Poll of the Day > trump wants those on welfare to work for their check

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-wants-people-welfare-check-104013024.html

@TheWorstPoster thoughts?
---

Because we dont have enough working poor
---

Mead posted...

Because we dont have enough working poor

Working poor is better than vagrants.
---

Lol @Kyuubi4269 doesnt know what a vagrant is
---

An indentured serfdom is technically better than slavery.... I wonder why the adherents to Trickle Down economics try to apply a Bubble Up approach when it comes to the poor?
---

Mead posted...

Lol @Kyuubi4269 doesnt know what a vagrant is

vagrant
ver()nt/
noun

1. a person without a settled home or regular work who wanders from place to place and lives by begging.

2/3 ain't bad.
---

Mead posted...

Lol @Kyuubi4269 doesnt know what a vagrant is

<.<

>.>

A vagrant is when someone explains feminism
---

guys lets get back on topic and discuss how this affects theworstposter
---

I have always said this....sigh....no....I don't want to agree with trump. What am I supposed to do?

I'll qualify, maybe that will help.

I think everyone who receives money from the gov to support themselves or their kids should work for it to the best of their ability, even if it just means answering tech support calls etc from home.

I think additional jobs such as helpers in schools (if they can pass background checks, or free daycare (qualified people run it, but helpers) etc should be used to ensure there is a job/position for everyone.

Nobody should get "free" money, unless they have mental problems or physical problems that make it impossible for them to work.

If that is trumps stance, then please shoot me.
---

They tried doing something like this in the UK which lasted for 4 years . If they go ahead with it they need to add restrictions such as the only places a person can work for are charities and what have you, anything that's non-profit.

Over here when they introduced the 'workfare' many companies exploited the scheme to the point where some actually stopped hiring paid workers, while other companies taking part started to "let go" paid workers and replaced them with free labour courtest of the government.
---

Runner_style posted...

They tried doing something like this in the UK which lasted for 4 years . If they go ahead with it they need to add restrictions such as the only places a person can work for are charities and what have you, anything that's non-profit.

Over here when they introduced the 'workfare' many companies exploited the scheme to the point where some actually stopped hiring paid workers, while other companies taking part started to "let go" paid workers and replaced them with free labour courtest of the government.

And we have a similar problem here with Temporary Foreign Workers. It's cheaper to max out your slave hours than to hire permanent staff
---

Just make it so the jobs are "new" and you can't work as an intern for a company or a non-paid position for a company etc and still get benefits. Basically you have to work for the government to get money from them.

Cleaning up streets of litter, helping at the post office/dmv etc so the lines are not freaking so long. Answering phones (instead of freaking recordings) so you don't have to wait 3 hours to get help or an answer, working at free child care centers (with a few paid, well trained staff overseeing everything) etc etc.

Basically you have to freaking work for the money, so get a real job, or work for the gov, but you work, you don't get a free ride...the only exception being for those who can not work at all (and I mean you have serious mental problems or are basically paralized. If you can talk on a phone, you can freaking work.

Might seem harsh, but it just should be that way.
---

So...working for the government basically

Runner_style posted...

Over here when they introduced the 'workfare' many companies exploited the scheme to the point where some actually stopped hiring paid workers, while other companies taking part started to "let go" paid workers and replaced them with free labour courtest of the government.

That sounds about right.

There are so many things you would need to do to make this work that I feel it'd cost more than it would save.

You would need to line up the jobs for the people to work.

You would need to pay them at least minimum wage by law.

You would need to be very careful not to displace actual employees. The example above is one such scenario where employers just replace employees, but it can go the other way as well. If the jobs you can get on welfare are better than your current job (say you're a burger flipper), why wouldn't you quit and do that instead?

So many hurdles to overcome, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
---

That's a stupid idea. How are they supposed to get off the welfare if they can't use their time to go look for an actual good job?
Also, there are people lots of people working either full time or part time and still get welfare because of low income. WTF are they supposed to do?
---

Dynalo posted...

Runner_style posted...

Over here when they introduced the 'workfare' many companies exploited the scheme to the point where some actually stopped hiring paid workers, while other companies taking part started to "let go" paid workers and replaced them with free labour courtest of the government.

