Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[Brain357]

You need people to schedule how many people are needed where. You need places that have jobs available. That doesn't just magically appear on an envelope. The buses don't magically appear when needed either. You really are as dumb as the other clown. Clearly repubs want to keep people in poverty.

wow, you've never heard of management and supervisors? wow! How about public buses? We have them in chicago. shit, we even have Trains. how the fk do people know to take them?

I see you are still working from the premise that those on welfare are as dumb as a box of rocks. you're such a nice sweetie.

More government.

how is it more, it exists already? why not use it? again, you ain't too bright. got that box of rocks?

You think there are people just sitting around who can do all that extra work? Too funny.

what extra work are you referring to? the buses and trains exists. what don't you understand box?

I don't know a lot of buses that go to farms. And who schedules all these jobs? People who are just sitting around now?

 

[Brain357]

Lets just have the government take over everything and hand out jobs. You guys are too funny. You are great communists.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's proof many pay very little if any.

• Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013.
• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.
• 288 big and profitable Fortune 500 corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% from 2008 to 2012.
• Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010.
• U.S. corporations dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.
• U.S. corporations officially hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here

Nope, no proof of your claim there.

Try again?

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

so?? if you don't earn income why should you pay taxes???

the brainless hasn't absorbed that fact yet. holding onto that box of rocks too long. doesn't know that a loss isn't making money.

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

so?? if you don't earn income why should you pay taxes??

are you anxious for your cell phone and plane tickets to cost more?? Is that why you want them to pay more taxes??

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's proof many pay very little if any.

• Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013.
• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.
• 288 big and profitable Fortune 500 corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% from 2008 to 2012.
• Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010.
• U.S. corporations dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.
• U.S. corporations officially hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here

Nope, no proof of your claim there.

Try again?

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

so?? if you don't earn income why should you pay taxes???

the brainless hasn't absorbed that fact yet. holding onto that box of rocks too long. doesn't know that a loss isn't making money.

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

Good and what is the problem? Their employees do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said, "It's proof many pay very little if any"

26 companies that lost hundreds of billions during the recession in 2008 and 2009 still hadn't earned
back their losses by 2012. Companies only pay taxes if they are profitable after covering previous losses as well as current expenses.

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

You said, "It's proof many pay very little if any"

26 companies that lost hundreds of billions during the recession in 2008 and 2009 still hadn't earned
back their losses by 2012. Companies only pay taxes if they are profitable after covering previous losses as well as current expenses.

DERP!

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

"It's proof many pay very little if any"

26/500 is many? DERP!

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

"It's proof many pay very little if any"

No. It's proof that a few companies that had huge losses in 2008 and 2009 paid no taxes for a few years.

DERP!

 

[Brain357]

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

You said, "It's proof many pay very little if any"

26 companies that lost hundreds of billions during the recession in 2008 and 2009 still hadn't earned
back their losses by 2012. Companies only pay taxes if they are profitable after covering previous losses as well as current expenses.

DERP!

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

"It's proof many pay very little if any"

26/500 is many? DERP!

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

"It's proof many pay very little if any"

No. It's proof that a few companies that had huge losses in 2008 and 2009 paid no taxes for a few years.

DERP!

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

 

[Dragonlady]

You live in fantasy land. When does a government program ever get smaller?

I'm not going to put you on ignore, but will only respond if you come close to making sense.

dude, I just explained it to you. What didn't you understand?

what one does when one doesn't have an argument that can float.

You want to create big government worker programs.

You think good willing workers can be replaced by unwilling workers who know nothing about farming without hurting the agricultural industry.

You would make a great communist.

You want to create big government worker programs.

The big welfare programs are already there. Making them work doesn't make the program/problem bigger.

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do? Where will the buses come from? That will require more government. And how will people find real jobs if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do?

It's easy. Next month, a note is added to the envelope your check came in.
It says, "Your June payment will require XX hours of work at the farm at XYZ.
The bus to that farm will be at ABC at precisely 8 AM on June 5th 2017.
Failure to work the required hours will reduce your check proportionately.

And how will people find real jobs

The same places they find real jobs now.
The savings realized by the failure to work the required hours, by payments received by the farms and by former recipients finding other jobs will be more than enough to cover the cost of bus transportation.

if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

These "slaves" are free to quit and forfeit their welfare checks at any time.

This has been an abject failure every time it's been tried. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

There has to be an entire infrastructure set up to find the jobs, to match the welfare recipients to the jobs, to arrange placements with the employers, and to arrange the bus transportation. There has to be due consideration as to whether the individuals can physically perform the work required. Not everyone is physically able to do hard manual labour. Welfare recipients could sue for discrimination if they are assigned work they are physically unsuited to perform.

