People receiving Gov't assistance are employees of the state....

with more government jobs you could offer them a job and pay them if that is what you want

if the government wants to give them a job they can do, I am ok with that

course then the right would complain and try to kill those government jobs

.

 

Even raking leaves would require supervision and more expense. I can't think of too many jobs that you can have government assistance workers do where you wouldn't get blowback from the private sector, as we have seen when prisons try putting prisoners to work in the fields as farmers, even for the prison's own consumption. The private farmers raise hell.

 

You'd have to change the US Constitution and the chances of that happening are zilch; even if your boy trump manages to get elected.

 

By the numbers.

109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012.

Meanwhile 122.52 million people were employed on a full-time basis.

The Left fails to understand, this is unsustainable in long-term.

So when we have a national debt of $18 Trillion and the Left wanting even more entitlement programs, like free college, the response is typically "national debt, so what."

 

Just when are these people supposed to look for a real job? You've got them working during normal business hours; If they get injured on the job, will they receive workman's compensation? Having them replace the regular work force? Most cities have labor contracts and that would no doubt cost the cities untold millions in litigation. Your plan is not viable.

You are correct; unions will never allow this to happen and rightly so. There job is to keep their members gainfully employed and in many cases they do a good job of doing it. The main problem with your "dream" is that again, it is not viable; it's too costly and would cost a lot more then leaving things the way they currently are. Looks like it's back to the drawing board for you.

 

Perhaps, but Only due to our warfare-State not our welfare-State.

 

I'll try and address you post one issue at a time.

Defining what is a disability - I am not a doctor nor an elected representative of the people so I should not be making that call. I can vote for the people that will, but ultimately who the government allows on SSDI is up to the government.
Single mother - Many companies in the US have maternity benefits giving a woman time at home with their new born. Some companies.....including the one I work for even have paternity time. Should the state allow a single mother to stay home as long as she wants......no is my opinion.
Person in debt - In the US there are bankruptcy laws that allow a person to get assistance or get rid of debt. Many loan organizations are more than willing to work out a payment plan that is manageable since they would like paid even if it is a little at a time.
Person injured and can't walk a lot - If his only problem is that he can't walk a lot, that means he can drive a desk or potential trucks just fine. Will he need retraining......absolutely. One of the benefits of the current US welfare system is assistance getting that training. Just because you can't walk, doesn't mean you can't be productive. Stephen Hawking is totally handicapped and he a contributed a huge amount.
Family loss - Most employers have a policy that gives a person some time, but while I am sympathetic to them they need to get back to work. Cold hearted.........maybe.

I think I've addressed all of them, but if I missed one please let me know.

 

If you have nothing to contribute I'll assume your padding you post totals for some reason.

 

I'm arguing that they already get paid by the government so that technically they have a government job. They just don't work for the money.

 

Everyday it seems like cities are making news with budget issues. Yes some private business may lose money picking up trash and mowing for the city, but the city saves money.

 

I'm not sure why you are concerned with post totals. Your OP had nothing but the decades old nonsense about blaming the poor. Again, since you seem to lack the ability to process and disseminate information, raking leaves and drug tests accomplish nothing but feed into the bias that everyone on food stamps is lazy and on drugs.

 

nope, but if you want you can ask congress to pass a law to help them get a job

 

Doctors don't have all disabilities listed as something that can be signed as a reason not to work. They're not almighty. For cancer and a broken leg it's quite easy but not for all.

I was thinking about people who are supposed to go to work, not so much those already with a job since they naturally have all the benefits. You were trying to get the lazy people off to work, right? I said a high debt that can't be paid off - I don't know the details of American bankruptcy system but I doubt the people can really that freely decide how much they pay back, would sound like a bankruptcy paradise.. Literally, if you're not winning a lottery, you'll live on the street the rest of your life. Or work your ass off for the rest of it and never keep any of the money.

The people who already have a job and get injured in the job have a right to retire, usually. So if you take the right from others like them who didn't have a job where they were injured, to stay out of work but leave the right for those who were at a job, it gets unfair. They're all individual cases. Usually decided on how bad the disability is, how bad the person thinks it is. A person without legs can do some jobs, but it's difficult to demand a person who can't wipe his own ass to get off to work five days a week.

If a person grieving doesn't have a job, you decide if they get the money. Here is the question to your new welfare system. You either keep the old and give him the money or you take the new and send the person away. He might kill himself.. The state holds a lot of responsibility.

 

I'm not concerned, its the only reason I can come up with for you being in this thread since you haven't posted a single constructive comment yet.

