posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:13 PM
i understand both sides of this, i agree people should not have to pay for the lazy, but sometimes telling who is lazy and who is not, is not always
straight forward. whilst i am certain there are people who collect money and have no intention of working, i am also certain there are people who try
but are always turned down, maybe not so much in the past but in recent times i think this scenerio is getting more common.
the unemployed are growing and jobs are getting more scarce so it stand to reason some people are going to find it very tough. that does not mean
they are lazy, it just means oppertunities are occuring a lot less often for some people. so how do we tell who is lazy as oppose to unlucky or not
appealing to employers for what ever reason even though they are desperate to get back into work.
not funding social projects can have a very negative effects on society, just look at any underfunded run down area, and ask yourself if you would set
up your business there to help provide jobs for the local people there.
to me it is not a matter of not funding social projects, but more a matter of getting people to give something back inreturn for social help.
we need to get out of thinking that once you are unemployed you are no worth and must sit around untill the next job gets offered to you. we need to
change attitudes about it being considered slave labour to do work to repay your community, and instead see it as an oppertunity for job skills and
would people feel differently if people who recieved social help did work in the community to the equivelant of what they recieve, providing services
for the people who pay a slight portion of their income?
it would ween out the lazy who do not want to contribute or work, if they did not repay society with some of their time they would recieve
edit on 22-8-2011 by lifeform11 because: typo, put nest instead of next