There also has to be someone at the employers' end who tracks which workers show up and what hours they work, and supervise them to ensure they are working. As for the employers, they aren't interesting in being sent a bunch of city people who have no idea of how to pick crops, or who do it too slowly. The profit margins these farmers work under are so small that they can ill afford a bunch of to hire a bunch of lazy, fat city people who have no idea of what they're doing.

The vast majority of people receiving Section 8 housing, food stamps, MedicAid, or other forms of federal assistance, have full time jobs, or more than one part time job, for which they are paid very low wages. These people wouldn't be available for your slave pool.

As someone who worked in the tobacco fields in the summer when I was young, I am well aware that farm labour really isn't suitable for people who aren't young, strong and very healthy.

This whole program was tried where I lived a few years ago - "WorkFare". Everyone said it was high time. Members of our church thought this would be a good way to get some needed work done on our Church building, while teaching welfare bums some needed lessons. What we discovered was that we had to hire someone to supervise the workers. This person had to be on site the whole time. By the time we paid for our "workers" and the supervisor, it would be cheaper for us to hire small local firms to do the work, and we'd get a higher quality of work if we did.

The government announced this program with great fanfare, but then quietly cancelled it a year later. There were few takers for the service. Many organizations considered it "slavery" and refused to use it. Others, like our church, discovered that the required supervision made the program too expensive to use, and that the quality of the work was highly suspect.

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? .

what justification is needed for the gift of a welfare bailout?? What justification is there for not making them pay the money back just like banks had to pay bailout loans back. When Clinton/Newt ended welfare as we know it by making it workfare fully half decided they no longer needed welfare. No work no dole is a great way to prevent welfare from crippling people. How is that for justification?????????

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said, "It's proof many pay very little if any"

26 companies that lost hundreds of billions during the recession in 2008 and 2009 still hadn't earned
back their losses by 2012. Companies only pay taxes if they are profitable after covering previous losses as well as current expenses.

DERP!

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

"It's proof many pay very little if any"

26/500 is many? DERP!

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

"It's proof many pay very little if any"

No. It's proof that a few companies that had huge losses in 2008 and 2009 paid no taxes for a few years.

DERP!

• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.

DERP!

 

[danielpalos]

California agrees to always take, at least second place to Any red State, simply for the sake of State pride and State morals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

dude, I just explained it to you. What didn't you understand?

what one does when one doesn't have an argument that can float.

You want to create big government worker programs.

You think good willing workers can be replaced by unwilling workers who know nothing about farming without hurting the agricultural industry.

You would make a great communist.

You want to create big government worker programs.

The big welfare programs are already there. Making them work doesn't make the program/problem bigger.

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do? Where will the buses come from? That will require more government. And how will people find real jobs if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do?

It's easy. Next month, a note is added to the envelope your check came in.
It says, "Your June payment will require XX hours of work at the farm at XYZ.
The bus to that farm will be at ABC at precisely 8 AM on June 5th 2017.
Failure to work the required hours will reduce your check proportionately.

And how will people find real jobs

The same places they find real jobs now.
The savings realized by the failure to work the required hours, by payments received by the farms and by former recipients finding other jobs will be more than enough to cover the cost of bus transportation.

if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

These "slaves" are free to quit and forfeit their welfare checks at any time.

This has been an abject failure every time it's been tried. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

There has to be an entire infrastructure set up to find the jobs, to match the welfare recipients to the jobs, to arrange placements with the employers, and to arrange the bus transportation. There has to be due consideration as to whether the individuals can physically perform the work required. Not everyone is physically able to do hard manual labour. Welfare recipients could sue for discrimination if they are assigned work they are physically unsuited to perform.

There also has to be someone at the employers' end who tracks which workers show up and what hours they work, and supervise them to ensure they are working. As for the employers, they aren't interesting in being sent a bunch of city people who have no idea of how to pick crops, or who do it too slowly. The profit margins these farmers work under are so small that they can ill afford a bunch of to hire a bunch of lazy, fat city people who have no idea of what they're doing.

The vast majority of people receiving Section 8 housing, food stamps, MedicAid, or other forms of federal assistance, have full time jobs, or more than one part time job, for which they are paid very low wages. These people wouldn't be available for your slave pool.

As someone who worked in the tobacco fields in the summer when I was young, I am well aware that farm labour really isn't suitable for people who aren't young, strong and very healthy.

