|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Welfare to Workfare
#2019826 - 10/18/03 02:59 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I've been thinking alot about the welfare situation after reaing other posts, and I think I"ve come up with a solution ;-) Tell me what yo uall think about this
I call it "workfare".
First, the premise. Currently every welfare recipient recieves a check, food stamps, and free or reduced charge medical coverage throuh the state. They are being paid and given benefits not to work.
Now, my plan is to have people on welfare do some work for their keep. The able-bodied men can be out picking up trash along the side of highways, shoveling the snow at municipal buildings. Women can watch children for other welfare recipients so that they may go out and find jobs, and not need to be on welfare anymore. People with skills could educated other people in a trade, so that they can go be a member of the workforce. Bottom line, every person on welfare would be given specific things they are required to do in order to recieve their checks. These wouldn't be sweatshop conditions, or grueling backbreacking inhumane tasks, they would just be the welfare recipients way of giving back to the society they were 'taking" something from
I feel that this would encourage people on welfare to get off of welfare and back to a 'real' job, and it would also provide them the childcare and the education / skills / job training that they need to do so
A major part of this belief system is that the GOAL of welfare is to help people when they need the help rather than creating a systematic dependance on "the government" If you don't think that this system is a good idea, do you think it's because of parts of it, or my main statement?
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2019842 - 10/18/03 03:12 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Addendum: Obviously people that are disabled and unable to work will be excluded.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Starter
Stranger
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2019869 - 10/18/03 03:46 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It already exists (at least as a proposal and semi-similar), in Australia, it's been coined "working for the dole".
The parasitic days, up until the late 1980's, are over. The days where people could pick up a dozen welfare cheques from a dozen offices in a dozen towns in a dozen names as nothing was computerised, as they travelled about like a rolling stone enjoying the life style of the coastal towns they targetted. Welfare cheats are now cracked down on. Thus, the welfare system has gotten tougher. In that, the 'work for the dole' concept is ready to make sweeping changes.
It will have to happen as the population ages. It will not be able to throw out the welfare as it does now. Even the old age pension will be dead in the water. It is now the responsibility of all to seek self funded retirement. This is why both Labour (the left) and *Liberal (the right) in Australia, have both pushed super-annuation as govt policy.
The writing is on the wall. The pot is near empty. There just isn't the birth rate to carry tomorrow and sure as shit, immigrants of today & tomorrow, coming to Australia, do not want to carry old people of tomorrow.
* For Americans, the Liberal Party in Australia is the conservative party, not to be confused with your use of the word liberal.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2019899 - 10/18/03 04:09 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So you put thousands of people out of work and replace them with people on the dole. Yeah, that makes sense HOW WELFARE HELPS "THE REST OF US" -- Nathan Newman, newman@socrates.berkeley.edu The current debate on welfare is stale, tired and, ultimately, missing the economic point. Let's be clear what welfare is and is not. Welfare is not charity. Welfare is a system of payments made to the poor not to take any job if its pay is so low that it underbids wages for those who have jobs. When linked to other policies like the minimum wage, welfare is (and should be seen as) an economic tool by society to keep wages high. Progressives need to stop appealing just to the compassion of the public in defending welfare and start playing on their self-interest. The economic reality is that decent wages for "the rest of us" depend on having a decent welfare system. Without that welfare system, all wages go down under a flood of workers desperate to take jobs at any wage in order to keep their families from starving. Conservatives try to argue that even if kicking people off welfare causes some erosion in wages, it's cheaper than increasing the taxes needed to pay people on welfare. The obvious response is to point out how small a portion of the federal budget is taken up by programs like AFDC and other payments to the non-working poor. Out of a $1.6 trillion federal budget, only $19 billion goes to AFDC, just over 1% of every federal dollar spent. But that's a defensive argument and progressives have to get off the defense and on the offense. We have to sketch exactly how supporting the welfare system, even expanding it, can be used to reverse the wage erosion workers have faced in the last two decades. Let's start with the minimum wage. Conservatives use the fear of unemployment to oppose it. In the recent debate on the minimum wage, opponents of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour have argued that employers would lay off hundreds of thousands of workers (roughly 1-2% of minimum wage workers in their estimates) if forced to raise wages for the rest. Now, a number of solid economic studies, most recently by economists David Card and Alan Krueger, have shown that modest raises in the minimum wage actually have no effect on employment. But, for the sake of argument, let's ignore those economic studies and target our economic program at those who might buy conservative arguments that 1-2% of minimum wage jobs will be lost if the minimum wage is raised. Even with that assumption, if we create a strong welfare system, everyone, including the taxpayer, gains from the increase in the minimum wage. Follow the math on this and you'll have the strongest argument in countering conservatives attacks on both welfare and the minimum wage. Buying the conservatives' assumptions of 2% unemployment, it means that for every 100 minimum wage workers initially making $4.25 per hour, we will end up with 98 workers making the new minimum wage of $5.15 per hour and 2 workers unemployed. Breaking that down by hour, week and year, for every 100 workers who initially make $4.25 per hour ($170 per 40-hr week, $8840 per year), the total combined wages of all 98 workers who stay employed initially equals: $866,320 per year ($8840 per year x 98 workers). After the raise in the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour ($206 per week, $10,712 per year), total wages will increase to $1,049,776 per year ($10,712 per year x 98 workers). Those 98 workers will see an individual gain of $1872 per year in wages and an com bined gain of $165,776 in wages. If the two newly unemployed people are supported with welfare payments equal to their previous yearly wage of $8840 (much more generous than present welfare systems), the total cost will be $17,680--far less than the $165,776 net gain in wages for the other 98 workers. In