That sounds about right.

There are so many things you would need to do to make this work that I feel it'd cost more than it would save.

You would need to line up the jobs for the people to work.

You would need to pay them at least minimum wage by law.

You would need to be very careful not to displace actual employees. The example above is one such scenario where employers just replace employees, but it can go the other way as well. If the jobs you can get on welfare are better than your current job (say you're a burger flipper), why wouldn't you quit and do that instead?

So many hurdles to overcome, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

It's seriously not that hard. They already have employees set to handle the current setup of giving away free money, and ensuring everyone isn't taking advantage etc. Switch them over to handing out jobs instead.

Fed min wage is EXACTLY what you would pay, and you would only allow them to work enough hours to get the benefits they would have gotten for free. So basically if Min wage is $8, and they would have gotten $300 in food stamps and $500 in cash before, they need to work 100 hours in a month to get the same amount now.

Meanwhile you would just make all current gov jobs more efficient (honestly almost all of them are under staffed and slow as molassas because they have no incentive to work fast). So you would have many intern like jobs where people just help the current employees. You would even create new jobs (with some of the money you would save due to people actually getting other jobs now that they can't get free money), such as free child care for everyone etc. Current people in child care positions that are licensed would still have jobs running the centers, you just would have way more of them, so all children could be watched and anyone who wants to work can (without worrying about paying to have their children watched all day).

It could totally work, save money, and actually help the economy as well.
---

If you think customer service sucks now wait until they start having welfare recipients do the job from their homes
---

Oh the humanity. The idea that there should be accountability for someone taking money that is stolen (by force) from taxpayers.
These programs shouldn't exist to begin with.

Mead posted...

If you think customer service sucks now wait until they start having welfare recipients do the job from their homes

I don't care how bad they are at their job, they would be better then those freaking recording machines, and even if they could only do the most basic of tasks, it would still cut down on like 50% of the calls by total morons that need to turn off and turn back on their phone/computer etc, or the equivalent (like get directions to the local DMV, or make an appointment etc).

Anyone can do that stuff, and then the current staff doing all that could handle only the stuff that is actually slightly complicated or complicated and you would STILL get to them faster then you do with our current system.

I mean it almost can't get worse then it already is. Also if employees don't do a good job or just goof off, they get warned. Enough warnings and they don't get the benefits (or reduced ones I guess first....done by giving less and less hours initially).

Seriously there are ways to make this work, and giving the option of free to people is just not a good idea. It gives incentive to not work, since working means getting taxed etc, and quite often people are better off just getting free foodstamps/money after all is said and done right now.

That should never be the case.
---

BeerOnTap posted...

Oh the humanity. The idea that there should be accountability for someone taking money that is stolen (by force) from taxpayers.
These programs shouldn't exist to begin with.

Lol here we go with this nonsense again
---

wolfy42 posted...

It's seriously not that hard. They already have employees set to handle the current setup of giving away free money, and ensuring everyone isn't taking advantage etc. Switch them over to handing out jobs instead.

No, those people would still be in charge of handing out money and protecting against fraud. That part doesn't stop. The money is still coming from the government. You'd need more people to find positions, and people to schedule the hours that everyone is supposed to work. That's an entirely different skillset, and would not be in the agreement for the existing employees.

wolfy42 posted...

Fed min wage is EXACTLY what you would pay, and you would only allow them to work enough hours to get the benefits they would have gotten for free. So basically if Min wage is $8, and they would have gotten $300 in food stamps and $500 in cash before, they need to work 100 hours in a month to get the same amount now.

It sounds like you're aware of how much extra work would be required if you want to still do all the original calculations and then add the factor of placing them in jobs and limiting what they can work on top of that.

wolfy42 posted...

Meanwhile you would just make all current gov jobs more efficient (honestly almost all of them are under staffed and slow as molassas because they have no incentive to work fast). So you would have many intern like jobs where people just help the current employees. You would even create new jobs (with some of the money you would save due to people actually getting other jobs now that they can't get free money), such as free child care for everyone etc. Current people in child care positions that are licensed would still have jobs running the centers, you just would have way more of them, so all children could be watched and anyone who wants to work can (without worrying about paying to have their children watched all day).