Where in any of these post from me have I blamed the poor.......for being poor or that they were lazy. No where is the answer. Your projecting is my only assumption why you think I have.

All I'm saying is that if you are an able bodied sound mind individual.....why it is wrong to want them to work for the money they get from the government doing the little jobs that all municipalities need done?

So far you have contributed nothing but calling me names and an assuming you know what I think.

 

It would only be true, under truer forms of socialism. We have federal form of government, for a reason. A doctrine of separation of powers is both necessary and proper under our form of government.

We also have a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

We could be lowering our Tax burden by improving the efficiency of our economy.

 

Agreed, but for SSDI they require proof that this disability makes you incapable of working. That proof comes from doctors. Don't like the system vote to have it changed.

Thankfully I can't speak well on the bankruptcy system either, but I know there are a few ways to do it. I do know that many places will work with you on payments though so they at least get something. Depending on your debt it is true that you may never have much money, but if you don't try you'll for sure have nothing.

There is not a right to retire. There are many people that work until they die, because they can't afford to retire. The US system for retirement is not all it's cracked up to be, and many have to work to make ends meet. As I have mentioned there are some disabilities that do not allow a person to work......fine.

This comes to one of my beliefs......the state should not be responsible for people.......people should be responsible for people. The state can be there to aid in times of need, but shouldn't be the end.

 

taxpayers choose to work for food, this would make the lazy forced to work for food or starve to death. the lazy have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

this would be unconstitutional because it would be forced labor against the will of the lazy, who have the right not to work, but also the right to life.

 

we tried in my city, unfortunately democrats rejected it soundly saying it was nothing more than an attempt to create slave labor of minorities... hence why its completely dead in the water and political suicide to even dare suggest in the future... granted this is a super majority democrat controlled city, but it was a novel idea decades ago to deal with ALL the issues we have today, that STILL have not been solved by democrats, despite the fact we've doubled spending on all the social programs over that time...

so no, they aren't interested in the least bit of attempting to do this, their solution is more money and more services with more union members... poverty has increased...

so not only is the "race gap" getting far worse, the percent of people employed continues to drop, and they can't blame manufacturing leaving the city, it was gone by the 80s... its been white flight ever since driving the numbers down as more and more companies leave with them... but hey, maybe my city is magically unique and nobody else around the country is suffering from the exact same scenario... (looks across the map) nope seems to be every major city... (that was kind of snarky of me)

P.S. I could go into the school budget doubling in the past couple decades as well, but yet students aren't achieving more either... more money is not the solution, the sooner we figure out its the correct application of money, and the correct application of people, the sooner we can actually solve this problem and be done with it...

 

I didn't know that that was Trumps platform.

 

It's tough to know what Trumps platform is since he's constantly changing his position on many different issues.

 

I'll focus on this one aspect to make it easier on you. This is a common, stupid suggestion made by a lot of people who frankly need to smoke a joint once in a while. I'm going to assume you don't want people buying drugs with welfare money because that is a waste of said money. Fair enough. Where does it stop? Do we outlaw alcohol, cigarettes, and fatty foods? All of those products are a waste of money. Why single out drugs specifically? Should we have people on welfare have to submit their grocery lists? Exactly what should people on welfare be allowed to spend their money on? Who gets to decide?

There are even some facts for you (that you casually ignored or are ignorant of) about drug testing for welfare. Florida tried it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html

My guess is that it doesn't matter to you. Facts show that it's a pointless exercise meant to do nothing other than waste taxpayer money so people not on welfare can feel superior. You're making a simple minded comparison between welfare and your work place. You work for money and have to take drug tests, so that's the standard? That guarantees and honorable and productive citizen? It clearly doesn't produce an informed one.

 

i wouldn't say making minorities work for their welfare is slave labor, its more indentured servitude as they still keep their rights and are only enslaved to the debt of the welfare they use.

the irish came out just fine after spending a few generations in this type of servitude. they were the undesirables at one point, and needed to be trained properly on how to be civilized.

 

While I do not want people spending their welfare money on drugs that is not the reason I indicated drug testing. I put forth that statement in relation to treating people on welfare like an employee. There are many major companies that require drug testing to get hired and do random drug testing throughout employment.

I will admit that I didn't read your link since you clear haven't read any of my posts either or you would know I was treating welfare recipients like any good sized company employee.

What superior! They would be treated like most large company employees, that means equal by the way. You apparently don't think a person on welfare can be a honorable a productive citizen then? I give them more credit than that. And again you're name calling and degrading instead of debating like and intelligent human. I just feel some need incentive to get off of the couch and if welfare means that you work anyway they have incentive to get a real job, or they work for what they get.