fact, that $17,680 is far less than what the federal government would receive in increased income and payroll taxes on those increased wages. So even using the conservatives' own estimates of job loss, the minimum wage with a strong welfare system can be used to increase wages while protecting the incomes of those left unemployed. To translate this into the slightly messier real numbers of the overall US economy, there are 12.3 million workers who make less than the proposed new minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. They make an average of $4.67 per hour, so if 98% of those workers have their wages increased to the new minimum wage, the aggregate increase in wages will be $12 billion yearly. This is far more than any welfare costs that might be needed for income and training funds if any workers are left unemployed. These numbers have all assumed the rather miserly increase in the minimum wage proposed by Clinton. If instead of $5.15 per hour, we increased the minimum wage another dollar to $6.15 per hour (about the inflation-adjusted level back in 1969), we can see even more dramatic effects. There are 20.8 million Americans making less than $6.15 per hour. If all of these workers (with an average wage of $5.10 per hour) had their wages increased to a $6.15 per hour minimum wage, the net increase in wages would be $45.6 billion annually. Even if we assumed a worst-case assumption of 10% of those workers were left unemployed, this would still leave a potential $40 billion for welfare and retraining funds--an amount DOUBLE the entire present AFDC budget. In fact, all these numbers understate the overall gains in wages, since it ignores the effect of the minimum wage on higher wage workers. But the reality is that the mass of workers making a bit more than any new minimum wage are able to demand a wage increase to maintain a "spread" between them and less skilled workers now making what they used to make. So where are these increased wages coming from? Some of it comes from increased growth due to higher consumer demand, some from increased costs passed onto consumers, but in the end, in highly competitive markets employing minimum wage workers, the largest chunk come out of the profits and executive compensation of corporate stockholders. And there's the reason why both welfare payments and the minimum wage are opposed so vociferously by corporations and their legislative allies. It's no coincidence that conservatives support both eliminating welfare payments and lowering the minimum wage. Moving people from welfare into the workplace drives down wages, and the last thing conservatives (supported massively by low-wage employers) want is to have the government prevent wages from falling. And by keeping welfare payments low or non-existent, they can create fear of unemployment from raising the minimum wage or supporting other policies to raise wages. Of course, there are ways to improve welfare, including providing work instead of income payments, but that work has to be at a living wage that, instead of driving down wages, helps to bolster wages in society while delivering services that the market fails to provide. Look at the debate over Wisconsin's proposed welfare plan, a plan to end welfare for everyone in the state and replace it with work requirements. Where is the headline-grabbing debate over the fact that this flood of new additions to the workforce will be making less than minimum wage and even replacing workers who previously made much higher wages? The enthusiasm for welfare "reform" would chill significantly if people recognized that shredding the safety net also meant shredding their own wages. If the Wisconsin-style plan was extended nationally, the effects would trash wages across the coun try. Even as welfare payments have declined in the last two decades, average hourly wages have dropped by over 10% and wages for less-skilled job have fallen even more. Imagine all four million plus adult recipients of AFDC being dumped in the labor market tomorrow on top of present unemployment, or even gradually over a year or two. The key thing for progressives to argue is that unless the policy is to spend MORE to provide real jobs for all, it's cheaper for working families to pay people not to work than to force them to work at wages that drive down pay for all of us.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,625
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 8 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Starter]
#2019905 - 10/18/03 04:12 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
For Americans, the Liberal Party in Australia is the conservative party, not to be confused with your use of the word liberal.
Those crazy upside-down Aussies.
-------------------- "America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” -- Thomas Jefferson The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance. The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)
|
Starter
Stranger
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#2019970 - 10/18/03 04:34 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Baby_Hitler said: Quote:
For Americans, the Liberal Party in Australia is the conservative party, not to be confused with your use of the word liberal.
Those crazy upside-down Aussies.
Well Bush better get the Liberal thing right, as in how the capital "L" changes the meaning to what he knows it as. He'll be here this week!!
He's already been told some whack, i.e. that "Australia is a little like Texas" and the American journalists have called PM John Howard "PM John Major". He'll look a goon if he says "PM Major", and there's more too. It's been circulated that there's souvenirs of boomerangs and koala skin toys. Despite koala skin and any product from them being illegal.
Knowing the total goof that Bush is and the ignorance he's fed, he'll screw up something. I'll get a chuckle, that's a sure bet.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2019981 - 10/18/03 04:39 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said: So you put thousands of people out of work and replace them with people on the dole.
Yeah, that makes sense
How would the program that I described put people out of work ?Also, if you disagree with people on the dole having more job opportunities than us working folk, what do you think about Americas "Welfare to Work" programs, where companies that hire people who were recieving any form of government support are given tax credits for their actions? Wouldn't this be hurting the chance of those people at work you mentioned?
Also, please describe your thoughts on the system that I mentioned, I'd like to hear what you have to say.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Starter
Stranger
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2020020 - 10/18/03 05:05 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I would like to see work for the dole programs on green belt tree planting. This will serve to reduce salination of soils, which not only destroys habitat and kills biodiversity, it destroys asphalt and concrete paving which means greater costs on taxes to fix vehicle/pedestrian roads. It would also reduce soil erosion. This is a real environmental problem in Australia and it's costing millions in construction and agriculture, not to mention the impact on eco-tourism as sediments fill rivers and wash out over coral reefs.
