Long-term jobless 'could face compulsory manual labour'

It's a good Idea - UK like Australia has women who have kids to get the dole and men that chose these type of dribblers so they dont need to work either ( ours doesnt cut off ) permanently have another when the time runs low ( usto be 16 yrs now is 6 ) and only have Children to not work - they think its a life style choice not a safety net.

I believe It IS time these countrys did that to that type ( not to someone down on the luck for a yr - those that NEVER WORKED and never intend too ) and also to only pay for as many kids as you have when u apply for the dole - any after that is your problem as you chose to have them knowing you couldnt even give any pride or hope to the ones you had - Its not up to the tax payer to pay more for those you " accidently forget to take birth control or spend $2 on a morning after pill in the 7 days after It ".

Use the very system against itself.

Where have I heard that before?

Get a job, get paid.
Get welfare, do a job.

It's backwards.

They should make them work BEFORE they get to collect.

They should have to pay them back for welfare as well as paying taxes on the income they get while on welfare.

Oh yeah, I know....eevill bastard.

I've been to the circus and seen the clowns.

No sympathy.

and here i thought forced labor was slavery, silly me,

another flawed thought of mine was that america was done with slavery, oh silly silly me..

reply to post by harvib

By further exploiting members of the same society being exploited in the first place?

It is the TAXPAYERS that are being exploited by welfare recipients, using extortion and violence. How is requiring welfare recipients to also contribute something extortion? It is the exact opposite of it.

Yet you seem to support or at least advocate giving additional authorities to such an organization.

An authority to limit the redistribution? Sure I do.

reply to post by Maslo

It is the TAXPAYERS that are being exploited by welfare recipients, using extortion and violence.

How is that? What is your source on welfare recipients gaining funds through violence and extortion?

As far as the taxpayer being exploited by the recipients of Government funds. The welfare recipients have no ability or authority to compel labor or payment into the scheme that funds them. It is a program setup and offered by the Government. In turn the Government then demands the people fund it.

In other words an organization demands money through threats of imprisonment and loss of property and then offers that money up for grabs. The poverty stricken have little means to exploit anyone. As the ability to exploit comes from the ability to control. If you feel exploited you need to take a look at those with the ability to control.

An authority to limit the redistribution? Sure I do.

No questions asked huh? Well good for you.

reply to post by harvib


The government is only a middleman, doing what majority of people want it to do (most of the time ). Since majority of voters want some form of welfare in place, they are the in fact ones who keep the system in place. And they have every right to do it, I would not want the whole welfare system to be abolished, since there are legitimate cases when its needed. But there are also cases when its abused, and that is what this law is for - if you have serious disability of reason why you cannot work, you will be not threatened by this law. If your reason to being on welfare is simply that you dont want or cannot find work, then the law will demand that you work at least part time for the welfare, thus being beneficial for the society. It effectivelly separates people who want to work from those who dont want to, even if they have the opportunity - the problem which majority of welfare opposers have put forward repeatedly, that welfare treats these people the same.

reply to post by Maslo

The government is only a middleman, doing what majority of people want it to do

If this is what you believe I am not going to try and change your mind. However I think there are a number of statistics, polls, and job approval ratings that you might find surprising.

Regardless, if you believe government policy to be at the helm of the people then you still have missed placed your claims of exploitation by welfare recipients. Unless you believe that the majority of the people are on welfare then it is not the recipients of the funds that have created the program and therefore have no ability to exploit anyone.

reply to post by harvib

Regardless, if you believe government policy to be at the helm of the people then you still have missed placed your claims of exploitation by welfare recipients. Unless you believe that the majority of the people are on welfare then it is not the recipients

I should have clarified - I was talking only about welfare recipients who exploit the system and abuse it. Of course those who have legitimate reason to receive welfare are not extorting anyone, since having basic needs provided by the society in times you provably cannot do it yourself should be a basic human right IMHO, and raising taxes for this purpose even using threats of violence is not inappropiate.

reply to post by Maslo

raising taxes for this purpose even using threats of violence is not inappropiate.

Wow! You're hard core! Please count me out of your society.

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Maslo

 

raising taxes for this purpose even using threats of violence is not inappropiate.

Wow! You're hard core! Please count me out of your society.

You are living in it - thats what welfare is, at least I am labeling it without euphemism, yes, it is theft, but there are situations where moderate theft is justified - if we have to choose between theft and peoples lives being threatened by lack of basic needs.

So you would be perfectly fine with situation that some people would be very rich and some would be threatened by serious lack of basic needs? How would this in principle differ from not providing urgent help while being able to, which is a criminal offense, and justifies correcting action? (in this case, a little theft to pay for those basic needs).

reply to post by Maslo


You actually believe that it's ok to steal from one to give to another ?

Whats your address? I want to come check out all of your crap and see if I "need" any of it.

