Should people on welfare be made to perform community service to recieve their checks?

by shotgun the 3rd Posted 2012/05/27 16:22:39

Related Topics: Welfare, Community Service, Perform

Read More

31 votes
Read all 43 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	yes	19 votes	61%
	no	6 votes	19%
	Undecided	6 votes	19%

Add a comment above

Demonic Rat Hunter 2012/05/27 19:40:32

yes

+3
At the very least, and you know it will take supervison as some won't do whatever it is because they'd rather be smoking dope on the couch or making little baby paychecks.
So if they don't perform Bennies stop. Kinda like a job where if you don't perform up to snuff you hit the bricks.
>> See Replies

More polls by shotgun the 3rd

Jayne 2012/05/28 03:53:07

Undecided

+1
If they are able to contribute then let them do so. Children receive assistance and should not be required to work in orde rto pay for what they reeive. One exception to that rule would be attendance in school. Those gaming the system should be taken off the roles and receive nothing.

reply
gocar 2012/05/28 02:21:18

no

+1
They should not be MADE. Most people receiving aid are children. After that it is the sick and elderly. What would you have them do? Let me know about the able bodied guy who is on welfare and I will find a job for him.

reply
The Elitist Libtard SodaJerk 2012/05/27 21:59:18

Undecided

+1
I don't hate the Idea, I'm just wondering How much work would one do for the pittance they receive in welfare.

reply
Justin Bolander 2012/05/27 21:30:45
Sweet Heiress 2012/05/27 21:14:40

yes

+1
Yes they sshould because I was laid off from my job because I'm pregnant. I'm trying to get government assistance and they won't help me. I've worked up until 3 weeks ago and I think i should get some help. But some of these people haven't worked a day in their life or do have good jobs and they know how to work the system like that. So yeah im up for community service to work for that. Unless its an emergency.

reply
gocar to Sweet H... 2012/05/28 02:23:39

+1
In any society and at any time there are 10% of the people who are cheats. This applies in any country or any place it is part of human nature. We just have to factor in those cheats as the cost of the program of make the deserving poor even more miserable with even more hoops to jump through.

reply
shotgun... to gocar 2012/05/28 12:50:30

+1
What I'm trying to say Carole, when a person drives up in a fully decked out Escalade wearing designer clothes and real gold and is handed a gov. check... Thats BS and I've seen that crap happen in person....

reply
Lorelei Lee 2012/05/27 20:13:01

yes

+2
It will weed out the ones who are playing the system and the ones who really need it.

reply
Demonic Rat Hunter 2012/05/27 19:40:32

yes

+3
At the very least, and you know it will take supervison as some won't do whatever it is because they'd rather be smoking dope on the couch or making little baby paychecks.
So if they don't perform Bennies stop. Kinda like a job where if you don't perform up to snuff you hit the bricks.

reply
Shawna 2012/05/27 19:15:24

Undecided

+3
The attitude behind this question disturbs me. It might be a valid question if worded as "Should the state offer menial jobs to people who are out of work in exchange for a fair wage?"

reply
shotgun... to Shawna 2012/05/27 22:37:14

+2
Its a fair question Shawna,I just dont like the idea of people working the system and scewing the hard working tax payers so some ofthem can stay stoned and not contribute to society.

reply
Shawna to shotgun... 2012/05/27 22:43:02

+3
Nobody likes that. But it's also unfair to represent all people who need social assistance as being like that. There has to be a way of weeding out the ones who abuse the system without attacking the dignity of good people who genuinely need help.

reply
shotgun... to Shawna 2012/05/27 22:52:30

+2
I'm not trying to associate everyone like that, just the bad apples which drug testing would weed out. We need to make drug testing a federal mandate to apply for welfare and not grandfather the ones allready getting it.Make them get tested also.