In other words, I would like to see welfare go to environment. Nothing like getting people into hard yakka, they'll be looking harder to get out of it.
I don't see this project step on the toes of the private sector, as the private sector won't go near any program that's unprofitable in the short term.
Say 2 days out of their 5 days of the working week so they have 3 days to search for work. That's more than fair. 3 days is 24 hours of actual working week to search for work in a 9am to 5pm regime.
This would instill a work ethos, an appreciation of doing a day at the grind and the feeling that they're part of something important. The left & the greens would have to agree to this as it meets the environmental agenda and I'm sure the conservatives would be happy as it won't cost them anymore than the welfare already does. What's more, all sides would at least recognize that there will be an appreciable long term economy return with salination and erosion beat. The only ones who wouldn't like this are the people who don't want to actually work. It's a win-win.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Starter]
#2020030 - 10/18/03 05:19 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
*claps* Exactly! You grok it fully! This program is designed that peple that WANT to work, but can't, WILL BE. The only people that won't like this system are, as you say, peopel that don't want to work. The only way this could be justified is if the pro-welfare people in here think that it's GOOD that welfare recipients aren't working, and want to encourage laziness in them.
The workfare participants won't be given jobs that already exist and are filled by people, they will be given jobs that don't currently exist. Tree-planters, cleaning up parks, babysitting or daycare operations, staffing at centers that other workfare recipients are using (work-stations, day care, vocational training).
I think that if their is any psychological impact from this on the people, it will be positive. Alot of hardworking people that are 'down on their luck' don't want to ask the government for a handot, but they'd be happy to be out planting trees and doing an honest days work for pay while they got back on their feet.
In summary, welfare is designed as a way to assist people that are temporarily out of work due to unforseen circumstances, or have other ways fallen on hard times. It is the "net" that is designed to "catch" them, while they look for a way to resume or attain self-support. This system gives people a way to be in that "net", while at the same time give something back to the system that is helping them out. The people have hgher self-esteem, because they are working for a living, the other citizens aren't upset about paying into a program that pays people (and bestows upon them other benefits that would usually require a job) for doing nothing, society would reap benefits from having more trees planted, more senior citizens walkways shoveled, anything. The only group of people that wouldn't like this are, as stated, the peple that are making a career out of getting free money and enjoying not having to work for it.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,625
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 8 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2020589 - 10/18/03 01:31 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So how come prisoners picking up trash on the side of the road hasn't caused the economy to collapse yet?
-------------------- "America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” -- Thomas Jefferson The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance. The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2020711 - 10/18/03 02:20 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
wow, that actually sounds like a good idea!
I'm proud of you, lysergic.
Although i would point out that welfare recipients might not always be the best babysitters.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: DoctorJ]
#2021039 - 10/18/03 05:19 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
*beams with pride* Thanks DoctorJ
I agree about that, actually. In my program, people with experience babysitting or running a daycare would run the facilities and train other women, as part of their "workfare" program. The bottom line isthat we are paying these people to do nothing, so any labor or return we get from it is a beneficial thing to us, no matter, really, what is it. If they rake old peoples lawns, we are getting SOMETHING. I think thta using them for social projects is a very good idea, to keep the liberals happy at actually making somone work for their handouts.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2022466 - 10/19/03 10:23 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So what happens to experienced babycare people when thousands upon thousands of welfare recipients are dumped in the babycare labour market? Why would anyone pay someone the going rate for the job when you can get slave welfare labour?
End result - thousands more people on welfare.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
st0nedphucker
Rogue State
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2022470 - 10/19/03 10:29 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
He is merely giving examples of some of the work that could be allocated to people on welfare not actually outlining a policy. We have a similar system overhere you can get an ?15 per week on your DHSS money if you do conservation work such as fencing planting trees..
The simple point of this is, people on benefit should be made to earn their handouts by engaing in activities or tasks that benefit others.
Benefit for a Benefit
-------------------- The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Why not simply employ someone to do the job and pay them a living wage if it needs doing? Why put everyone already doing conservation work out of a job?
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
st0nedphucker
Rogue State
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2022480 - 10/19/03 10:34 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Then they wouldn't be unemployed....
-------------------- The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
No, you misunderstand. If someone is a babycare assistant earning ?7 an hour, what happens when the welfare babycare assistant comes along who you only have to pay 50 pence an hour to?
Get the idea yet?
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
st0nedphucker
Rogue State
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2022490 - 10/19/03 10:40 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
The government would be paying the welfare assistant in the form of her benefits for looking after a previous benficiary's child. It is only one of the possible ways benefit recipient's could be given work that benefits others. Your focusing too much on the hypothetical aspect of one point rather than the actual topic of this thread.
-------------------- The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
No, I'm focusing on how you introduce thousands upon thousands of people into the job market without affecting people already doing those jobs. Babycare assistants is a simple example. Introduce thousands of babycare welfare recipients and you put thousands of employed babycare assistants out of work. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
st0nedphucker
Rogue State
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2022499 - 10/19/03 10:50 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It is only one of the possible ways benefit recipient's could be given work that benefits others. Your focusing too much on the hypothetical aspect of one point rather than the actual topic of this thread.
