Work vs don't work?

[TW]

Yesterday, as I sat out on my deck in Rockford, I glanced around the neighborhood, and realized that amongst all the homes that I could see from my deck (5), ours was the only one that had someone working (me), and I'll be 72 years old next Monday. The only person other than myself, who is 65 or older, is my wife.

That means that all the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s, are sitting on their arses. None of them are even looking for work. They are what's known as the "welfare state" that the Republicans talk about. They should be forced to either go to work, or thrown off welfare.

The fact is, if we did something like that, we'd hurt those that truly need help as well, because there aren't enough markers to tell us the difference between those that want to better themselves, and the trash that I figured lived near us.

What makes matters worse, it was just eight years ago that all these homes were occupied by hard working middle-class people who cared about making a living. Some of them lost their jobs, and their homes, while others had no choice but move away, for a new start somewhere else. Of course, those homes ended up in foreclosure, and now they're rented to losers who are on welfare because they "don't want to work," and the state pays the freaking rent!

As much as I'd like to kick them all in the arse, I realize that booting them out means booting those out who really need help, and I'm forced to accept what's happening.

I may not like it, but that's what it is!

[Deleted]

I could not agree with you more. It's Wednesday right now and I've put in close to 50 hours since Sunday afternoon. I haven't seen my daughter since Sunday night. I'm not complaining because I love what I do and it's just part of the job some weeks with all of the evening meetings I have to attend. There are too many people that should be working but would rather sit back and collect unemployment. As long as we keep extending it, they will be happy to sit at home and do nothing. We don need to let the benfefit end though to weed out the abusers. I don't want to take anything away from the people that need it but if you want to work bad enough, you will find work.

[happypacker]

I have written about this very subject.
First off, any person who is able to perform a duty(something that another would pay a wage for)must have a given payed duty(or JOB) I DO NOT CARE IF IT IS 1.00 AND HOUR OR MIN WAGE. THEN THEY MUST WORK 40 HOURS, THEN THE GOVENMENT TAKES A LOOK AT THE NEEDED INCOME TO HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE,PAY THE NEEDED UTILITIES AND FOOD. AND TRANSPORTATION. THEN take income and cost subtract it and then instead of the huge amount of aid handed out in food cards and federal aid, pay them enough to pay the needed bills. and if at any time they fail to continue to work, the aidwill be dropped for 6 months, and once proven that they have held any type work for one year they can again apply for help with the low paying job. anyone who refuses to do anything, gets just that zero, zip.

Now that is just a lean version of what i would do to begin to help people and also become RESPONSIBLE citizens. don't like it? move out of the U.S.A. then see what they do in other countries. i have over 200 pages of detail to help America be strong and good moral citizens. to bad the rich and lazy will never let that happen. jmho

[packerconvert]

I can't stand lazy people and that is why I supported President George W. Bush's construction of the "Lazy Train."

The purpose of the train is to allow states to gather up their lazy by inviting them to an all expense paid vacation putting them on a train ride to Honolulu, Hawaii.

The train line was working in reducing food stamp usage etc.

When President Obama took office, he discontinued the train line and food stamp usage shot through the roof.

[TW]

The Supreme Court caused this problem. It happened back in the 80s, when Henry Cisneros was mayor of San Antonio. His plan was that welfare receipients who were able bodied would wok for the city, doing jobs in parks, etc. They would even be paid enough to make it worth their while, compared to welfare. They'd actually move ahead. The Supreme Court said it was illegal to "insist" people work for assistance.

That's where the problem has been since then in determining who should and shouldn't get benefits.

As a result of this situation, Cisneros then tried the approach of withdrawing people from welfare based on investigations into their not actually seeking work, and he was once again told by the courts that was illegal.

Like I said, I don't like the way it is, but there are people that need help, and they're the ones that count.

[happypacker]

you can get a job anywhere in this country, I am not saying it is a job you want or like, but they are there. I just feel that you need to show that you are willing to work(40hours) to be able to get help. that is what it is for to help, not live off of. show me you willing to work and then you get help. to pay your needed bills , such as heat, food, . way to many people are willing to not get a job, live in a manor of less presentable means and they are the ones who will be involved in more crime,drink,gamble more and that is because they will not keep house, and they have no job to keep busy so all that free time, they just use the government to spend money on things haave nothing to do with need to life but just to pleasure themselves, with waste..