hand though, obviously some people should receive exemptions like parents caring for disabled children or people with disabilities or long-term illnesses. But yes I think if you're able to work and are unable to find work over a period of time, you should be placed into a job by the welfare department. My only problem here is that if you're put into a job by the government, you don't need the pension anymore and should be paid the same as any other employee at the workplace and by the employer.

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head here. Regardless of one's position on welfare, if one is unable to work, then them not working with welfare is completely different from being about to work and not. You are right- giving people skills is much better than just giving him money (short term, money- long term, skills).

 

[Psychic]

A really common issue I have heard with the welfare system is that there are many cases where one can get paid more if they were on welfare than from remaining at their actual job. Especially in the US, the minimum wage in many states is not even a living wage. The point of having a job is to be able to live off of what you make. A lot of people assume that only teenagers have minimum wage jobs, but we know that in 2013, half of all minimum wage workers were over the age of 25.

So when the choices are between working minimum wage and being unable to feed yourself and/or your family, versus going on welfare, is it really so surprising that people will choose the latter? That should be a clear sign that we need to rethink our priorities and ensure everyone earns a living wage in the first place, because it will have an effect.

Reread my post.. I strictly said "unemployed and able to work". I bet 90% of people (not including disabled) on welfare are fit to work, or close to it.. They either can't find work, or they would rather take a free ride because they're too lazy to work. This work would consist of basically the work volunteers would do, or simply a community service job. If a volunteer is willing to work for nothing, why can't a fit unemployed person do the same work for welfare and food stamps? That is the question.
If you really want to get technical... Even a mentally disabled person could pick up trash for a couple hours a day, js.

A lot of assumptions to unpack here.

First off, where are you getting the idea that "90% of people on welfare are fit to work"? Can you provide actual statistics and studies to back up this number? You're using a few anecdotes as confirmation bias, and that's a completely backwards way to think. Yes, there will always be people who abuse any system - but that doesn't mean the system isn't just beneficial, but life-saving to the majority of those using it.

But if you're concerned about people taking advantage of the system, look at all of the corporations who take advantage of tax loopholes and bailouts! It costs a country significantly more money to give "handouts" to corporations than to those on welfare, but as someone who claims to worry about wasted money you don't seem overly concerned by that.

Next, while I like the idea of ensuring people give back to the community via volunteering, there are a number of issues with this. First off, it ceases to be "volunteering" if you're only doing it to receive welfare, and if you have to volunteer in order to literally ensure your family doesn't starve, that is kind of the opposite of what volunteering is supposed to be. Second, you're assuming that anyone is able to volunteer at any time. Volunteering requires giving your time and energy to something for free, and to assume that just anyone is in a position to do that reveals a certain level of privilege. Because you do need a certain level of privilege in order to volunteer, because not everyone has the extra time and energy to do so.

Lastly...you do realize that not all mental illness is the same, right? Sure, some people with a mental illness could theoretically do so, but to make a sweeping generalization about the capacity for all such people is ridiculous.

So people on welfare that can work but don't shouldn't have to do something productive in society to eat, have a place to live, etc? They should just have it given to them while they sit on their ass? I saw a video of a girl who's living off the system and feels she shouldn't have to work so she refuses to even search for a job. She feels society owes her and that everything should be free. Why should the taxpayers, people who are productive to society pay for them? Sounds like a typical liberal logic.. This isn't a matter of helping those in need that are already productive to society.. It's a matter of those that aren't.

You do realize that a lot of people on welfare have payed and/or will pay taxes, right? The whole point of this system is that it creates a safety net for anyone who finds themselves in that situation.

Again, sure some people will take advantage of that system, but the solution is finding ways to change that instead of buying into ridiculous stereotypes and assuming all people on welfare are X, Y or Z.

With women you have to understand they are built for the home. Back in Rome BC we had these women up for slave trade. Again a slave could become a governor at this time. A wife would have more actions then words depending on her husbands level of power.

Take that idea today. We have "freedom" and now a woman could spend her days inside her hen box living like a "cheap slave" she is. Being wined and dined on. When i went to high-school I probably spent over $100 dollars on one woman I barely knew. Her friend was even trying to get me to buy more stuff for her.

Point being in today's world women are living inside hen houses called apartments and every 30th of the month they lay eggs that nobody eats or impregnate. Again I really doubt you know what your talking about.

LMAO, where the heck are you getting your information? "Women are built for the home"? I would love to see some evidence, because history literally tells us that A) there have been a ton of societies where women also worked (ever heard of a "hunter-gatherer culture"? Women were the gatherers), and B) in patriarchal societies, men have a tendency of trying to force women to stay in the home. That's like saying "black people are built to be slaves" because they were enslaved throughout so much of history.