-------------------- The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
|
I almost hurt my neck watching the point of my argument fly over alex's head. *stretcheS* all better now
Welfare recipients children ARE NOT IN DAYCARE RIGHT NOW. Thus, having welfare recipients have a daycare for the children of welfare recipients WOULD NOT TAKE JOBs. It would ADD jobs while ADDING "clients" to the market.
Also, it doesn't really matter what the people aer doing, as long as it's something. We could have them pick up trash along the side of the road, would you complain that is taking jobs away from prisoners? The point is, they aren't doing <b> ANYTHING </b> to earn their "keep" now, so any act we can fidn for them that contributes back to society as a whole, is better than nothing.
I realize that the concept of people having to work for things is a horrible one to liberal eliteist, like Alex, those poor people should just be given money that is taken forecfully from u, and how dare we suggest they work for it!
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Starter
Stranger
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2022557 - 10/19/03 11:57 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Alex is rightfully concerned about jobs taken from existant industry, but with what I have proposed that wouldn't happen, since none of it will impact on the private sector, it will not cut into jobs. It will actually create jobs in the longer term and benefit poor people. In fact, it will be of benefit to us all.
* Eco-tourism - habitat is preserved i.e. reefs so the hospitality industry keeps thumping.
* Fishing estuaries preserved because silting is reduced - sea food is a big earner and it's part of a healthy diet.
* Reduced salination.
* Land value improvement be it rural or for development real estate - Trees do improve landscape views and attract fauna ambience, i.e. song birds. People do pay more for that. Think of the stamp duty revenue on the sales.
* Timber to mill, esp. small business generation.
* Edible landscapes for the poor - Fruit & nut trees in commons (i.e. govt land between housing estates). The poor often can't afford the balanced diet they should get.
* Increased water quality by river bank and catchment planting.
* Cleaner air in city environments.
* Increased quality of life for all, rich & poor -- Green it up. The concrete world helps cause stress and stress plays a big role in disease & violence.
...and the list goes on.
Unless we preserve what we've got and generate industry for tomorrow -- in other words get sustainable -- we're screwed. Work for the dole should be part of it.
|
Starter
Stranger
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2022570 - 10/19/03 12:10 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said: Why put everyone already doing conservation work out of a job?
In Oz, conservation work is mostly volunteer and they could do with the extra boots on the dirt. I agree with leaving existent private industry alone as putting in virtual "gulag workers" will cause more unemployment. It would also kill unions that protect worker rights, since an abused work-for-the-dole scheme would become a govt endorsed scab labour. Industrialists would greedily abuse that if given a chance. With unemployment rising as real jobs are destroyed, they'd have an army of work-for-the-dole slaves. I wouldn't be part of that. A fair days work for a fair days pay. That's why I said 2 days out of 5 for welfare folks on enviro work earlier in this thread.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,625
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 8 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2023015 - 10/19/03 03:47 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Your arguement would be more valid if there weren't things that should be done that aren't. The welfare recipients that would be working in childcare would mostly be supplemental staff in addition to the already existing childcare workers.
This way the job could be done better, and other things that are not being done would be. For example as it is now many children in childcare get fed, their asses wiped and maybe entertained with television or if they're lucky having a book read to them. If more people came in the children could be given more personal attention, perhaps even supplemental education. Most people on welfare know the alphabet, and can add subtract multiply and divide.
-------------------- "America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” -- Thomas Jefferson The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance. The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)
|
Starter
Stranger
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#2023930 - 10/19/03 09:45 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Btw, why has this thread got bent out of whack over child care? That's an industry with a lot of dollars in it. Putting cheap workers into that will cause an uproar. I imagine the view that child care takes no skill is a very blokey one, so any welfare sort will do? Not quite.
Seriously, as long as work-for-the-dole is projected as some sort of money saving scheme for the benefit of the few, i.e. the end of maternity leave for women, it's not going to get off the ground.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,625
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 8 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Starter]
#2024608 - 10/20/03 03:23 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Childcare is just an example. Of course the skilled workers won't be replaced. Like I said: supplemental assistance.
-------------------- "America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” -- Thomas Jefferson The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance. The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Starter]
#2024620 - 10/20/03 03:44 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Starter said: Btw, why has this thread got bent out of whack over child care? That's an industry with a lot of dollars in it. Putting cheap workers into that will cause an uproar. I imagine the view that child care takes no skill is a very blokey one, so any welfare sort will do? Not quite.
Seriously, as long as work-for-the-dole is projected as some sort of money saving scheme for the benefit of the few, i.e. the end of maternity leave for women, it's not going to get off the ground.
Childcare was just a singular example.
Working for the dole, guvnah, isn't a "scheme" to SAVE money. The theory that I proposed will pay the same benefits, it will just require peple to work for them. The end of materinity leave? Are you a moron? Things like that are paid for by the company that the lady works for, just like unemployment. I think that a larger number of people in here need to grasp exactly what welfare is. It isn't unemployment benefits, per se, since a company pays into that a specific amount per employee. Welfare is free food stamps, reduced housing, and checks being sent out to people who are not recieving unemployment assistance.
Another issue, I think that people that live in housing projects that are "free"(A gross misnomer, since it's just the non-welfare-class that has to pay for them) should be required to do all building maintenence. Welfare recipients would train the residents (only specific ones, with an aptitude or an interest) in such things as basic plumbing, electricity, upkeep and repair of the facilities. Thus, if the complex goes to shit, it's only the fault of the people living there. And again, people recieving fre things would actually *gasp* have to earn them!
