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.
Places with high rates of poverty have already lowered their qualification for a person to work, Some city Government jobs don't require even a GED. Many low level unskilled jobs are already being filled by people who see these jobs as the last resort or second jobs. IMO welfare is just a way of subsidising small towns or Urban areas where there are not enough opportunities to go around. People who are on disability or welfare solely by choice are bad for the labor system. I wouldn't want to see a whole class of work or certain jobs degraded into "welfare people's jobs"
Thanks for the reply. I see more good in this than bad, the current economic / unemployment situation and the high deficit / national debt are examples. Plus, I see it as immoral for able-bodied people to live off the taxpayers without contributing anything.
The problem is the law does not REQUIRE the government to create those jobs, it only gives Congress the permission. Congress has passed the ball to the Federal Reverse to achieve the goal of low unemployment through monetary policy instead of working to directly create the pool of jobs during times of high unemployment.
Learn something new everyday. Thanks I didn't know that.
As someone who leans libertarian, I would support this. What I think it would do is give people purpose and a sense of responsibility, and therefore they wouldn't be complacent and continue to live off of the government, and our tax money. I say let's do it! I am all for helping those that are less fortunate, as there are those out there that just can't catch a break, and I think those people would truly benefit from this type of system, giving them confidence and keeping their self esteem high (hey, being out of work sucks, I've been there). But as for those that are too lazy to work and want to continue to receive a free hand out... well... too bad! Guess ya don't get paid! We cannot continue to go down the current road of government handouts with nothing in return, whether it be to our citizens or our corporations with the bailouts!
Thank you, I also lean libertarian. I'd love to hear people of all ideologies poke holes in this idea, and give their reasons why not.
You know, I like the idea better than the current system, but if people are handed jobs instead of competing for them, they are more likely to take them for granted and do sh*tty work.
It'll still be a waste of money and I think the percentage of people who would really appreciate it and use it to propel themselves out of poverty would be low. Bad rate of return.
Maybe if it were a pay for performance kind of set-up, it would be better.
Frankly, I think everyone should be on a pay for performance set-up. People are so effin' lazy and do such a crappy job overall at their work, I think this would really change the face of the working world.
You know, I like the idea better than the current system, but if people are handed jobs instead of competing for them, they are more likely to take them for granted and do sh*tty work.
It'll still be a waste of money and I think the percentage of people who would really appreciate it and use it to propel themselves out of poverty would be low. Bad rate of return.
Maybe if it were a pay for performance kind of set-up, it would be better.
Frankly, I think everyone should be on a pay for performance set-up. People are so effin' lazy and do such a crappy job overall at their work, I think this would really change the face of the working world.
Good morning,
I prefer crappy work over handing people checks while sitting at home doing no work at all. Remember, these are low skill, entry level type positions. There can be a review process, and maybe some type of "three strikes and you're out" system for people who cause problems. You'd be surprised how many people would buck up if they don't have any government checks to fall back on if they blow their opportunity.
In regards to a waste of money, we spend $456 billion TODAY in total welfare spending. My program only costs $152 billion, and that's only if all 7.6 million families in poverty are given a $20,000 a year job. Not everyone will take advantage, some will have jobs outside the system already. How is my program a waste of money?
I prefer crappy work over handing people checks for no work. There can be a review process, and maybe some type of "three strikes and you're out" system for people who cause problems. You'd be surprised how many people would buck up if they don't have anything to fall back on if they ********** up.
In regards to a waste of money, we spend $456 billion TODAY in total welfare spending. My program only costs $152 billion. How is my program a waste of money?
I think the whole thing is a waste of money...not your program in particular.
And I don't think our choices should be welfare or crappy work. I think our choices should be sink...or swim.
I think my idea is more geared towards those who still want a safety net.
If one is completely against a safety net, that's fine, but it doesn't really leave any room to debate this type of policy.
Safety net is fine.
With time limits.
It doesn't have to be as elaborate as it has gotten.
That's why it is so susceptible to abuse and fraud.
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.