But please, keep telling us your nonsensical conspiracy theories. I did so love hearing about how you think there are no LGBT Jews because we only watch TV from the 1920's and 1950's. ;)


~Psychic

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Most of you aren't seeing the bigger picture, or just don't understand where I'm coming from... I know a large percentage of people on welfare work and pay taxes (I'm not stupid, I'm actually quite intelligent and in touch with reality) but there's also a fair percentage that doesn't work and pay taxes.. Those are the ones this discussion is about.. You guys just seem to think everyone that's unemployed on welfare is disabled or unfit for work which isn't true. Some simply just can't find a job either due to lack of their skills and qualifications, they refuse a minimum wage job, the competition is too large, or they just refuse to work or even look for a job. So with that being said, it would actually benefit those that can't find a job due to say qualifications because it would give them work experience. Of course they're not getting "paid" per say, instead they're receiving food and a place to live, and general welfare money for their work. How is this any different than any other person on welfare working? They don't make enough to be dependent upon themselves so they desperately need the assistance, which at the end of the day neither side has spending money. Hell, even some middle class families with good paying jobs can barely support their family. So if you really think about it, a majority of the population is "poor" if they're just getting by or need assistance to just get by.

 

[gimmepie]

Most of you aren't seeing the bigger picture, or just don't understand where I'm coming from... I know a large percentage of people on welfare work and pay taxes (I'm not stupid, I'm actually quite intelligent and in touch with reality) but there's also a fair percentage that doesn't work and pay taxes.. Those are the ones this discussion is about.. You guys just seem to think everyone that's unemployed on welfare is disabled or unfit for work which isn't true. Some simply just can't find a job either due to lack of their skills and qualifications, they refuse a minimum wage job, the competition is too large, or they just refuse to work or even look for a job. So with that being said, it would actually benefit those that can't find a job due to say qualifications because it would give them work experience. Of course they're not getting "paid" per say, instead they're receiving food and a place to live, and general welfare money for their work. How is this any different than any other person on welfare working? They don't make enough to be dependent upon themselves so they desperately need the assistance, which at the end of the day neither side has spending money. Hell, even some middle class families with good paying jobs can barely support their family. So if you really think about it, a majority of the population is "poor" if they're just getting by or need assistance to just get by.

It's not that we're ignoring that people can and do abuse the system. It's that we recognise that the majority of people have legitimate reasons for being on a welfare payment. We can't screw over the many to penalise the few. We also can't make assumptions about people just because some abuse their access to government payments.

I suffer from an undiagnosed (doctors can't agree on what it is or even identify the cause) longterm illness. I can barely manage to leave the house to make medical appointments. I get sick all the time and never know when I'll be fine and when I'll be extremely ill. I wish I could go back to work and study, I can't. My money goes to helping pay bills and covering my medication. Should I stop getting money because the guy down the street can work and doesn't?

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

It's not that we're ignoring that people can and do abuse the system. It's that we recognise that the majority of people have legitimate reasons for being on a welfare payment. We can't screw over the many to penalise the few. We also can't make assumptions about people just because some abuse their access to government payments.

There's more unemployed fit welfare than unfit. Some crutch by saying, "Oh I'm depressed and scared to communicate with people therefore I can't work". That's not an excuse, it would be better for them if they actually worked (and to those that think I don't know what depression is like, I do. I've seen and been through shit, my every breathe is a fucking struggle).

I suffer from an undiagnosed (doctors can't agree on what it is or even identify the cause) longterm illness. I can barely manage to leave the house to make medical appointments. I get sick all the time and never know when I'll be fine and when I'll be extremely ill. I wish I could go back to work and study, I can't. My money goes to helping pay bills and covering my medication. Should I stop getting money because the guy down the street can work and doesn't?

I've been in the same position.. I suffered from appendicitis for about 3 months, and believe me, it was the 3 scariest months of my life. I was in the hospital going into surgery with a couple days to live and they needed a couple days to even consider putting me under for surgery due to the infections I had, I'm lucky to be alive. For about the first month I could somewhat work but I'd have to leave early. After that, I failed a drug test got fired and I was done. I was literally dying so I couldn't work even if I wanted to. So no, I'm not saying you should work unless you're fit to work. This is strictly about the unemployed and fit. Like the example you've given. Yes, he should work since he's fit. But given your condition you shouldn't. I never said "ALL UNEMPLOYED ON WELFARE SHOULD WORK". I only said the unemployed and fit. There's really a huge difference between the two.