Do you think that people that get state assistance(money and rent) should be made to do work?

mayna_smo_mry

you are out of beat. this work program has been going on for years. and if it will appease you you they work more hours than what they are getting at least they do in mky state.they aren;t getting anything free like everyone is claiming.and everyone in that case should be drug tested.you work at a regulsar job you should be drug tested,you make irt sound like all these people getting welfare are just lazy bums. that is what you will find anywhere even at a work place. my friend and her kids draw welfare but she works 40 hrs a week to pay for it. she was laid off her job last year and hadn;t found anything that pays enough to keep her kids fed and clothed.don;t worry so much about them blame barry for the situation she is in.

jeff

Yes! Absolutely Yes! Not only is it good for the community, it is good for the self esteem of the individual, and shows a good work ethic to others.Train some to work in daycare to help others go to work, some can drive shuttle buses to job sites,etc... I could go on for hours. I also believe that birth control should be mandatory if you are receiving state aid!

Tim

I am a firm believer in the "if a man will not work let him also not eat" school of thought. I think requiring a certain amount of labor in exchange for public assistance makes the recipient less of a drag on society and also gives them an incentive to get off of assistance.

Of course, the devil is in the details. You want them to contribute, but at the same time you cannot require so much of them that they cannot find work elsewhere. So, the number of hours required should be small enough to allow them to do that. 10-15 hours a week for example.

There are some who will have issues with childcare. Should this "workfare" program have a childcare component? To be truly successful, I think so.

Some folks are not able to work for various reasons, physical or otherwise. Mechanisms would have to be in place to account for this. I think everyone can contribute something, but there would need to be someone in charge to coordinate tasks and assign ones that physically handicapped, etc persons could do.

So, as an example, lets say instead of unemployment payments, you go down to the local coordination center. You drop off your kid at the daycare center (staffed by other unemployed people with a few licensed caregivers for supervision) and get your one day a month (or whatever frequency you are thinking) task; cleaning up trash on the side of the highway. If you are blind you instead would me manning the phone bank helping other people find a job or keeping communications with the various work crews. If you are in a wheelchair, there is always paperwork that needs to be done. In exchange for your labor, you get your ticket punched for additional assistance as well as have time to use the coordination centers job search and skill improvement resources.

Something like that. But like I said, the devil is in the details.

mommanuke

Since state assistance generally goes only to mothers with children and no dad willing to support them, I think this would create problems. What will they do with the children while they are doing their "charity" work? Are you going to add child care assistance to welfare? Most governments who offer child care find themselves backed up for months just to get into one. And should the mother fail a drug test, what will you do with the children? There's no foster care available since most states' foster care programs are already overwhelmed. Will you start a state run children's home so that the kids don't starve on the streets? If you cut the mothers off, are you willing to see them turn to the streets to get by?

Welfare should be completely restructured so that it's aim is to get people off welfare. But that is going to require a much more comprehensive program that nobody wants to pay for. As long as it stays the way it is, most women will remain trapped on welfare.

stayc4you79

People that get government assistance need to first realize that it should not be a permanent situation. The problem is that the government is helping the same people that needed help a decade, or longer, ago and all the new people that have come up since then. Government assisted people should be required to give something back to society, unfortunately that is never going to happen. It would take a massive revamp of the entire system and, believe me, people will complain. There is a reason they are on that assistance to begin with. Either they are having a short stint in their lives where they need assistance or they are uneducated and can't find a job that will pay them enough to stand on their own two feet. Usually there is children involved and if the government makes mothers with young children work in even charity positions then low and behold we are then having to pay for child care for the mother to do so. It's really a catch 22. Something needs to be done to change the way the system works because right now we have to face the fact that the government is the one who needs to get back on their feet.

tincoatr

I advocate able-bodied people on government assistance working for the money. One of the arguments against it is that mothers of young children must take care of their kids. Some of these mothers should be trained in child care to care for the children of other mothers that are working.