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Starter]
#2024622 - 10/20/03 03:45 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Starter said:
Quote:
Alex123 said: Why put everyone already doing conservation work out of a job?
In Oz, conservation work is mostly volunteer and they could do with the extra boots on the dirt.
What is "OZ"? Thanks.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Starter
Stranger
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2024639 - 10/20/03 04:12 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Oz is short for Oz-tralia a.k.a Australia. The colloquialism no doubt comes from the "strine" (nasal like accent) when "Australia" is pronounced by most Australians. I do have my country of location given.
As for your grasp of welfare and maternity leave ect, it's obviously different to how it is here.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#2025099 - 10/20/03 10:21 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
This way the job could be done better, and other things that are not being done would be. For example as it is now many children in childcare get fed, their asses wiped and maybe entertained with television or if they're lucky having a book read to them. If more people came in the children could be given more personal attention, perhaps even supplemental education. Most people on welfare know the alphabet, and can add subtract multiply and divide. Fair enough. So why not create more real childcare jobs and pay people a living wage to do that job? Why flood the market with untrained people and drive down wages for everyone else? The answer is always to create proper jobs - putting what are in effect slaves to work for nothing helps no-one. Welfare isn't charity. We are paying them so the job market isn't flooded with thousands of people who will work for nothing. Look at your own job - if 10,000 people start doing your job for a tenth of your salary what do you think will happen to your salary?
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2025105 - 10/20/03 10:26 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Welfare recipients would train the residents (only specific ones, with an aptitude or an interest) in such things as basic plumbing, electricity, upkeep and repair of the facilities. Be serious. I want electrics done by professional highly qualified people who work to industry standards who can be sued for compensation when your house burns down for christs sake. I do not want my family surrounded by electrics done by a guy going "The guy on welfare said join the red wire to the green one..." That's how fires start.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
st0nedphucker
Rogue State
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2025119 - 10/20/03 10:34 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Fair enough. So why not create more real childcare jobs and pay people a living wage to do that job? Why flood the market with untrained people and drive down wages for everyone else? The answer is always to create proper jobs - putting what are in effect slaves to work for nothing helps no-one.
Welfare isn't charity. We are paying them so the job market isn't flooded with thousands of people who will work for nothing. Look at your own job - if 10,000 people start doing your job for a tenth of your salary what do you think will happen to your salary?
You're getting to caught up in one point again, I agree with you (although this is starting to tie-in to the minimum wage thread). But one would think there could never be too many conservationists considering the rate at which new house, roads, commercial developments are being built. You walk down one of our wonderful streets and tell me we don't need more people collecting rubbish or recycling etc
-------------------- The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
So hire someone to do the job and pay him a living wage.
Simple.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
st0nedphucker
Rogue State
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2025135 - 10/20/03 10:40 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with you here. The work allocated to claimants would have to be suitable. Obviously only a small percentage of them would be suitable for a job in childcare or many others areas.
Quote:
I want electrics done by professional highly qualified people who work to industry standards who can be sued for compensation when your house burns down for christs sake.
Thats just dramatic as usual... Plus the Government/Council would be liable if it did indeed burn down your house or injure/kill a member of your family.
-------------------- The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2025149 - 10/20/03 10:46 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said: Welfare recipients would train the residents (only specific ones, with an aptitude or an interest) in such things as basic plumbing, electricity, upkeep and repair of the facilities.
Be serious. I want electrics done by professional highly qualified people who work to industry standards who can be sued for compensation when your house burns down for christs sake. I do not want my family surrounded by electrics done by a guy going "The guy on welfare said join the red wire to the green one..."
That's how fires start.
Unless you live in a housing project, you won't have to worry about it. Obviously the housing projects wouldn't be BUILD by the intended recipients, it would ony be MAINTAINED. Things that require a specialist would get a specialist. I'm sure that if you built a 500 family housing project, you could find 5 people that were proficient at basic maintenance.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
I agree with you here. The work allocated to claimants would have to be suitable.
What work could be done that you couldn't hire a person to do and pay them a living wage? If a job needs doing it needs doing right?
Thats just dramatic as usual
Nothing dramatic about it. Hire unqualified, untrained people to do the electrics on your house and see what happens.
Plus the Government/Council would be liable if it did indeed burn down your house or injure/kill a member of your family.
So the taxpayer not only pays for the welfare, he also ends up paying for every catastrophe this lunatic policy will cause? Sounds great. Where do I sign up?
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
st0nedphucker
Rogue State
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2025159 - 10/20/03 10:48 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So hire someone to do the job and pay him a living wage.
Simple.
Im still not getting this doesn't hiring mean employing.....
Perhaps you could elaborate.
-------------------- The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2025163 - 10/20/03 10:49 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said: This way the job could be done better, and other things that are not being done would be. For example as it is now many children in childcare get fed, their asses wiped and maybe entertained with television or if they're lucky having a book read to them. If more people came in the children could be given more personal attention, perhaps even supplemental education. Most people on welfare know the alphabet, and can add subtract multiply and divide.
Fair enough. So why not create more real childcare jobs and pay people a living wage to do that job? Why flood the market with untrained people and drive down wages for everyone else? The answer is always to create proper jobs - putting what are in effect slaves to work for nothing helps no-one.
Welfare isn't charity. We are paying them so the job market isn't flooded with thousands of people who will work for nothing. Look at your own job - if 10,000 people start doing your job for a tenth of your salary what do you think will happen to your salary?
