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

[Papageorgio]

unemployment benefits are a fixed amount that has nothing to do with what you made at your last job. In many cases a person can collect, for example, $200/week UE, or work for $250/week. most choose to forgo the extra $50 and stay home. Is that good for our country?

I guess you see your role here as someone who must disagree with everything just for the sake of disagreeing. I find that very stupid and a waste of time. Are you related to Chucky Schumer? you two are doing the exact same things.

If the worker was making $500 a week in his/her previous job, taking a job at $200 would be counterproductive for both the worker and the potential employers.

Since the worker is unlikely to be able to live on $250 a week based on his/her former salary, if this person takes a job for less than they need to live they will either have to find higher paying work, or they will go broke. If they hire on at $250 a week, they'll leave, which isn't good for the employer or the employee.

You continue to blame poor people for being poor, and for not doing enough (in your opinion) to get themselves out of poverty. The routes out of poverty are steadily being closed off by the 1%, who are determined to keep low income workers on public assistance.

Each time the left proposes raising the minimum wage, Republicans propose increasing earned income credits. You keep blaming Democrats for keeping people on public assistance, but it's the Republicans who keep putting the bill for low wages on the back of the middle class.

The middle class needs to swallow slightly higher consumer prices, and stop subsidizing poverty level wages. If corporations can afford to pay 8 figure salaries to their executives, they don't need to be asking the middle class to subsidize wages for their workers.

Do you really want to stop all that? Then two words for you: Vote conservative.

First off, it's the conservatives who set up and maintain this whole stinking "earned income credits scam", not liberals. Liberals keep pushing for higher wages, and Republicans want the middle class to pay the low wage workers.

Voting for Republicans with their Cut and Spend policies is what destroyed the US economy in the first place - starting with Ronald Reagan.

What destroyed the US economy were unions; Unions who got so greedy they forced industry to pay outrageous wages and benefits to people that did monkey jobs. When they could no longer pay any more, they had no choice but to leave the state or country because the American consumer refused to support those union wages and benefits.

Today people buy the cheapest products they can, and it has nothing to do with Reagan or the Republicans. Mom and pop stores, and just about all brick and mortar stores are closing up because it's even cheaper to buy things online. The Democrat solution? Fight for increased minimum wages and overpay even more workers and see what happens.

We all make mistakes, but at least Republicans learn from theirs. We inflated our wages so high it sent our work overseas, so Democrats want more inflation. Our government medical systems are failing or going to fail in the near future, and Democrats started a new government medical system. We are experiencing more automation than ever before, and Democrats want to encourage industry to make more automation investments. I swear talking to liberals is like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

People buy cheap because we no longer have good paying union jobs. Make service jobs union and watch the economy my soar.

Which union do you belong to?

 

[Dragonlady]

First off, it's the conservatives who set up and maintain this whole stinking "earned income credits scam", not liberals. Liberals keep pushing for higher wages, and Republicans want the middle class to pay the low wage workers.

Voting for Republicans with their Cut and Spend policies is what destroyed the US economy in the first place - starting with Ronald Reagan.

What destroyed the US economy were unions; Unions who got so greedy they forced industry to pay outrageous wages and benefits to people that did monkey jobs. When they could no longer pay any more, they had no choice but to leave the state or country because the American consumer refused to support those union wages and benefits.

Today people buy the cheapest products they can, and it has nothing to do with Reagan or the Republicans. Mom and pop stores, and just about all brick and mortar stores are closing up because it's even cheaper to buy things online. The Democrat solution? Fight for increased minimum wages and overpay even more workers and see what happens.

We all make mistakes, but at least Republicans learn from theirs. We inflated our wages so high it sent our work overseas, so Democrats want more inflation. Our government medical systems are failing or going to fail in the near future, and Democrats started a new government medical system. We are experiencing more automation than ever before, and Democrats want to encourage industry to make more automation investments. I swear talking to liberals is like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

People buy cheap because we no longer have good paying union jobs. Make service jobs union and watch the economy my soar.

Unions do two things
1. make the union bosses rich
2. funnel your dues to the rich elites in the democrat party.

Unions used to be a force for fair treatment and pay for workers. Now we have laws that prevent those abuses. Unions are parasites on the blue collar workers.

You don't have laws that prevent those abuses. It's nice to see how thoroughly you've swallowed he conservative lie that unions don't help workers. Those are the same lies that Saint Ronnie used to destroy the air controllers union. They were lies then and they're lies now.

I've never been a fan of unions, but I'm smart enough to realize that when destroying the middle class, Reagan went after the unions FIRST. By 1980, Americans had become complacent with their rights and fair treatment, so it was easy for Reagan to convince the gullible that the unions were the problem, and not unfair practices.

You don't have laws that prevent those abuses.

Obama and Clinton, in their 16 years as President, didn't pass laws to prevent abuses? Assholes!

