Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of those 83 programs have to do with education and work. Republicans want poor people to be uneducated slaves, starving in the streets, so they will always be available as desperate workers to fill any gap in the workforce. But there is a fallacy in that dream. A lot of them will die in the streets. Then the Republicans can't use them as slaves.
A lot of those 83 programs have to do with education and work. Republicans want poor people to be uneducated slaves, starving in the streets, so they will always be available as desperate workers to fill any gap in the workforce. But there is a fallacy in that dream. A lot of them will die in the streets. Then the Republicans can't use them as slaves.
Holy cow, who told you our plan?
But you are wrong about one thing, we don't want them to die in the streets, because once they die in the streets they always vote democrat.
We haven't figured out how to solve that one yet, but we're working on it!
A lot of those 83 programs have to do with education and work. Republicans want poor people to be uneducated slaves, starving in the streets, so they will always be available as desperate workers to fill any gap in the workforce. But there is a fallacy in that dream. A lot of them will die in the streets. Then the Republicans can't use them as slaves.
Notice how this works? First, he makes a bald-faced lie about the programs. Then he just goes "anyway, whatever" and ignores their entire existence. Finally, he launches into a rote recitation of how Republicans want slaves, which he could (and will) tack on to any post he wants. Then, while people are scrambling to point out how incorrect he is, you don't notice that he never refuted the original source points that he demanded. This is classically how liberals debate things.
Now, any normal person would read his post and just be standing there speechless like "what --- how ....who??? WHAT??" Like, you're so impressed by how vapid the post is that you're actually stunned into complete silence. That's the point. It's literally so wrong that you don't even know where to begin. It's like if you were discussing the internal combustion engine and someone came up to you and said "trees are Legos glued with rainbows horse tulip. True?"
I think you're missing my point. I don't care whether a volunteer organization
has liability insurance, since they're not supporting me. That's a false
connection you're attempting to make.
P.S. You probably have never volunteered, because if you did you would know that all you have to do is sign a waiver. And if people on welfare do not wish to sign such a waiver and pick up trash, then they could just be cut off from welfare. It's a very easy solution, so you should not attempt to make it seem complicated.
I think perhaps you are missing the point. This has nothing to do with you or your opinions. Business are still required to carry liability insurance. My point is there are not enough private/non-profit agencies to "employ" welfare recipients. As is, there are already lots of people required to complete community service hours including court ordered, high school requirements, boy scouts, etc. Creating volunteer work thru gov. agencies is going to cost money. Take picking up garbage for example. You need an admin. position to coordinate schedules and locations, you need transportation, someone to keep up with hours. Keeping in mind most recipients are single mothers, so you have an issue with child care. Just like drug testing you are essentially costing the taxpayers more money.
Don't get me wrong I believe having recipients doing some work for their benefits would be great. I'm sure many who are down on their luck would feel better about themselves if they could "earn their keep" plus it could lead to employment for them. It might even discourage those who just want to "ride the gravy train" from leading a live of handout dependency. I just don't see this as a feasible solution given our current state of government regulations and fear of law suits.
P.S. Perhaps you shouldn't assume. Although it has been many years since I did any volunteer work I still understand how these things work. A wavier would not hold up in court especially since the "volunteer" is receiving monetary benefit "welfare" for their service even if the benefit is not supplied directly by the non-profit agency.
This has nothing to do with you or your opinions. Business are still required to carry liability insurance.
No, I think you're the one missing the point. You don't need to carry any liability if they sign a waiver. And if they don't want to sign the waiver, then they can forfeit welfare. You're sitting around acting like the welfare recipient is the one in control. You're wrong. The welfare recipient has no control. They have nothing. The end.
Your entire post is the embodiment of what I was saying. It's all "well, they can choose to work, if it makes them feel better about themselves." Uh, yeah, nobody cares if they feel better about themselves. They're receiving support from the community, therefore they are obligated to return the favor. This isn't self-esteem class or like "hey, everyone, I have a sign up sheet I can pass around!!" It's like "if you want to keep getting money, you're working today. Or there's a piece of ground out back you can lay down in and we can cover you with dirt."
No, I think you're the one missing the point. You don't need to carry any liability if they sign a waiver. And if they don't want to sign the waiver, then they can forfeit welfare. You're sitting around acting like the welfare recipient is the one in control. You're wrong. The welfare recipient has no control. They have nothing. The end.
Your entire post is the embodiment of what I was saying. It's all "well, they can choose to work, if it makes them feel better about themselves." Uh, yeah, nobody cares if they feel better about themselves. They're receiving support from the community, therefore they are obligated to return the favor. This isn't self-esteem class or like "hey, everyone, I have a sign up sheet I can pass around!!" It's like "if you want to keep getting money, you're working today. Or there's a piece of ground out back you can lay down in and we can cover you with dirt."
If you want to believe a wavier is going to hold up under the circumstance of coerced voluntary work be my guest but anyone familiar with running a business for profit or non profit knows how expensive it can be to cover your butt. This has nothing to do with the welfare recipient it has everything to do with our system.
Since you seem to have all the details worked out you should write up a proposal and submit it to your state representative.
^^^ Some are mentally disabled ………………. Just saying
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