I would only have them work part time though because the main idea is for them to get a job and get off of welfare. They should work 20 or 25 hours per week along with requirements of looking for employment.

They could also work in state parks, rest area, and other "paying" entry level positions in the state governments.

EDIT: If drug testing is part of the program, should we expect more out of the people on welfare than is expected of professional athletes? Maybe a similar system should be instituted with first failed test resulting in drug rehab, second failed test being reduction of benefits for specified time, and third strike is out.

Scootup

I have to agree with you 100%

â™¥sweet_JTâ™¥

I agree with you!!!!!

I'm about to write OBAMA an email for some other things!
you should try it too!

good luck girl

Roger S

Ummm yes. Plus they really should look into finger print identity security on recipient records etc. to assist in preventing fraud. I am also in support of individuals that receive government support that ar in a certain age group that they are mandated to go to school (traditional or vocational), receive an appropriate GPA and upon graduation and being successfully placed into the job market, required to pay back that assistance

cosmicmule

I think if they are able, sure they should be made to work. I also think drug testing would be a great idea. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay for someone else's high. The system was designed to help out people in a rough spot, not to support druggies and loafers who think the world owes them something. I think monthly drug tests and periodical medical updates should be mandatory to continue to receive assistance.

TaxPayer

Yes there is nothing for nothing in life.

To receive state support there should be a payback. You may well find that a large percentage of those claiming state support will stop claiming because they can't do the work the state provide and their cash in hand jobs too.
Of course there are those who have disabilities and can't do manual work but what is wrong with paperwork, telephone switch board, Call centre work, work from home etc.. There are millions of people with disabilities who do work but disability is often an excuse not a reason and get a bad name for the majority because many take the tax payer for a ride.

pullmyefinger

very nice. one of the few thought-out and relevant questions on YA..

the money should stop when any required, unannounced drug test is failed the first time. if someone fails a drug test the second time they should be cut off Permanently. "Once is an event, twice is a Pattern"...

Agreed, there are lots of people who are on public assistance through no fault of their own. the bad thing is those people get stereotyped in with the people whose lazy butts and bad attitudes are Their Disabilities...

Honest people would have no qualms with working to keep busy and maybe find a job prospect while they are at it.

Give yourself the 10 points for asking the question...

Desiree

The money should be reduced so that it can limit the amount of drugs and alcohol. They need to work if possible so they can give back to the community that helps them out. Even a lil help at the soup kitchen or at homeless shelters could help. Remember it is the little things that people take for granted

rainbow chaser

absolutely but in our democratic socialist society the democrats want their vote so they cater to these voters.

20090120!

As a Democratic voter I absolutely agree, but I think they already performing some kind of work.

Reagan '12

At least that, plus a monthly drug test. Nearly 25%-30% of welfare recipients take illicit drugs. I've said the same thing as you all along but some how liberals think that everyone should be fair and equal but somehow think that taking my hard earned money via tax dollars and giving it to people who don't do anything to better our country is acceptable. Hypocrites.

EDIT: I corrected my stats, the original that I had posted was men alone. When you figure in women on welfare, the % of drug users was less. Still a lot of welfare recipients on drugs, and liberals are still hypocrites.

lop

welfare people they should be force to work and get no money

lop

i think welfare pople are lazy and should be forced to work and not get all the money they get . they live better than alot of middle class people and thats wrong they dont deserve all that free money . i am not talking about old people . i am talking about all the free bums on welfare , there is to many people that are on welfare that live good . i have never been on welfare and always went with out i needed money its not right for the goverment to help some people and not others i needed money the goverment didnt help me thats not right . i needed money and i just got a low paying job and othet times i didnt even have a job and thats wrong and then i hear how welfare people say i cant live on a low paying job will i couldnt either but i did so if i can do it so can they. i lived a life of no job or low paying jobs and i got no welfare and it was awful but if i can live like that so can they i wanted to live on welfare but i couldnt get on it because these bums where getting all the help thats not right for the goverment to help some and not others like me i am jealous of welfare people because they have more money than i do

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: