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

[danielpalos]

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.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

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??

Work or die, is the "solution" of the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Employment is at-will not for -cause.

 

[danielpalos]

. 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.

In our at-will employment States? Why not make the rich, "work hard" for their corporate welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

. 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???

the left loves to, "hear the right wing whine about taxes", like untermenchen, due to our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

God forbid that you provide people with a good education or job opportunities, no. Give them a 3rd rate education in a crumbling school and when they finish school, make sure that their job opportunities are limited, and when they give up and take handouts, slap them hard for being lazy, and taking handouts.

Then you want to make them slave for the meager handout you give them, and humiliate them and take that away if they can't or won't do it. Sounds like the beginnings of a great program.

 

[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.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Employment is at-will not for -cause.

DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

God forbid that you provide people with a good education or job opportunities, no. Give them a 3rd rate education in a crumbling school and when they finish school, make sure that their job opportunities are limited, and when they give up and take handouts, slap them hard for being lazy, and taking handouts.

Then you want to make them slave for the meager handout you give them, and humiliate them and take that away if they can't or won't do it. Sounds like the beginnings of a great program.

God forbid that you provide people with a good education or job opportunities, no. Give them a 3rd rate education in a crumbling school and when they finish school, make sure that their job opportunities are limited,

I agree, Dems suck.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

God forbid that you provide people with a good education or job opportunities, no. Give them a 3rd rate education in a crumbling school and when they finish school, make sure that their job opportunities are limited, and when they give up and take handouts, slap them hard for being lazy, and taking handouts.

Then you want to make them slave for the meager handout you give them, and humiliate them and take that away if they can't or won't do it. Sounds like the beginnings of a great program.

Or you can do what millions of others have done which is get a job, try to learn something that makes your labor more valuable, and keep advancing in the company. Or you can take out a loan, attend a trade school, and start a new career that way.

You'd be surprised how far you can go using your own money instead of other people's.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[jc456]

. 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?

how about infrastructure jobs, cleanup streets. shit there are many needs that are ignored due to no money. again, you seem to object to have someone work for their money. I work for mine. Should I tell my boss I'm a slave?

 

[jc456]

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??

Work or die, is the "solution" of the right wing.

that's what I do? why are they different?

 

[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.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

 

[jc456]

. 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???

the left loves to, "hear the right wing whine about taxes", like untermenchen, due to our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

right, cause the left never pays any.

 

[jc456]

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.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?

So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?

 

[jc456]

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.

God forbid that you provide people with a good education or job opportunities, no. Give them a 3rd rate education in a crumbling school and when they finish school, make sure that their job opportunities are limited, and when they give up and take handouts, slap them hard for being lazy, and taking handouts.

Then you want to make them slave for the meager handout you give them, and humiliate them and take that away if they can't or won't do it. Sounds like the beginnings of a great program.

so why are you against school vouchers? you all talk in riddles so much you make very little if any common sense. you talk out of both sides of your mouth. ah, that's right, you're a fking demoloser.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?

So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?

You are welcome to answer the question.

 

[jc456]

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.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?

So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?

You are welcome to answer the question.

I did.
you just can't make this shit up. hahahaahahahahaha....

 

[Redfish]

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.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

already explained it to you. The workers get exactly what they would get from UE. The farmer pays the state that same amount. So its a net zero for the taxpayers.

 

[Brain357]

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?

So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?

You are welcome to answer the question.

I did.
you just can't make this shit up. hahahaahahahahaha....

So who pays the workers and how much?