reply
Shawna to shotgun... 2012/05/27 22:59:00

+2
I realise this is a problem, that many people on welfare live that lifestyle, but I have come far too close to needing it myself to be able to label all people who are on welfare as lazy bums or drug users. While I could take a drug test and be found clean, it would be humiliating to have to face a system that assumes I'm guilty and treats me accordingly. I am fortunate to be able to seek a disability pension that I have paid into in all my years of employment, but that is only good fortune. If I had worked as a cashier at the local supermarket I might not have had that.

reply
shotgun... to Shawna 2012/05/27 23:07:50

+2
I see your point but I have to submit random testing to keep my job, also post accedent testing. I also said I'm not talking about people who are disabled, but in order to apply for almost any job these days you have to submit to a drug test,that includes cashiers, bag boys waitresses ,buss boys, allmost any job. So what is different about submitting a drug test for welfare? Thank you for you feedback.

reply
Shawna to shotgun... 2012/05/27 23:24:42

+1
Perhaps it is different here in Canada. I am not aware of anyone having to take drug tests, though criminal record checks are common if you work with children.

reply
gocar to shotgun... 2012/05/28 02:33:36

+1
Let me relay a true story to you. I once had the opportunity to visit and tour a facility in Detroit called Focus Hope. You can google that and find out more. The program was founded by a Father William Cunningham and in the beginning was only a food bank. We I toured the place I could not help noticing that people were being handed food supplies when they came in the door. All they had to say was how many people they needed to feed and the amount of cereal, bread, cans depended on that. Father Cunningham was asked how they checked to make sure the people really could not afford to buy enough food themselves. No proof of unemployment, No proof of how many kids they needed to feed. This while the welfare office wanted birth certificates and all sorts of documentation. The Father replied that they do not check on people. They assume that like anything else 10% of the people are not telling the truth or the whole truth but they do not want to set up a program that polices them. He maintained that 90% of the people who came to them for food were there because they really, really needed help. He did not want to make them grovel for help and make them feel even more unworthy. I felt that Father Cunningham had the right idea. Welfare, food stamps, and other forms of help are charit...

Let me relay a true story to you. I once had the opportunity to visit and tour a facility in Detroit called Focus Hope. You can google that and find out more. The program was founded by a Father William Cunningham and in the beginning was only a food bank. We I toured the place I could not help noticing that people were being handed food supplies when they came in the door. All they had to say was how many people they needed to feed and the amount of cereal, bread, cans depended on that. Father Cunningham was asked how they checked to make sure the people really could not afford to buy enough food themselves. No proof of unemployment, No proof of how many kids they needed to feed. This while the welfare office wanted birth certificates and all sorts of documentation. The Father replied that they do not check on people. They assume that like anything else 10% of the people are not telling the truth or the whole truth but they do not want to set up a program that polices them. He maintained that 90% of the people who came to them for food were there because they really, really needed help. He did not want to make them grovel for help and make them feel even more unworthy. I felt that Father Cunningham had the right idea. Welfare, food stamps, and other forms of help are charity and should be given with a free heart. Being poor is bad enough but being treated like you are unworthy is even worse. My advise is read Dickens or Grapes of Wrath to feel like the poor feel. Do we really want to make their lives worse. If we have a full heart then factor in the cost of the cheats and give the poor dignity.
(more)

reply
shotgun... to gocar 2012/05/28 12:42:24

Thank you Carole, that is food for thought...

reply
Reichstolz 2012/05/27 19:13:37

yes

+1
Hand them a broom and send them into the streets. In the winter hand them a shovel. There is no value in free. Money without effort only creates dependency.

reply
MichaelDillon 2012/05/27 18:58:14

yes

Yes.

reply
Rusty Shackleford 2012/05/27 18:36:40

no

+2
No, that would defeat the whole purpose of welfare.