That's because Republicans controlled Congress for 12 of those 16 years and defeated every worker-friendly piece of legislation introduced.

No mandated vacations, sick leave, maternity leave, or protections from doing dangerous work. If a female worker becomes pregnant, she can be fired, or assigned work so dangerous to her developing child, that she has no choice but to quit. All of this is perfectly legal. Protections against sexual harrassment of employees are virtually non-existant, as many women who have tried to stop such behaviour have found, just as laws against rape are seldom enforced.

In short, the United States has the hardest working employees, with the least protections of any workers on the planet. And all I read on these boards is how lazy Americans are. If you aren't rich in the United States, you are either lazy or stupid, and yet fully half of your citizens are receiving public assistance, in a nation with the highest GDP, the highest average income, and the lowest rate of personal income tax in the first world.

The United States remains the richest nation in the world, and in fact is getting richer as American corporations are busy sucking up profits from their off-shore subsiduaries, and yet the numbers of poor people continue to rise. What is astonishing is that you continue to blame the poor for their plight, and shower praise on the wealthy who are exploiting them.

 

[Brain357]

Union decline lowers wages of nonunion workers: The overlooked reason why wages are stuck and inequality is growing

 

[Papageorgio]

What destroyed the US economy were unions; Unions who got so greedy they forced industry to pay outrageous wages and benefits to people that did monkey jobs. When they could no longer pay any more, they had no choice but to leave the state or country because the American consumer refused to support those union wages and benefits.

Today people buy the cheapest products they can, and it has nothing to do with Reagan or the Republicans. Mom and pop stores, and just about all brick and mortar stores are closing up because it's even cheaper to buy things online. The Democrat solution? Fight for increased minimum wages and overpay even more workers and see what happens.

We all make mistakes, but at least Republicans learn from theirs. We inflated our wages so high it sent our work overseas, so Democrats want more inflation. Our government medical systems are failing or going to fail in the near future, and Democrats started a new government medical system. We are experiencing more automation than ever before, and Democrats want to encourage industry to make more automation investments. I swear talking to liberals is like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

People buy cheap because we no longer have good paying union jobs. Make service jobs union and watch the economy my soar.

Unions do two things
1. make the union bosses rich
2. funnel your dues to the rich elites in the democrat party.

Unions used to be a force for fair treatment and pay for workers. Now we have laws that prevent those abuses. Unions are parasites on the blue collar workers.

You don't have laws that prevent those abuses. It's nice to see how thoroughly you've swallowed he conservative lie that unions don't help workers. Those are the same lies that Saint Ronnie used to destroy the air controllers union. They were lies then and they're lies now.

I've never been a fan of unions, but I'm smart enough to realize that when destroying the middle class, Reagan went after the unions FIRST. By 1980, Americans had become complacent with their rights and fair treatment, so it was easy for Reagan to convince the gullible that the unions were the problem, and not unfair practices.

You don't have laws that prevent those abuses.

Obama and Clinton, in their 16 years as President, didn't pass laws to prevent abuses? Assholes!

That's because Republicans controlled Congress for 12 of those 16 years and defeated every worker-friendly piece of legislation introduced.

No mandated vacations, sick leave, maternity leave, or protections from doing dangerous work. If a female worker becomes pregnant, she can be fired, or assigned work so dangerous to her developing child, that she has no choice but to quit. All of this is perfectly legal. Protections against sexual harrassment of employees are virtually non-existant, as many women who have tried to stop such behaviour have found, just as laws against rape are seldom enforced.

In short, the United States has the hardest working employees, with the least protections of any workers on the planet. And all I read on these boards is how lazy Americans are. If you aren't rich in the United States, you are either lazy or stupid, and yet fully half of your citizens are receiving public assistance, in a nation with the highest GDP, the highest average income, and the lowest rate of personal income tax in the first world.

The United States remains the richest nation in the world, and in fact is getting richer as American corporations are busy sucking up profits from their off-shore subsiduaries, and yet the numbers of poor people continue to rise. What is astonishing is that you continue to blame the poor for their plight, and shower praise on the wealthy who are exploiting them.

It is illegal to fire a women if she gets pregnant, can you name the companies that do? Can you name the companies that reassigned pregnant women to dangerous work? It sounds like it is happening all the time! It will be easy for you to site a dozen or so articles.

 

[Redfish]

not true. look at the non union car factories in the south. BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Subaru, Kia. Good wages, benefits and no union dues. Then look at the UAW and how it has destroyed the once great city of Detroit and the once dominant US car industry.

And they provide those good wages and benefits to keep the unions out.

So in essence, the unions are serving their purpose.

if the workers thought unions would help them, they could vote them in. If you think the UAW is not constantly trying to get into the southern auto factories, you are quite naïve. But the workers don't want or need them.

