Should people who receive welfare be required to look for paid employment?

[Boojatta]

Would you prefer for your taxes to go to people who are volunteering full-time but not looking for paid employment, provided that the volunteering done by them is for charitable causes more important than television?
Do you believe that there are any charitable causes more important than television? I do.

For example, this is a link to the main website of one particular charitable organization that I consider more important than PBS.

[Occam Bandage]

1. I am not entirely certain what is being asked.

Are you asking if the government should, in effect, offer to pay the salary of people who work full time at certain not-for-profit agencies?

[Oregone]

8. I think they are asking if the government, via unemployment/welfare, should subsidize a person...

who volunteers instead of looks for work. For example, you should receive unemployment if you are setting up pot luck dinners for your Church's charity, instead of looking for work actively. You should get welfare if you spend your days handing out anti-abortion fliers, instead of applying for employment and searching the want ads.


Or maybe I misunderstood the question.

[Boojatta]

12. "Or maybe I misunderstood the question."

Do you believe that PBS doesn't serve any legitimate charitable function?

Or do you believe that it does serve a legitimate charitable function, but that handing out anti-abortion fliers is also a legitimate charitable function and that the work done by PBS has no more merit than handing out anti-abortion fliers?

Or is there another possibility that you can describe?

[Oregone]

20. PBS isn't a private charity. I'm not 100% sure why you are even mentioning it here

It serves a vital social function (hence, why its publicly sponsored) providing a necessary service to the general public (in theory). Further, I do not think anyone should even be volunteering for PBS, being that all necessary job functions of it should be 100% funded by the government. Hell, compare it to the CBC who receives $1 billion in federal funding. If proportionally the US put $10 billion behind this service, not only would it improve in its function, but it could actually pay people to help it do so.

In fact, I would argue that any "necessary" function that ANY charity provides should be 100% financed by the government, and should rather be a paid job. Handing out an fundy anti-abortion fliers is not necessary, and should not ever be deemed so. Hence, this work should not be sponsored, paid for, or subsidized in any way by the government.

If someone has to "volunteer" for a job, I would deem that job (by some drawn out tautology) "unnecessary". Hence, the society shouldn't be burdened to pay for service that are not necessary or profitable.

[Boojatta]

28. "PBS isn't a private charity."

I am zero percent confident of why you are referring specifically to the category of private charities. However, I suppose that I owe you thanks for informing me that PBS doesn't belong in that category.

[Oregone]

29. Here is the reason I am talking about private charities...

Public services should be publicly owned/ran based on the criteria that they provide necessary services, functions, enrichments or profits to a society. Being that they are deemed necessary or in the interest of the society at large, they therefore should be 100% funded by that government (PBS isn't, which is a failure of the US Government BTW). Hence, any demand they have for labor to operate such institutions, should be employable positions (not volunteer positions). Therefore, in ideal conditions, any necessary position should already be government funded as a job.

Considering this model, any volunteer position is therefore unnecessary to the society (by definition). There is no reason a society should be responsible for subsidizing unnecessary labor for individuals seeking entitlements, such as handing out anti-abortion fliers or organizing pot-luck dinners. It follows, if any individual is capable of laboring in such unnecessary, unfunded positions, they are capable of seeking employment.

I'm basically saying that if labor is important enough for a society to subsidize, in some manner or another, it should therefore already be a paid position. Any remaining labor, especially that which is not privately funded as an employable position, has little merit to the society at large

[Boojatta]

34. "should be 100% funded by that government"

Consider a public library. There is at least one book that library management will, within the next few years, either wish to acquire without being prompted by me in any way, or will agree to acquire if I bring it to their attention.

I could donate the full price of one new copy of such a book to the library, but I am not a government. Therefore, if I donate the money, then I have to some tiny degree (much less than one percent) pushed below 100% the percentage of the library's total funding that comes from governments.

On the other hand, I could donate a brand new, shrink-wrapped copy of such a book to the library. In this case, it seems that your "100% funded" rule wouldn't be violated, but it's difficult for me to see any substantive advantage to this approach. After all, a major purpose of funds is to buy goods or services, correct? Why is it absolutely wrong for me to donate cash to help a government-funded institution provide public services, but perfectly acceptable for me to donate goods or services to help a government-funded institution provide public services?

[Oregone]

35. "Why is it absolutely wrong for me to donate cash to help a government-funded institution provide.."

Its not wrong. Just include a bigger check in the envelope the next time you pay your taxes.