Allright then, i'll take awayeverything nice I was trying to do by giving them, in this situation somewhat cushy jobs. IF you are on welfare, you wake up at 0400, drop you rkids off at the welfare run daycare center, and report to trash pickup. I'm sure that the inmates won't complain that other peopel are picking trash p off of the streets?
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
st0nedphucker
Rogue State
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
What work could be done that you couldn't hire a person to do and pay them a living wage? If a job needs doing it needs doing right?
See my above post
Quote:
Nothing dramatic about it. Hire unqualified, untrained people to do the electrics on your house and see what happens.
I've done electrics in my house countless and im neither trained nor professional im sure many people unertake eletrical, building and even plumbing tasks in their houses every now again... Unless everyone here is middleclass (which I assume, you must be.) and hires out a professional, sadly the majority of the population aren't.
Quote:
So the taxpayer not only pays for the welfare, he also ends up paying for every catastrophe this lunatic policy will cause? Sounds great. Where do I sign up?
You have taken one point from this whole debate and as usual gone galloping off on a complete tangent. I didn't even bring up this whole bloody electrician fiasco.... I believe conservation work is the best suggestion.
-------------------- The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
|
Ok, yes, back to conservation work. The 2 jobs available would be
1) Daycare ASSISTANT - You would work at a registered daycare clinic providing daycare for welfare recipients children
2) Conservation worker. - This is everything from shoveling old ladies sidewalks to planting trees. The jobs that ehy would do are jobs that are not being done now.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Seraph
ShroomiN'SeraphiM
Registered: 06/23/02
Posts: 183
Loc: South Flordia
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2026313 - 10/20/03 04:49 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I always hate jumping in at the end of a thread but this is my first time in P,A,& L and I found this to be not such a new concept at least the welfare to Workfare part of the conversation...
Just in case any of you werent already aware Workfare already exists in the US as well as austraila which i am not familiar with but since it was already mentioned. Ever hear of TANF? Temporary Assitance for Needy Families recipient must work in order to recieve benefits. Job training is an integrel part of the welfare system in the US thanks to TANF
The system wasnt always like this tho it didnt change until the 1990's.
on another note I find it funny, that often times people complain about our Public-assistance programs without actually knowing how they work or are at least meant to work. a good percentage of the people and families that recieve public-assistance wont go back on it once they no longer need it. (sorry i cant seem to find the exact percentage)
However TANF and other programs have caused strain on the job market b/c these people are replacing other previously skilled employees that were doing the same job but being paid more.
Other programs - non-cash benefits (foodstamps) are more susceptible to fraud, i believe. The program itself is obviously a good idea in my opinion we just need a better regulatory system, which could be said about a lot of things in the US.
hope im not rambling too much, that just my opinion..
-------------------- (\(\ ( -.-) o_(")(") ~nicole
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Seraph]
#2026372 - 10/20/03 05:08 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
welcome aboard.
nice bunny
|
Starter
Stranger
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: wingnutx]
#2027102 - 10/20/03 09:52 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Alex is correct on the electrical subject a.k.a codes in construction. If you do your own sparky work and it is picked up in an engineer/builders report for not meeting spec (only a fool wouldn't get one when buying a house btw) you'll be knocked back. At best you'll have to drop the bux on the house sale (if you can actually sell it?) or do it again under a retrospective approval *ouch*. The same laws of building codes not only protect private property, they protect govt property too -- including welfare housing. In short, only qualified people can do such work and for good reason. Put simply, to be an electrician is a career, not a weekend warrior job. There's no debate in that. 240v is deadly. Furthermore, why should welfare people have to live in dangerous dwellings? They don't, because the laws protect them (well they do here) and that's not going to change. Even though some of the fools in here would like to turn such places into widow making eye sores. It's not going to happen. Welfare people in welfare housing can even take part of the free govt grant kickstart program to get a deposit up to buy the property, as can private people who meet the assessment of low income. Because private property is looked after better than govt, no debate in that. Last thing wanted is ghetto making by conservative penny pinchers who like the idea that a whole mass of population can never be home owners, thereby escalating the gulf between the have and have-not. Society thrives on a strong middle class. Back on track, any out right work in workfare would be itinerant (so that slays the idea of them in child care and construction) as you want professionals for that, or the better alternative, the workfare rolled into a sensible career training scheme. Of course, that would cost more than welfare itself. Education does. That's happening in Australia. Can I say interest free loans to university and reduced technical college admission fees to unemployed people by aptitude test? That's been going on a number of years now with long term unemployed now made mandatory to re-education training schemes. Flipping burgers is not a career folks. Furthermore, loans already exist for university, they're called HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme) and every student gets slugged with it. In technical colleges, welfare and poor folks get a 50% discount on enrollment fees. Mind you, that's early-90's to my knowledge. Things might have changed or their fee costs waved all together? Compare that to an excavator, he's 250 grand in a bank business loan at whatever the current % rate be for plant purchase (truck tipper, dog trailer, hydraulic grab bucket excavator) to effect his business, so he runs 7 days a week to pay it off. Life is about debt. Whether you're a builder or a dentist, loans are the call. Yes it costs at first to train/skill people, but they'll give back to society in tax as they contribute for the rest of their working life. They'll even be self funded in retirement. I'm sure the right-wingers in here know that you have to spend money to make money. But do they believe it? Appears not. They'd be happy to put welfare people without skills/training into *professional positions* to save money in the short term, kill real employment at the same time, even turn govt welfare housing estates into run down dangerous ghettos. That's simply penny pinching short sighted stupidity. Of course I expect some wannabe conservative *yawn* (see next paragraph) to argue that construction is itinerant as they tap keys from an office -- lol if they've actually got a job themselves and not indulged on their folk's PC -- as they clearly know squat about the industry, or run a business or paid off a mortgage ect. As an aside, I even note one self claimed righty in this thread has posted past in the PAL that he's "upper middle class", more than likely born into money, thus never bust his can to make it himself. Then there's another who's stated he's "uber poor", but in that same post effectively blames the liberals for his lot. Sounds like the sins extreme-leftists pull blaming the capitalists LOL. Then there's another con who can't even afford qualified tradespeople to work on his house. What sort of credible input can one get from that?