The GM bailout, using taxpayer money, was done to save the UAW and keep its money flowing to the DNC. If GM had gone through a structured bankruptcy the result would have been several smaller more efficient companies, each of those new companies would have had to have a union representation vote. the unions and the dems could not take that risk so they used our money to keep GM and the UAW viable.

 

[Papageorgio]

Union decline lowers wages of nonunion workers: The overlooked reason why wages are stuck and inequality is growing

Which union do you belong to?

 

[Redfish]

People buy cheap because we no longer have good paying union jobs. Make service jobs union and watch the economy my soar.

Unions do two things
1. make the union bosses rich
2. funnel your dues to the rich elites in the democrat party.

Unions used to be a force for fair treatment and pay for workers. Now we have laws that prevent those abuses. Unions are parasites on the blue collar workers.

You don't have laws that prevent those abuses. It's nice to see how thoroughly you've swallowed he conservative lie that unions don't help workers. Those are the same lies that Saint Ronnie used to destroy the air controllers union. They were lies then and they're lies now.

I've never been a fan of unions, but I'm smart enough to realize that when destroying the middle class, Reagan went after the unions FIRST. By 1980, Americans had become complacent with their rights and fair treatment, so it was easy for Reagan to convince the gullible that the unions were the problem, and not unfair practices.

You don't have laws that prevent those abuses.

Obama and Clinton, in their 16 years as President, didn't pass laws to prevent abuses? Assholes!

That's because Republicans controlled Congress for 12 of those 16 years and defeated every worker-friendly piece of legislation introduced.

No mandated vacations, sick leave, maternity leave, or protections from doing dangerous work. If a female worker becomes pregnant, she can be fired, or assigned work so dangerous to her developing child, that she has no choice but to quit. All of this is perfectly legal. Protections against sexual harrassment of employees are virtually non-existant, as many women who have tried to stop such behaviour have found, just as laws against rape are seldom enforced.

In short, the United States has the hardest working employees, with the least protections of any workers on the planet. And all I read on these boards is how lazy Americans are. If you aren't rich in the United States, you are either lazy or stupid, and yet fully half of your citizens are receiving public assistance, in a nation with the highest GDP, the highest average income, and the lowest rate of personal income tax in the first world.

The United States remains the richest nation in the world, and in fact is getting richer as American corporations are busy sucking up profits from their off-shore subsiduaries, and yet the numbers of poor people continue to rise. What is astonishing is that you continue to blame the poor for their plight, and shower praise on the wealthy who are exploiting them.

It is illegal to fire a women if she gets pregnant, can you name the companies that do? Can you name the companies that reassigned pregnant women to dangerous work? It sounds like it is happening all the time! It will be easy for you to site a dozen or so articles.

she can't and won't. what our resident libs do is repeat talking points, they do not care if they are true or not. its all about keeping the propaganda flowing.

 

[Mr Natural]

if the workers thought unions would help them, they could vote them in. If you think the UAW is not constantly trying to get into the southern auto factories, you are quite naïve. But the workers don't want or need them.

Because they're treated well enough without the unions only because the companies don't want the unions in there.

The last thing a smart employer wants is an organized workforce.

 

[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.

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.

too much irony for hypocrites? it is about being legal to our own laws instead of merely, "harassing" less fortunate illegals for their illegalities.

 

[danielpalos]

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!

just untermenchen talk?

 

[Redfish]

if the workers thought unions would help them, they could vote them in. If you think the UAW is not constantly trying to get into the southern auto factories, you are quite naïve. But the workers don't want or need them.

Because they're treated well enough without the unions only because the companies don't want the unions in there.

The last thing a smart employer wants is an organized workforce.

The bottom line is that the workers are getting good pay and benefits without the unions.

I don't buy your argument that it is due to fear of the unions. But you are free to believe that if it makes you feel good.

 

[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.

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

You are an anecdote. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a market based reality.

 

[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.

too much irony for hypocrites? it is about being legal to our own laws instead of merely, "harassing" less fortunate illegals for their illegalities.

enforcing immigration laws is harassment? WTF?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Employers pay labor. I am advocating simplifying our current regime of unemployment compensation, to a general tax on firms.

 

[Redfish]

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?

You are an anecdote. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a market based reality.

so you would guarantee everyone an income whether they work or not? Why would anyone work under that system?

 

[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.

right, cause the left never pays any.

dear, Mr. Trump and the poor, pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.

don't complain; be Patriotic.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

it is a social safety net because capitalism failed in 1929, and we need socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, in modern times.

 

[Redfish]

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?

Employers pay labor. I am advocating simplifying our current regime of unemployment compensation, to a general tax on firms.

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

welfare. you didn't see that all caps word I put in the last response? here, can you fking even read?

WELFARE!!!!!

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the common offense or general warfare is not.

 

[Redfish]

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?

it is a social safety net because capitalism failed in 1929, and we need socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, in modern times.

capitalism didn't fail in 1929, have you ever had a class in American history? Its amazing how ignorant many americans are about our own country's history.