How many are in favor of bringing back the "Poor" or "Work" houses for poor people? (weapon, school)

[Kefir King]

I think the poor should be HOUSED...everyone should be. In a civilized society where some are rich enough to own 1000 modest homes nobody should be forced to sleep on a pavement or a bench.
But calling them POOR HOUSES slants the argument.

I guess the difference is the amount of DIGNITY a society associates with poverty.

"Workhouses?" Again a loaded term. How about something like the CCC camps that built infrastructure at decent pay during the Depression. Instead of throwing trillions at the banks, the unemployed of the country could have been offered Federal jobs thus lowering the REAL Unemplyment rate a dozen points. But no, the banks were given immense sums to sit on, to nobody's benefit except the bankers.
So calling these jobs CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS or WPA building libraries, parks, dams, tunnels, roads, and creating art, music, literature is the POSITIVE way of saying WORKHOUSE.

It all depends to whom you are speaking. A rich banker would call them workhouses, a starving arrtist would call them SALVATION. Ronald Reagan would call them workhouses and FDR would call them social progress.

[D. Scott]

Originally Posted by Kefir King

I think the poor should be HOUSED...everyone should be. In a civilized society where some are rich enough to own 1000 modest homes nobody should be forced to sleep on a pavement or a bench.
But calling them POOR HOUSES slants the argument.

I guess the difference is the amount of DIGNITY a society associates with poverty.

"Workhouses?" Again a loaded term. How about something like the CCC camps that built infrastructure at decent pay during the Depression. Instead of throwing trillions at the banks, the unemployed of the country could have been offered Federal jobs thus lowering the REAL Unemplyment rate a dozen points. But no, the banks were given immense sums to sit on, to nobody's benefit except the bankers.
So calling these jobs CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS or WPA building libraries, parks, dams, tunnels, roads, and creating art, music, literature is the POSITIVE way of saying WORKHOUSE.

It all depends to whom you are speaking. A rich banker would call them workhouses, a starving arrtist would call them SALVATION. Ronald Reagan would call them workhouses and FDR would call them social progress.

A good solution, And these "Poorhouses" would be useless, Esp if it did not give at least an opportunity and motivation to become self-sufficient. People suffering should be offered help and the goal to make them, If at ALL possible self-sufficient.

[Forest_Hills_Daddy]

Now who would want these houses in their OWN neighborhoods?

[Chava61]

Originally Posted by Forest_Hills_Daddy

Now who would want these houses in their OWN neighborhoods?

A very good question. I agree that nobody should be homeless but the traditional concept of poorhouses is really not a solution.

[11KAP]

that would be stupid and not too many
people would volunteer to participate.

[NYChistorygal]

Wpa!

[VA Yankee]

Originally Posted by Kefir King

I think the poor should be HOUSED...everyone should be. In a civilized society where some are rich enough to own 1000 modest homes nobody should be forced to sleep on a pavement or a bench.
But calling them POOR HOUSES slants the argument.

I guess the difference is the amount of DIGNITY a society associates with poverty.

"Workhouses?" Again a loaded term. How about something like the CCC camps that built infrastructure at decent pay during the Depression. Instead of throwing trillions at the banks, the unemployed of the country could have been offered Federal jobs thus lowering the REAL Unemplyment rate a dozen points. But no, the banks were given immense sums to sit on, to nobody's benefit except the bankers.
So calling these jobs CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS or WPA building libraries, parks, dams, tunnels, roads, and creating art, music, literature is the POSITIVE way of saying WORKHOUSE.

It all depends to whom you are speaking. A rich banker would call them workhouses, a starving arrtist would call them SALVATION. Ronald Reagan would call them workhouses and FDR would call them social progress.

Perhaps we as a society need to get past the perception of what this word or that means. Would society accept the CCC concept today? Back in the 30's people were appreciative of 3 meals a day, a job and a place to sleep plus being paid. Todays youth which the CCC was largely made of would not be willing to do that kind of work and someone would be screaming their rights were violated.

Helping those that need it is a reflection of the society but individuals need to take some responsibility, this "you owe me" mentality does not cut it...

[yodel]

Originally Posted by VA Yankee

Perhaps we as a society need to get past the perception of what this word or that means. Would society accept the CCC concept today? Back in the 30's people were appreciative of 3 meals a day, a job and a place to sleep plus being paid. Todays youth which the CCC was largely made of would not be willing to do that kind of work and someone would be screaming their rights were violated.

Helping those that need it is a reflection of the society but individuals need to take some responsibility, this "you owe me" mentality does not cut it...

Should people working full-time be able to afford housing of their own, whether the employment is through a government program or not? This CCC concept (which I was not familiar with before this thread) seems not so different from a homeless shelter. Should working people have to live in a shelter? Is it wrong for working people to feel "entitled" to food, housing, health care - you name it?

[Henna]

Originally Posted by marilyn220

People on here have describe welfare and foodstamp recipients as lazy, good for nothings who shouldn't even be allowed to breathe the same air with the "working folk".

No one would care if they were beaten or abused. It's not like they're REAL HUMANS anyway.

Seems like you have an axe to grind with some of the posters on the 'other' thread. I suggest you go back to the other thread and use the quote function so you can engage with the people whose posts you are complaining about, instead of creating a new thread with vague accusations directed toward nameless posters.

[VA Yankee]

Originally Posted by yodel

Should people working full-time be able to afford housing of their own, whether the employment is through a government program or not? This CCC concept (which I was not familiar with before this thread) seems not so different from a homeless shelter. Should working people have to live in a shelter? Is it wrong for working people to feel "entitled" to food, housing, health care - you name it?

THe original CCC did include housing because these teens were living on the streets. WPA also mentioned by a poster did not, they were goverment service projects such as dams, roads, the arts. I would like to think that all working people can afford a resonbable place to live and food to eat but I know thats not always the case. Kids today do feel entitiled and do display a "you owe me mentality" too many do not have any idea of what "personal responsibility" is.