Office space is a thing. You can't just add 50 additional people into an office as interns. They need a place to sit, computer equipment to work on. They'd need to greatly increase the amount of workspace they have, which costs more money.

These daycares you suggested will cost more money between land, building costs, utilities, etc. And I'm just laughing at the idea that everyone will magically be fine leaving their children with a bunch of people on welfare. The screening process would have to be quite rigorous (which costs more money).

Sounds like your plan is likely to double the cost of distributing welfare checks to people.
---

raising kids is work, you know?
---

What about pregnant women and women and men with newborns? Yeah, let's make them work, fuck their pregnancy/newborns that need to be taken care of.

Do people even think before suggesting stupidass ideas like this?
---

BeerOnTap posted...

The idea that there should be accountability for someone taking money that is stolen (by force) from taxpayers

Implying people on public assistance don't pay any taxes?

Taxation isn't theft. It's legally mandated. Go try to arrest your municipal government for levying taxes, or stop using all public goods and services financed by taxation.
---

Raising kids is work, but if you want to raise your own kids, you should get licensed to watch other kids as well, allowing people who do want to work and not stay home with kids the opportunity to do so. You are not entitled to just stay home with your kids and take money from other people who are working. Also, you can stay home with kids now adays AND STILL WORK. I know many people who do. Again, phone jobs from home etc, or on the internet. There are ways to make a profit from someone at home, which the gov should do if they are giving them free money/housing and food.

And the day care centers would not be run by people on welfare (for that matter there would no longer be a welfare, just a a job for everyone, if you can't find one another way, you can always get a gov job basically). The people in charge, and one for every 30-40 kids, would be professionals that are trained, and make more money because of this. Working at a center also gives you the opportunity to be trained while there, so you too can eventually have one of those higher paying jobs. If you don't fit in, or a person in charge of the center can show you are not doing a good job or should not be around young children, you get moved to a different type of job (like picking up trash in a park etc).

It might cost a bit more at first, maybe, but long term it would save a ton of money, and be great for the country. Everyone would work, unless completely unable to do so, everyone would have incentive to get a better job and improve themselves (As they are working anyway, why not get paid more). The amount the gov had to shelve out would go down and down, and since more people are working, the gov would actually get more taxes as well.

Wouldn't be a utopia and it's just a start to be honest. Wealth needs to be redistributed better as well, which would mean those working would have more incentive to do so (and could create a larger gap between min wage gov jobs and other jobs. To be honest ONLY the min wag gov jobs should pay enough just to get by. Any other job should pay more then that. It would give people a large incentive not to work at those jobs at all.
---

I like how dy thinks that making people work is more expensive than giving them money to not work.

How does he think businesses work?
---

In the UK if you haven't worked for 6 months they make you do community service a few times a week or you don't get your unemployment check anymore.
---

A lot of people on welfare would gladly work. They just can't get jobs. They're not happy about it.
---

TigerTycoon posted...

In the UK if you haven't worked for 6 months they make you do community service a few times a week or you don't get your unemployment check anymore.

I assume that applies only to people functionally able to work, not folks with say physical disabilities that make it impossible, right?
---

I think the government needs to start a job program for all those who want jobs. But I absolutely do not want that tied to welfare.
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_the_Dole

this is something similar to what he is proposing and it does work if you get up off your asses and do the work.
---

wolfy42 posted...

Raising kids is work, but if you want to raise your own kids, you should get licensed to watch other kids as well, allowing people who do want to work and not stay home with kids the opportunity to do so. You are not entitled to just stay home with your kids and take money from other people who are working. Also, you can stay home with kids now adays AND STILL WORK. I know many people who do. Again, phone jobs from home etc, or on the internet. There are ways to make a profit from someone at home, which the gov should do if they are giving them free money/housing and food.

And the day care centers would not be run by people on welfare (for that matter there would no longer be a welfare, just a a job for everyone, if you can't find one another way, you can always get a gov job basically). The people in charge, and one for every 30-40 kids, would be professionals that are trained, and make more money because of this. Working at a center also gives you the opportunity to be trained while there, so you too can eventually have one of those higher paying jobs. If you don't fit in, or a person in charge of the center can show you are not doing a good job or should not be around young children, you get moved to a different type of job (like picking up trash in a park etc).

It might cost a bit more at first, maybe, but long term it would save a ton of money, and be great for the country. Everyone would work, unless completely unable to do so, everyone would have incentive to get a better job and improve themselves (As they are working anyway, why not get paid more). The amount the gov had to shelve out would go down and down, and since more people are working, the gov would actually get more taxes as well.

Wouldn't be a utopia and it's just a start to be honest. Wealth needs to be redistributed better as well, which would mean those working would have more incentive to do so (and could create a larger gap between min wage gov jobs and other jobs. To be honest ONLY the min wag gov jobs should pay enough just to get by. Any other job should pay more then that. It would give people a large incentive not to work at those jobs at all.

Wow, you've never taken care of a newborn if you think taking care of one and working at the same time is no big deal.

Seriously, you seem like one of those high schoolers that think they know about everything in the world when you actually don't at all.

If a woman is making it ok, just being on food stamps to help her get by and just needed to take a few weeks off of work to take care of the newborn and recover from the childbirth, do they seriously need to be working?
---

BeerOnTap posted...

Oh the humanity. The idea that there should be accountability for someone taking money that is stolen (by force) from taxpayers.
These programs shouldn't exist to begin with.

They also steal your money to build roads, libraries, support the military etc...
---

It would be nice though if the government would be like "you need a job, here have a job" and NOT be all like "you are the least qualified, now perish"
---

Monopoman posted...

They also steal your money to build roads, libraries, support the military etc...

Not a great argument when nobody uses libraries and the military keeps stucking its nose in other people's businesses and getting patriots killed for no good reason.
---

wolfy42 posted...

I have always said this....sigh....no....I don't want to agree with trump. What am I supposed to do?

I'll qualify, maybe that will help.

I think everyone who receives money from the gov to support themselves or their kids should work for it to the best of their ability, even if it just means answering tech support calls etc from home.

I think additional jobs such as helpers in schools (if they can pass background checks, or free daycare (qualified people run it, but helpers) etc should be used to ensure there is a job/position for everyone.

Nobody should get "free" money, unless they have mental problems or physical problems that make it impossible for them to work.

If that is trumps stance, then please shoot me.

Welcome to the heartless side.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I like how dy thinks that making people work is more expensive than giving them money to not work.

How does he think businesses work?

A "make work" project doesn't typically produce money. Having people "intern" at a government office produces literally 0 capital for the government. It 100% costs them money.

Businesses hire exactly the number of employees they need to maximize their profits. If they suddenly have less work, they lay people off.

If you have a way for the government to make everyone produce more money than they would receive as a salary, I'd love to hear it.
---

Mead posted...

BeerOnTap posted...

Oh the humanity. The idea that there should be accountability for someone taking money that is stolen (by force) from taxpayers.
These programs shouldn't exist to begin with.

Lol here we go with this nonsense again

What non-sense? That you should earn what you own?

Is it nonsensical that we should try to make the world a better/fair place?

Seriously, check yourself.
---

Viking_Mudcrap posted...

Mead posted...

BeerOnTap posted...

Oh the humanity. The idea that there should be accountability for someone taking money that is stolen (by force) from taxpayers.
These programs shouldn't exist to begin with.

Lol here we go with this nonsense again

What non-sense? That you should earn what you own?

Is it nonsensical that we should try to make the world a better/fair place?

Yeah
---

slacker03150 posted...

I think the government needs to start a job program for all those who want jobs. But I absolutely do not want that tied to welfare.

FDR wanted to do exactly that but hyper-capitalists shut it down

It would have guaranteed a job and a place to live for every American citizen willing to work
---

Mead posted...

Viking_Mudcrap posted...

Mead posted...

BeerOnTap posted...

Oh the humanity. The idea that there should be accountability for someone taking money that is stolen (by force) from taxpayers.
These programs shouldn't exist to begin with.

Lol here we go with this nonsense again

What non-sense? That you should earn what you own?

Is it nonsensical that we should try to make the world a better/fair place?

Yeah

Oh cool, thanks. You original post was confusing. I am glad you cleared it up for me.
---

in an ideal world no these programs shouldnt exist because in an ideal world everyone would have a job but seeing as we no matter where we live do not live in an ideal world the unemployed should be working for what they get even if its through programs such as my countries work for the dole (the link is in my original reply to the topic) program which insures that even if someone is unemployed they can still participate by being sent to everything from building fences sent out to community groups etc. just because you are unemployed does not mean that you get to just sit on your arse doing sweet f all for the monies you receive from the government.
---

Viking_Mudcrap posted...

Mead posted...

Viking_Mudcrap posted...

Mead posted...

BeerOnTap posted...

Oh the humanity. The idea that there should be accountability for someone taking money that is stolen (by force) from taxpayers.
These programs shouldn't exist to begin with.

Lol here we go with this nonsense again

What non-sense? That you should earn what you own?

Is it nonsensical that we should try to make the world a better/fair place?

Yeah

Oh cool, thanks. You original post was confusing. I am glad you cleared it up for me.

You welcome
---

This affects some PotDers, correct? I would like to hear from those people what they think...
---

Does he think most people on welfare don't work or something?

wolfy42 posted...

And the day care centers would not be run by people on welfare (for that matter there would no longer be a welfare, just a a job for everyone, if you can't find one another way, you can always get a gov job basically). The people in charge, and one for every 30-40 kids, would be professionals that are trained, and make more money because of this. Working at a center also gives you the opportunity to be trained while there, so you too can eventually have one of those higher paying jobs. If you don't fit in, or a person in charge of the center can show you are not doing a good job or should not be around young children, you get moved to a different type of job (like picking up trash in a park etc).

This would also utterly destroy the current daycare market. Sure, it could still exist, but who's going to pay $2000/month for daycare when they could use the government ones for free (or for a fraction of the cost). So now you displace all of those workers who are making a good living, and have them now working at the government owned ones for minimum wage (as they can't all be the "leader" in the building. There's only so many of those positions). Same with the people "picking up trash". Right now that's often a government job that pays $15+ an hour here. Usually taken by students looking for extra coin over the warmer months. That would all disappear.

A lot of positions that otherwise pay decent would disappear in favour of cheaper mandated labour. Right now a lot of these positions pay half decently because they're jobs people don't want to do. Supply and demand regulates that they get paid a decent wage, but mandating the labour will tank the salaries, as "anyone can do it".

Basically, you can say goodbye to any unskilled position. They would all end up being worked by the "unemployed", many of whom would be previous employees making significantly less. Why pay 10 people $18/hr when you can pay 25 people $8/hr?
---

lihlih posted...

wolfy42 posted...

Raising kids is work, but if you want to raise your own kids, you should get licensed to watch other kids as well, allowing people who do want to work and not stay home with kids the opportunity to do so. You are not entitled to just stay home with your kids and take money from other people who are working. Also, you can stay home with kids now adays AND STILL WORK. I know many people who do. Again, phone jobs from home etc, or on the internet. There are ways to make a profit from someone at home, which the gov should do if they are giving them free money/housing and food.

And the day care centers would not be run by people on welfare (for that matter there would no longer be a welfare, just a a job for everyone, if you can't find one another way, you can always get a gov job basically). The people in charge, and one for every 30-40 kids, would be professionals that are trained, and make more money because of this. Working at a center also gives you the opportunity to be trained while there, so you too can eventually have one of those higher paying jobs. If you don't fit in, or a person in charge of the center can show you are not doing a good job or should not be around young children, you get moved to a different type of job (like picking up trash in a park etc).

It might cost a bit more at first, maybe, but long term it would save a ton of money, and be great for the country. Everyone would work, unless completely unable to do so, everyone would have incentive to get a better job and improve themselves (As they are working anyway, why not get paid more). The amount the gov had to shelve out would go down and down, and since more people are working, the gov would actually get more taxes as well.

Wouldn't be a utopia and it's just a start to be honest. Wealth needs to be redistributed better as well, which would mean those working would have more incentive to do so (and could create a larger gap between min wage gov jobs and other jobs. To be honest ONLY the min wag gov jobs should pay enough just to get by. Any other job should pay more then that. It would give people a large incentive not to work at those jobs at all.

Wow, you've never taken care of a newborn if you think taking care of one and working at the same time is no big deal.

Seriously, you seem like one of those high schoolers that think they know about everything in the world when you actually don't at all.

If a woman is making it ok, just being on food stamps to help her get by and just needed to take a few weeks off of work to take care of the newborn and recover from the childbirth, do they seriously need to be working?

Actually I may be one of the few here who HAS worked as a Nanny, although usually I did not take care of babies (rarely anyone under 4 to be honest).

And I'm not saying there would be no maternity leave etc, but yes, I do think that a woman can work with a baby at home, after an initial maternity period. There are many jobs you could do that don't require constant attention, just time and effort. Filling in forms online, checking facts and information on applications, calling numbers to ensure the information is correct, etc. Heck these would be the perfect people to have working and setting up jobs for other people on the work program actually.

No reason you can not do that from home, even while watching a baby.
---

Combine this with the upcoming infrastructure debacle.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Combine this with the upcoming infrastructure debacle.

Infrastructure Week Round 5?
---

wolfy42 posted...

lihlih posted...

wolfy42 posted...

Raising kids is work, but if you want to raise your own kids, you should get licensed to watch other kids as well, allowing people who do want to work and not stay home with kids the opportunity to do so. You are not entitled to just stay home with your kids and take money from other people who are working. Also, you can stay home with kids now adays AND STILL WORK. I know many people who do. Again, phone jobs from home etc, or on the internet. There are ways to make a profit from someone at home, which the gov should do if they are giving them free money/housing and food.

And the day care centers would not be run by people on welfare (for that matter there would no longer be a welfare, just a a job for everyone, if you can't find one another way, you can always get a gov job basically). The people in charge, and one for every 30-40 kids, would be professionals that are trained, and make more money because of this. Working at a center also gives you the opportunity to be trained while there, so you too can eventually have one of those higher paying jobs. If you don't fit in, or a person in charge of the center can show you are not doing a good job or should not be around young children, you get moved to a different type of job (like picking up trash in a park etc).

It might cost a bit more at first, maybe, but long term it would save a ton of money, and be great for the country. Everyone would work, unless completely unable to do so, everyone would have incentive to get a better job and improve themselves (As they are working anyway, why not get paid more). The amount the gov had to shelve out would go down and down, and since more people are working, the gov would actually get more taxes as well.

Wouldn't be a utopia and it's just a start to be honest. Wealth needs to be redistributed better as well, which would mean those working would have more incentive to do so (and could create a larger gap between min wage gov jobs and other jobs. To be honest ONLY the min wag gov jobs should pay enough just to get by. Any other job should pay more then that. It would give people a large incentive not to work at those jobs at all.

Wow, you've never taken care of a newborn if you think taking care of one and working at the same time is no big deal.

Seriously, you seem like one of those high schoolers that think they know about everything in the world when you actually don't at all.

If a woman is making it ok, just being on food stamps to help her get by and just needed to take a few weeks off of work to take care of the newborn and recover from the childbirth, do they seriously need to be working?

Actually I may be one of the few here who HAS worked as a Nanny, although usually I did not take care of babies (rarely anyone under 4 to be honest).

And I'm not saying there would be no maternity leave etc, but yes, I do think that a woman can work with a baby at home, after an initial maternity period. There are many jobs you could do that don't require constant attention, just time and effort. Filling in forms online, checking facts and information on applications, calling numbers to ensure the information is correct, etc. Heck these would be the perfect people to have working and setting up jobs for other people on the work program actually.

No reason you can not do that from home, even while watching a baby.

Oh yeah, fill out information and do all that while an infant is crying. No unusually high mistakes there, nope.

Also, 4+ doesn't even compare to infants, or even 1-2 year olds. They're not even in the same league.
---