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2027420 - 10/21/03 12:00 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Conservation worker. - This is everything from shoveling old ladies sidewalks to planting trees. The jobs that ehy would do are jobs that are not being done now. So why not create a job to do it and pay them a living wage? Incidentally, many council workers have jobs planting trees and taking care of the environment. You either have no idea what you are talking about or are making this shit up as you go along. Or both.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,625
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 8 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2027655 - 10/21/03 01:33 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So why not create a job to do it and pay them a living wage?
Maybe she's poor and can't afford to pay someone to do it.
Hey! I've got an idea. We can get someone on welfare to do it. They're already getting the money, they might as well do something for it.
-------------------- "America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” -- Thomas Jefferson The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance. The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)
|
Hanky
wiffle bat.
Registered: 08/30/03
Posts: 56,993
Loc: Great Southern Land.
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2027901 - 10/21/03 04:31 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
lysergic....you forget one major point....there will always be a small percentage of people that thru no fault of there own except being born with a low iq are unsuited to any sort of work. when you try to put these people into anysort of working environment they prove to be a danger to themselves and others working around them. if you are such a tight ass that you begrudge these people a minimum welfare payment,well under the poverty line then i spit in your face.
go find a more worthwhile drum to beat rather than screaming that the poor must do shit work to futher the amount of misery in there lives.
-------------------- Coaster is an idiot... [quote]Coaster said: but i thnk everything thats pure is white? [/quote]
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,625
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 8 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Hanky]
#2027929 - 10/21/03 04:57 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I believe he made some exceptions in those cases already.
Even tards work at Wal-Mart.
-------------------- "America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” -- Thomas Jefferson The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance. The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Hanky]
#2028092 - 10/21/03 08:05 AM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hanky said: lysergic....you forget one major point....there will always be a small percentage of people that thru no fault of there own except being born with a low iq are unsuited to any sort of work. when you try to put these people into anysort of working environment they prove to be a danger to themselves and others working around them. if you are such a tight ass that you begrudge these people a minimum welfare payment,well under the poverty line then i spit in your face.
go find a more worthwhile drum to beat rather than screaming that the poor must do shit work to futher the amount of misery in there lives.
After reading your post, I"m assuming that you are one of the people you alluded to. The second post in this thread covers people that are medically unable to work. Also, lets not confus issues here. Medical disability is paid out via the social security system, while welfare is paid out via the STATE RUN welfare system.
Apples and oranges pal, apples and oranges.
After reading your post, something you obviously didn't do to mine, I'd have guess that you must be one of these people you are alluding to. Their is no need for name calling, nor face-spitting. I obviously made it clear that people who are medically unable to perform any work task will be exempt from this program, even tho, as all of us here with a working grasp of how social programs in this country are setup, these people are not now welfare recipients.
I'm going to suggest doing a bit of reading (such as my posts that started this thread), and doing a bit of studying on how things in this country really work.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2028104 - 10/21/03 08:13 AM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said: So why not create a job to do it and pay them a living wage?
Because the goal of welfare isn't to have every single person on it working conservation projects, it is to support them temporarily while they get back on their feeet and back to their chosen job. It is not a permanent solution/job counceling service. These people would be assigned to a project that really has no end, so that they can do their conservation work on a daily basis, and when they find a job, instanttly be backin the work force, and no project is left crippled because workers are gone.
Quote:
Incidentally, many council workers have jobs planting trees and taking care of the environment. You either have no idea what you are talking about or are making this shit up as you go along. Or both.
Oh cheerio you proper guvvnah! Do you think that their is an excess of people out planting trees or conservation work? The only way that the council workers would be out of a job is if they were doing every ounce of conservation work that exists out there, and they aren't. I Don't see them picking up trash along the highways, do you?
Why are you so against anything that could actually make welfare recipients work for their keep? Are you that anti-rich that you just want to see them pay and pay and pay some more, and not think that the welfare recipients should od ANYTHING for their money? To sum it up, are you totally against any system in which the welfare recipients work for their money? If so, you should pop on out of this thread, because I think you are representing such a small percentage of the socialist/marxist dickfaces out there that your opinion will never matter. Cheerio Guvvnah, more porridge for you, eh you wanker? (Note: I really think british people are idiots, you certinatly are keping that stereotype in place you right proper wanker!)
