The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

http://marketdailynews.com/2015/04/14/w ... -benefits/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After forcing these individuals to either work part-time for twenty hours each week, enroll in a vocational program, or volunteer for a minimum of twenty-four hours per month, the numbers showed a significant drop from 12,000 enrollees to just over 2,500.

Now for the rest of the story.

I've always said those "healthy" people who accept social assistance should be required to give back to the system by being required to do volunteer work as designated. Then we would require less public workers and use that money to fund the social programs. You can bet that if they had to give something to get something, most wouldn't bother and just get a job.

I wonder how many of those welfare recipients we would want in our business.

I had one job opening in my Washington suburbs office for general office help; answering the phone, filing and typing occasional letters. One applicant wanted $65,000 per year, benefits and wanted to know if the job location was near a bus line. They had never been on any job a year and had only worked at McDonalds, Burger King, etc .I'm sure that the applicant was just floating an application so that they could keep getting their benefits. Needless to say, they didn’t get the job.

If they show up a soup kitchen for free meals, they should be required to either help cook it or help cleaning up the dishes, sweeping floors etc as long as their health permits it and they don't have physical disabilities that would prevent it.

Why does a State like California with millions of physically able people living off of social hands outs have to hire thousands of public employees to do administrative tasks and jobs like maintenance/clean up of public lands and properties?

Our society has become one where the harder you work, the MORE the government expects of you. Many have figured that out so they milk the system and don't bother busting their butts to only be punished by the government for doing so.

RealJustme wrote:If they show up a soup kitchen for free meals, they should be required to either help cook it or help cleaning up the dishes, sweeping floors etc as long as their health permits it and they don't have physical disabilities that would prevent it.

Why does a State like California with millions of physically able people living off of social hands outs have to hire thousands of public employees to do administrative tasks and jobs like maintenance/clean up of public lands and properties?

Our society has become one where the harder you work, the MORE the government expects of you. Many have figured that out so they milk the system and don't bother busting their butts to only be punished by the government for doing so.

They are called red states for a reason...

snakeoil wrote:http://marketdailynews.com/2015/04/14/w ... -benefits/

After forcing these individuals to either work part-time for twenty hours each week, enroll in a vocational program, or volunteer for a minimum of twenty-four hours per month, the numbers showed a significant drop from 12,000 enrollees to just over 2,500.

Now for the rest of the story.

Did you know that the vast majority of welfare recipients (around 90%) either work, are elderly, or are disabled.

And forget about drug testing welfare recipients because they use drugs at a lower rate than the general population, because drugs are too expensive to use. And it cost more to test than the government would save in denying benefits...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no ... .html?_r=0

There are many correct things to do which may, or may not, save money.

Drug testing for welfare recipients falls into that category.

The Times, of course, simply wants America to become a large welfare state like Sweden, and Obama wants that too.

The Left dislikes America because it became a beacon of freedom, a haven for capitalism, and the Left loves all humans.

Unless you disagree with a leftist, whereupon the leftist will erupt in rage and call you every name in the book (a Nazi, a racist, etc) and tell endless lies.

The right wing ideology has driven income and wealth inequality to the widest gap since the 1930s, and conservatives seem to think nothing of it.

Walker claims that the "haves" are government union workers, and the tax payers are the "have-nots." WOW, that extra 5 or 10K extra makes someone a "have" in society.

Conservatives look to prevent the rising of the minimum wage for the working stiffs. These are the bottom 40% of asset owners in society who collectively own, what, 0.2% of total assets in society. So by paying an additional few bucks will bring up that number to 0.3%? What an outrage!!!