This whole program was tried where I lived a few years ago - "WorkFare". Everyone said it was high time. Members of our church thought this would be a good way to get some needed work done on our Church building, while teaching welfare bums some needed lessons. What we discovered was that we had to hire someone to supervise the workers. This person had to be on site the whole time. By the time we paid for our "workers" and the supervisor, it would be cheaper for us to hire small local firms to do the work, and we'd get a higher quality of work if we did.

The government announced this program with great fanfare, but then quietly cancelled it a year later. There were few takers for the service. Many organizations considered it "slavery" and refused to use it. Others, like our church, discovered that the required supervision made the program too expensive to use, and that the quality of the work was highly suspect.

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

so the only option is to cripple them forever with welfare so they'll always vote for more welfare??

 

[Brain357]

dude, I just explained it to you. What didn't you understand?

what one does when one doesn't have an argument that can float.

You want to create big government worker programs.

You think good willing workers can be replaced by unwilling workers who know nothing about farming without hurting the agricultural industry.

You would make a great communist.

You want to create big government worker programs.

The big welfare programs are already there. Making them work doesn't make the program/problem bigger.

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do? Where will the buses come from? That will require more government. And how will people find real jobs if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do?

It's easy. Next month, a note is added to the envelope your check came in.
It says, "Your June payment will require XX hours of work at the farm at XYZ.
The bus to that farm will be at ABC at precisely 8 AM on June 5th 2017.
Failure to work the required hours will reduce your check proportionately.

And how will people find real jobs

The same places they find real jobs now.
The savings realized by the failure to work the required hours, by payments received by the farms and by former recipients finding other jobs will be more than enough to cover the cost of bus transportation.

if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

These "slaves" are free to quit and forfeit their welfare checks at any time.

This has been an abject failure every time it's been tried. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

There has to be an entire infrastructure set up to find the jobs, to match the welfare recipients to the jobs, to arrange placements with the employers, and to arrange the bus transportation. There has to be due consideration as to whether the individuals can physically perform the work required. Not everyone is physically able to do hard manual labour. Welfare recipients could sue for discrimination if they are assigned work they are physically unsuited to perform.

There also has to be someone at the employers' end who tracks which workers show up and what hours they work, and supervise them to ensure they are working. As for the employers, they aren't interesting in being sent a bunch of city people who have no idea of how to pick crops, or who do it too slowly. The profit margins these farmers work under are so small that they can ill afford a bunch of to hire a bunch of lazy, fat city people who have no idea of what they're doing.

The vast majority of people receiving Section 8 housing, food stamps, MedicAid, or other forms of federal assistance, have full time jobs, or more than one part time job, for which they are paid very low wages. These people wouldn't be available for your slave pool.

As someone who worked in the tobacco fields in the summer when I was young, I am well aware that farm labour really isn't suitable for people who aren't young, strong and very healthy.

This whole program was tried where I lived a few years ago - "WorkFare". Everyone said it was high time. Members of our church thought this would be a good way to get some needed work done on our Church building, while teaching welfare bums some needed lessons. What we discovered was that we had to hire someone to supervise the workers. This person had to be on site the whole time. By the time we paid for our "workers" and the supervisor, it would be cheaper for us to hire small local firms to do the work, and we'd get a higher quality of work if we did.

The government announced this program with great fanfare, but then quietly cancelled it a year later. There were few takers for the service. Many organizations considered it "slavery" and refused to use it. Others, like our church, discovered that the required supervision made the program too expensive to use, and that the quality of the work was highly suspect.

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

Isn't it amazing anyone would think it was a good idea?

 

[Brain357]

You want to create big government worker programs.

You think good willing workers can be replaced by unwilling workers who know nothing about farming without hurting the agricultural industry.

You would make a great communist.

You want to create big government worker programs.

The big welfare programs are already there. Making them work doesn't make the program/problem bigger.

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do? Where will the buses come from? That will require more government. And how will people find real jobs if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do?

It's easy. Next month, a note is added to the envelope your check came in.
It says, "Your June payment will require XX hours of work at the farm at XYZ.
The bus to that farm will be at ABC at precisely 8 AM on June 5th 2017.
Failure to work the required hours will reduce your check proportionately.

And how will people find real jobs

The same places they find real jobs now.
The savings realized by the failure to work the required hours, by payments received by the farms and by former recipients finding other jobs will be more than enough to cover the cost of bus transportation.

if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

These "slaves" are free to quit and forfeit their welfare checks at any time.

This has been an abject failure every time it's been tried. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

There has to be an entire infrastructure set up to find the jobs, to match the welfare recipients to the jobs, to arrange placements with the employers, and to arrange the bus transportation. There has to be due consideration as to whether the individuals can physically perform the work required. Not everyone is physically able to do hard manual labour. Welfare recipients could sue for discrimination if they are assigned work they are physically unsuited to perform.

There also has to be someone at the employers' end who tracks which workers show up and what hours they work, and supervise them to ensure they are working. As for the employers, they aren't interesting in being sent a bunch of city people who have no idea of how to pick crops, or who do it too slowly. The profit margins these farmers work under are so small that they can ill afford a bunch of to hire a bunch of lazy, fat city people who have no idea of what they're doing.

The vast majority of people receiving Section 8 housing, food stamps, MedicAid, or other forms of federal assistance, have full time jobs, or more than one part time job, for which they are paid very low wages. These people wouldn't be available for your slave pool.

As someone who worked in the tobacco fields in the summer when I was young, I am well aware that farm labour really isn't suitable for people who aren't young, strong and very healthy.

This whole program was tried where I lived a few years ago - "WorkFare". Everyone said it was high time. Members of our church thought this would be a good way to get some needed work done on our Church building, while teaching welfare bums some needed lessons. What we discovered was that we had to hire someone to supervise the workers. This person had to be on site the whole time. By the time we paid for our "workers" and the supervisor, it would be cheaper for us to hire small local firms to do the work, and we'd get a higher quality of work if we did.

The government announced this program with great fanfare, but then quietly cancelled it a year later. There were few takers for the service. Many organizations considered it "slavery" and refused to use it. Others, like our church, discovered that the required supervision made the program too expensive to use, and that the quality of the work was highly suspect.

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

The abuse isn't obvious to you?

So do the places they work pay anything? Or do they get free labor?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You want to create big government worker programs.

The big welfare programs are already there. Making them work doesn't make the program/problem bigger.

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do? Where will the buses come from? That will require more government. And how will people find real jobs if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do?

It's easy. Next month, a note is added to the envelope your check came in.
It says, "Your June payment will require XX hours of work at the farm at XYZ.
The bus to that farm will be at ABC at precisely 8 AM on June 5th 2017.
Failure to work the required hours will reduce your check proportionately.

And how will people find real jobs

The same places they find real jobs now.
The savings realized by the failure to work the required hours, by payments received by the farms and by former recipients finding other jobs will be more than enough to cover the cost of bus transportation.

if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

These "slaves" are free to quit and forfeit their welfare checks at any time.

This has been an abject failure every time it's been tried. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

There has to be an entire infrastructure set up to find the jobs, to match the welfare recipients to the jobs, to arrange placements with the employers, and to arrange the bus transportation. There has to be due consideration as to whether the individuals can physically perform the work required. Not everyone is physically able to do hard manual labour. Welfare recipients could sue for discrimination if they are assigned work they are physically unsuited to perform.

There also has to be someone at the employers' end who tracks which workers show up and what hours they work, and supervise them to ensure they are working. As for the employers, they aren't interesting in being sent a bunch of city people who have no idea of how to pick crops, or who do it too slowly. The profit margins these farmers work under are so small that they can ill afford a bunch of to hire a bunch of lazy, fat city people who have no idea of what they're doing.

The vast majority of people receiving Section 8 housing, food stamps, MedicAid, or other forms of federal assistance, have full time jobs, or more than one part time job, for which they are paid very low wages. These people wouldn't be available for your slave pool.

As someone who worked in the tobacco fields in the summer when I was young, I am well aware that farm labour really isn't suitable for people who aren't young, strong and very healthy.

This whole program was tried where I lived a few years ago - "WorkFare". Everyone said it was high time. Members of our church thought this would be a good way to get some needed work done on our Church building, while teaching welfare bums some needed lessons. What we discovered was that we had to hire someone to supervise the workers. This person had to be on site the whole time. By the time we paid for our "workers" and the supervisor, it would be cheaper for us to hire small local firms to do the work, and we'd get a higher quality of work if we did.

The government announced this program with great fanfare, but then quietly cancelled it a year later. There were few takers for the service. Many organizations considered it "slavery" and refused to use it. Others, like our church, discovered that the required supervision made the program too expensive to use, and that the quality of the work was highly suspect.

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

The abuse isn't obvious to you?

So do the places they work pay anything? Or do they get free labor?

The abuse isn't obvious to you?