Welfare is designed to keep people dependent upon government for their very livelihood in exchange for votes. If the welfare recipients were forced to work, they might choose to throw off the chains of their government bondage, and work for themselves.

reply
Maddog 2012/05/27 17:10:40

yes

Absolutely! If they're receiving taxpayer money, and are capable of working, they could perform public service jobs.

reply
john Kills 2012/05/27 16:48:54

yes

+1
And get drug screened.

reply
Grabitz 2012/05/27 16:48:21

no

+1
If they got paid minimum wage for their work then yes why not . In Michigan they are required to look for work and go to the Michigan Work First program daily that some say is worse then working . The problem with making them work for food is it takes the jobs from the workers not on assistance and working for food is no more then slavery to control people .

reply
shotgun... to Grabitz 2012/05/27 16:58:50

+1
Thats a good point also, but here in TX they just hand it out.I hope they pass the drug testing to recieve benefits law here..

reply
Grabitz to shotgun... 2012/05/27 17:17:21

Hmm Texas must have money to burn . What they did here with the drug testing is instead of making them take a drug test at the welfare office they make them take one at Work First to see if they can get a job before money and time is put into them . they do give them enough time to become drug free , if not then they have a choice to go to rehab or cut off . It seems to be working really well , I have seen druggies that I thought would die doing drugs now working and drug free much happier then they have even been .

reply
shotgun... to Grabitz 2012/05/27 18:09:43

I would like to see that happen here,but alot of liberals keep protesting it as invasion of privacy which I think is BS because I have to take random to keep my job also post accedent testing.

reply
Grabitz to shotgun... 2012/05/27 18:20:18

See thats the entire point of taking the drug test at Work First because they are looking for a job not looking for welfare . It is mandatory for them to be actively looking for work and rightly so , and it is mandatory for them to take a drug test in order to get a job so that takes welfare out of the spotlight . No Work First no check . It works out beautifully .

reply
shotgun... to Grabitz 2012/05/27 18:24:07

+3
I seriously hopes TX adopts it.

reply
Grabitz to shotgun... 2012/05/27 18:47:14

+1
I hope they do too , not only for the state but for the good of the druggies . Like I said I have seen the worse of the druggies actually become proud of themselves working and happier then I have even seen them . At first like any druggie they complained but after getting straight getting a job they have no idea why they even got into drugs and look at it as the biggest mistake of their lives . They need help not handouts . I blame government for letting so many drugs come in this country and your state most drugs and human trafficking comes through Texas . I think drugs just may be to big of an income for your state just to stop it altogether .

reply
dave b 2012/05/27 16:37:37

yes

+1
I think thats a great idea, but I also think the ACLU would prevent it.

reply
shotgun... to dave b 2012/05/27 16:41:22

+3
make the ACLU get a job also..lol

reply
CuppaT Child of God 2012/05/27 16:32:57

Undecided

+2
If there no extenuating circumstances to prohibit them from doing so. Otherwise, how about letting all those in the local jail do something to pay for their keep. http://www.poconorecord.com/a...

reply
shotgun... to CuppaT ... 2012/05/27 16:40:37

+2
Good point..

reply
I. Car Rus 2012/05/27 16:26:48

Undecided

+1
If you consider welfare food stamps many of them already have jobs at such low pay scale they can't afford to pay all of their bills and eat too. I would not require those people anyway to do a second job.

reply
OddPlatano 2012/05/27 16:25:55

yes

+2
Well, if they're physically capable. Then at least they would be contributing to society somehow.

reply
shotgun the 3rd 2012/05/27 16:25:00

yes

Maybe that will give them an incentive to find a job.....

reply
I. Car Rus to shotgun... 2012/05/27 16:27:18

+2
Many are the working poor already.

reply
shotgun... to I. Car Rus 2012/05/27 16:34:47

+7
I'm not talking about the handicapped or people who are working, I'm talking about the 2nd and 3rd generation recipients who are pumping out 4 and 5 kids to get welfare and stay stoned their whole life..

reply
I. Car Rus to shotgun... 2012/05/28 16:44:00

Its getting harder and harder to do that, at least here. We, and I do mean me, are taking their kids and putting them in jail in record numbers. Not because they are poor but because they are poor parents and law breakers. Maybe it will break the cycle at least in some places. But heed ye this, Jesus said: "there will always be the poor". He wasn't wrong.

reply