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Starter
Stranger
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2028203 - 10/21/03 09:27 AM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Hey lysergic, aside name calling me "a moron" in one of your earlier posts in this very thread, yeah despite my point of view being based on Australia and you having to be told (i.e like check my location under my handle eh), you admonish hanky for name calling and then do the very same thing towards Alex, in the very next post. Talk about hypocrisy or is it selective amnesia? Gets better NOT, you point at Hanky to check out how things happen in this country, when the bloke is in Australia. I mean sheesh, there's only a handful of states in Oz to chalk up, near 10 times that in the US (so check his location eh). And to boot, you sledge Alex and all British people for your ethnocentric insecurity. Ever been to the UK or are you just a TCP/IP traveler? I won't even go into what a waste of time this (your) thread is: Considering you'd be more than happy to have poorly skilled and inadequately trained welfare people doing what only qualified tradespeople should, as the body corporate. Just one of your crazy ideas -- when you know nothing about trades industry and that such take years of apprenticeship -- which would of course see the whole thing go to hell in a hand basket. No doubt you'd proudly boast in smug satisfaction that these people are imbeciles who made their estate into a ghetto, when all along you set the poor up for a mismanaged dump. What's new? This is the sort of bile the disadvantaged cop all the time by righties like you. If you've ever been poor and worked hard to move up because a system had the balances to get you there, you'd know. But you've never had to Mr. silver spoon so of course you don't want the balances. Just look at you.
Quote:
lysergic said: What is wrong with catering to the rich? The rich pay MUCH MUCH more taxes than the poor people do, thus, they contribute more. I think that it's just part of the anti-White, anti-Rich, anti-American hype that liberals push on others. Well, tough shit, I'm "upper middle class', and I couldn't care less if you whiny poor bastards don't like it
Tragic.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Starter]
#2028205 - 10/21/03 09:29 AM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Starter- Maybeyou should read the definition of "on topic", then read "Ad hom", Even if I insult the moron who posted, I'll also go through and their their moronic post to shreds.
I still stick by my claim,the one that you feel the need to repeat in every thread that I participate in. I realize that it's a horrible offense in America t ostick up for your own kind (in my case, UMClass people), but, well, tough shit
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2028220 - 10/21/03 09:39 AM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Because the goal of welfare isn't to have every single person on it working conservation projects, it is to support them temporarily while they get back on their feeet and back to their chosen job. No, the goal of welfare is to prevent the job market being flooded with thousands of people who will work for so little everyone elses wages fall through the floor. These people would be assigned to a project that really has no endno project is left crippled because workers are gone I don't know how many times I have to repeat this but here goes, a job either needs doing or it doesn't. If it needs doing you hire someone to do the job and pay them a living wage. As hanky pointed out it sounds like you just want people on welfare to dig trenches and then fill them in again all day because your own life is so miserable you want someone to be more miserable than you. You're too gutless to take on anyone who can fight back so you attack the easiest targets - people on welfare and single moms. Why are you so against anything that could actually make welfare recipients work for their keep? What are you talking about? I'm against slave labour being introduced into the market putting thousands of people out of work and driving down wages for everyone.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Starter
Stranger
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2028229 - 10/21/03 09:44 AM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
lysergic said: Starter- Maybeyou should read the definition of "on topic", then read "Ad hom", Even if I insult the moron who posted, I'll also go through and their their moronic post to shreds.
I still stick by my claim,the one that you feel the need to repeat in every thread that I participate in. I realize that it's a horrible offense in America t ostick up for your own kind (in my case, UMClass people), but, well, tough shit
Put your denches in when you speak. You're a joke.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Starter]
#2028247 - 10/21/03 09:50 AM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Hey once again, off topic. If you'd like to flame me, how about you start a thread for it. I'll be emailing Rono about this wee wittle comment of yours and the thread hi-jacking
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2028256 - 10/21/03 09:53 AM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Johnny, while you're emailing rono remember to point out this one from you to me:
Quote:
Posted by johnnyrespect:
Cheerio Guvvnah, more porridge for you, eh you wanker? (Note: I really think british people are idiots, you certinatly are keping that stereotype in place you right proper wanker!)
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Starter
Stranger
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2028267 - 10/21/03 10:01 AM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
And what was off topic in my ^above two posts?
Post #1 ^above, addressed, or should I say undressed you, and pointed out how your ideas are untenable. The quote I pulled from another thread was to reinforce how your mind set operates, simply to show that you have no sincerity in the programs/shemes you've hypothetically proposed to field this thread.
(btw, I think you're confusing me with another person who posted that same quote in the Firebombing of Dresden thread. Totally unrelated to me.)
Post#2 ^above, said you make no sense and I guess at best that's the comedy.
Nothing more, nothing less. Very straight forward.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 19 days
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Xlea321]
#2028291 - 10/21/03 10:13 AM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
How about I just give the lot of ya a 3 day ban to cool your jets?....would that do the trick?
Seriously...HOW FUCKING HARD IS IT TO FOLLOW THE ONLY RULE THIS FORUM HAS?...Do I really need to start being a dick to get my point across?
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: Rono]
#2028381 - 10/21/03 10:53 AM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
This thread seems to have gone way way way off of topic. Rono,if you wanna put her on lockdown, that might be a good idea. Some idiots can't seem to have a proper debate.
Also, I'd like to state that, tho I do insult those that need it, I also reply to their positions.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 19 days
|
Re: Welfare to Workfare [Re: lysergic]
#2028414 - 10/21/03 11:07 AM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It would appear that you are missing the point...whether you feel they "need it" or not is irrelevant...no flaming means exactly that.
Apparently I am going to have to do another wave of bans to get my point across for the less astute.
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
|