A work requirement is abuse? Tell me more.

 

[Brain357]

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do? Where will the buses come from? That will require more government. And how will people find real jobs if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do?

It's easy. Next month, a note is added to the envelope your check came in.
It says, "Your June payment will require XX hours of work at the farm at XYZ.
The bus to that farm will be at ABC at precisely 8 AM on June 5th 2017.
Failure to work the required hours will reduce your check proportionately.

And how will people find real jobs

The same places they find real jobs now.
The savings realized by the failure to work the required hours, by payments received by the farms and by former recipients finding other jobs will be more than enough to cover the cost of bus transportation.

if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

These "slaves" are free to quit and forfeit their welfare checks at any time.

This has been an abject failure every time it's been tried. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

There has to be an entire infrastructure set up to find the jobs, to match the welfare recipients to the jobs, to arrange placements with the employers, and to arrange the bus transportation. There has to be due consideration as to whether the individuals can physically perform the work required. Not everyone is physically able to do hard manual labour. Welfare recipients could sue for discrimination if they are assigned work they are physically unsuited to perform.

There also has to be someone at the employers' end who tracks which workers show up and what hours they work, and supervise them to ensure they are working. As for the employers, they aren't interesting in being sent a bunch of city people who have no idea of how to pick crops, or who do it too slowly. The profit margins these farmers work under are so small that they can ill afford a bunch of to hire a bunch of lazy, fat city people who have no idea of what they're doing.

The vast majority of people receiving Section 8 housing, food stamps, MedicAid, or other forms of federal assistance, have full time jobs, or more than one part time job, for which they are paid very low wages. These people wouldn't be available for your slave pool.

As someone who worked in the tobacco fields in the summer when I was young, I am well aware that farm labour really isn't suitable for people who aren't young, strong and very healthy.

This whole program was tried where I lived a few years ago - "WorkFare". Everyone said it was high time. Members of our church thought this would be a good way to get some needed work done on our Church building, while teaching welfare bums some needed lessons. What we discovered was that we had to hire someone to supervise the workers. This person had to be on site the whole time. By the time we paid for our "workers" and the supervisor, it would be cheaper for us to hire small local firms to do the work, and we'd get a higher quality of work if we did.

The government announced this program with great fanfare, but then quietly cancelled it a year later. There were few takers for the service. Many organizations considered it "slavery" and refused to use it. Others, like our church, discovered that the required supervision made the program too expensive to use, and that the quality of the work was highly suspect.

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

The abuse isn't obvious to you?

So do the places they work pay anything? Or do they get free labor?

The abuse isn't obvious to you?

A work requirement is abuse? Tell me more.

Ah, you are too stupid.

Again, do the places they work pay anything? If so how much?

 

[Dragonlady]

. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? .

what justification is needed for the gift of a welfare bailout?? What justification is there for not making them pay the money back just like banks had to pay bailout loans back. When Clinton/Newt ended welfare as we know it by making it workfare fully half decided they no longer needed welfare. No work no dole is a great way to prevent welfare from crippling people. How is that for justification?????????

How Christian of you. Let them steal for a living, I guess.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? .

what justification is needed for the gift of a welfare bailout?? What justification is there for not making them pay the money back just like banks had to pay bailout loans back. When Clinton/Newt ended welfare as we know it by making it workfare fully half decided they no longer needed welfare. No work no dole is a great way to prevent welfare from crippling people. How is that for justification?????????

How Christian of you. Let them steal for a living, I guess.

stealing? I would not object to forcing them to work in return for their welfare!

if the work was harder than regular work it would encourage them to become contributing members of society.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? .

what justification is needed for the gift of a welfare bailout?? What justification is there for not making them pay the money back just like banks had to pay bailout loans back. When Clinton/Newt ended welfare as we know it by making it workfare fully half decided they no longer needed welfare. No work no dole is a great way to prevent welfare from crippling people. How is that for justification?????????

How Christian of you. Let them steal for a living, I guess.

Sure beats getting a job, doesn't it???

 

[Brain357]

. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? .

what justification is needed for the gift of a welfare bailout?? What justification is there for not making them pay the money back just like banks had to pay bailout loans back. When Clinton/Newt ended welfare as we know it by making it workfare fully half decided they no longer needed welfare. No work no dole is a great way to prevent welfare from crippling people. How is that for justification?????????

How Christian of you. Let them steal for a living, I guess.

stealing? I would not object to forcing them to work in return for their welfare!

if the work was harder than regular work it would encourage them to become contributing members of society.

Where would you have them work?