I agree either put in jail or force labor to all americans, owe shucks sec, just getting information in that goldman sachs may need another 2.7 trillion by tomorrow morning. See where i am going with this? in a perfect society i would say yes, but since the government has been bought out by the corporate elites, i say hell no to taxpayers money that has been swindled and has left the average american with out a job

reply to post by BigTimeCheater

You actually believe that it's ok to steal from one to give to another ?

You actually believe that it is OK to refuse to provide urgent help to someone whose life is threatened, while being able to do it and save him without much of a problem? Because thats what you are saying if you say that stealing from one to give to another must be forbidden under ANY circumstances.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Maslo

 

You actually believe that it's ok to steal from one to give to another ?

Its not OK, its never OK, but there are some circumstances when it is the lesser evil.

Whats your address? I want to come check out all of your crap and see if I "need" any of it.

If your life would be threatened by lack of basic needs and there would be no government program to help, feel free to come for some water and bread

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Maslo

 

raising taxes for this purpose even using threats of violence is not inappropiate.

Wow! You're hard core! Please count me out of your society.

You are living in it - thats what welfare is, at least I am labeling it without euphemism, yes, it is theft, but there are situations where moderate theft is justified - if we have to choose between theft and peoples lives being threatened by lack of basic needs.

So you would be perfectly fine with situation that some people would be very rich and some would be threatened by serious lack of basic needs? How would this in principle differ from not providing urgent help while being able to, which is a criminal offense, and justifies correcting action? (in this case, a little theft to pay for those basic needs).

edit on 10/11/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Yet you are in support of an organization headed by some of the richest individuals in the world being in charge of who to steal from. Furthermore, you indicate you are so concerned about the disenfranchised yet you wish that they are to be put to labor in exchange for their basic human needs at the direction of this organization.

You believe that the rich should be stolen from in order to feed the poor. But does that system really work if the rich are in control of the legislation???

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

You actually believe that it's ok to steal from one to give to another ?

You actually believe that it is OK to refuse to provide urgent help to someone whose life is threatened, while being able to do it and save him without much of a problem? Because thats what you are saying if you say that stealing from one to give to another must be forbidden under ANY circumstances.

edit on 10/11/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

You make the assumption that theft is the only way to "help someone whose life is threatened". This is ridiculous. Maybe, as a society, we can begin to use our own brain instead of agreeing to subcontract it out to some oligarch. Maybe we can focus on self sufficiency and a strong individual. Maybe we can refuse to submit our labor when a wealthy organization comes to us suggesting we exchange our labor for reliance.

But I am pessimistic that any of those things will ever happen because throughout history individuals such as your self continually insist on giving an organization unlimited power that promises quality of life and then are surprised when you end up oppressed, reliant, enslaved, and without recourse.

reply to post by harvib

Yet you are in support of an organization headed by some of the richest individuals in the world being in charge of who to steal from.

Its not ideal, I could imagine far better organizations being in charge of such a thing, but its still better than nothing I think.

Furthermore, you indicate you are so concerned about the disenfranchised yet you wish that they are to be put to labor in exchange for their basic human needs at the direction of this organization.

Yes, simply from pragmatic POV - in current situation, with current easily abusable welfare system (I can envision significantly better system) I think the positive effects on the society would outweight the negative ones. If society provided you with basic needs that you otherwise would not be able to get, you should repay it at least with some part time easy job. There is nothing preventing you, now that you have the needs.

You believe that the rich should be stolen from in order to feed the poor. But does that system really work if the rich are in control of the legislation???

It works, with problems, as I said I could envision better systems, but it is better than nothing at all I think.

Originally posted by Maslo


If your life would be threatened by lack of basic needs and there would be no government program to help, feel free to come for some water and bread

It isnt the job of government to provide basic needs.

There is no Constitutional authorization for the U.S. government to provide for the individuals basic needs.

Try again.

reply to post by harvib

You make the assumption that theft is the only way to "help someone whose life is threatened".

It often is. Otherwise there would be no such situations happening.

Maybe, as a society, we can begin to use our own brain instead of agreeing to subcontract it out to some oligarch. Maybe we can focus on self sufficiency and a strong individual. Maybe we can refuse to submit our labor when a wealthy organization comes to us suggesting we exchange our labor for reliance.

Lets be realistic here. It will never happen with most people, unfortunately.

But I am pessimistic that any of those things will ever happen because throughout history individuals such as your self continually insist on giving an organization unlimited power that promises quality of life and then are surprised when you end up oppressed, reliant, enslaved, and without recourse.

If you think that the only reason why people are poor is because there are governments and corporations, then I must disagree. Povetry is inherent in capitalism (actually in any real economic system which worked for some time in history, feudalism and socialism too) since there are always some failures on the free market, and the only way to combat it to the point of eradicating it is to do it actively - by taking from those who would be hurt by it the least (the rich) and paying basic needs to those who need it the most (the poor), at least to the point they can take care of themselves again, on the free market. It is theft, but if the alternative is letting those people deteriorate and die, than I support it. Lesser evil.