The institution should be funded with as much as it needs to provide the necessary service. If you wish them to have more, it is not necessary (as it wasn't funded). Therefore, any contribution you make is frivolous, and most certainly shouldn't be made a contingent criteria to receiving an entitlement (to bring it back to the original thread). Do you get where I am coming from? If a library needs $100 dollars to operate, $100 dollars should come from the government. If you "feel" and "believe" they operate better with $105 dollars, it isn't "wrong" to give it to them or labor for them for free in its place. Its just not necessary (remember, I am talking about an ideal here, but aren't we all?).

[Boojatta]

36. Can you demonstrate that increasing the amount of money paid in taxes...

helps the particular government-funded institution that I wish to help?

[Oregone]

38. I edited the last post a bit...

Just because you "wish" to help it and "believe" it needs help, does not deem it to be the case in optimal conditions. In optimal conditions, a library that needs X amount of funding will *already* receive 100% of it from the government. Any service that you wish to add additionally to it, is, as far as the society at large is concerned, unnecessary. Therefore, it may fill your personal gratification to do so, but should have no further bearing beyond that.

My comment regarding taxation more goes to say that 100% of that funding should be derived through progressive taxation. We should not settle for meeting libraries 70% of the way and thinking it is acceptable for the other 30% to come from charitable people. 100% of the funding needs to be progressively derived through taxation, and if another 30% is to be unnecessarily donated to it (by the wishes of private people), so be it, but the government should have no concern for that.

I don't expect you'll get that.

But as far as extra taxes go, it would follow that more revenue divided proportionally to the current allocation would result in more funds to each and every service the government funds, including the library.

[Boojatta]

41. "In optimal conditions"

In optimal conditions, would there be law enforcement officers?

Therefore, it may fill your personal gratification to do so, but should have no further bearing beyond that.

Could you please identify the principles you are relying upon that entitle you to use the word "therefore" at the beginning of that sentence?

[Oregone]

42. In optimal conditions, officer's contributions create and reinforce optimal conditions

:)

Optimal conditions are not "perfect" conditions. There will always be, well, genes alone that can produce deviants, despite the environment.

"Therefore" is being used as a transitional linker from the previous statement (of your contribution being "unnecessary") to the next sentence that it has "no further bearing beyond that". It can be used interchangeably with "So", "Consequently" and "For that reason".

In short, "Your contribution is unnecessary. Therefore, it should have no further bearing {on society} beyond {personal gratification}" is the same as "Your contribution is unnecessary. For that reason, it should have no further bearing {on society} beyond {personal gratification}" (square brackets replaced due to technical limitations)

Im sure thats all very relevant to the discussion, eh?

[JerseygirlCT]

66. Well, PBS is not at all fully funded by gov't.

Hence the endless fundraisers.

And volunteers most certainly fulfill many of the needs at charities. There are a huge number of charities that simply could not exist without volunteers. People often look (with justification) at the amount a charity spends on "program" vs. "administration" or "fundraising costs". Those administrative costs would absolutely skyrocket were all volunteers suddenly paid workers.

There is something important to volunteering, as well - for the volunteer. There is an aspect of life that is enriched by reaching out to help others. And if people aren't feeling fulfilled by their charity work, believe me, they won't continue doing it for long.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

69. That's because

it's a Boojatta Op. His Ops are always framed in a way to make them confusing.

[damntexdem]

2. That depends on the circumstances.

In the first place, SSI is welfare: for the aged and disabled. Some could work; some could volunteer; many can do neither. Secondly, if a single mother has several children (or perhaps ANY children), it is likely better if she is taking care of the kids than being FORCED to look for paid employment. Finally, the kids who make up a very-large portion of those on welfare, should be in school, not looking for paid employment.

[DURHAM D]

13. "SSI is welfare: for the aged and disabled" Huh? n/t

[EndersDame]

57. Yeah my mom recieves SSI and there is no way she can work

various mental problems as well as physical

[Oregone]

33. I disagree. If children want food stamps, they should be converting atheists or rolling cigars

Not learning!

[madeline_con]

46. Able bodied moms can work during school hours.

And should, if they receive aid.

[Gormy Cuss]

55. That didn't work in the 1970s when it was tried. I doubt it would do any better now.

Where will these women work? What magical places of employment are out there waiting to hire people for part time, midday shifts? Are they also located on bus routes?

Bulletin: most parents on welfare would gladly trade it for a job that allowed them to take care of their children and earn a living.

[Oregone]

3. The Innocence Project "shouldn't" be important at all

Being that public funds should be used to verify that people behind bars in the public prison system are indeed criminals. If you are advocating for an improved system of welfare, wouldn't you also advocate for an improved system of government that rendered private charities redundant and useless for the benefit of our society? Hence, if that was accomplished, it would make your original idea (of working for a charity) somewhat moot.

[damntexdem]

7. Nonsense, there are many government-sponsored volunteer programs.

They exist especially for the aged (who if poor enough may be on SSI). Further, private charities have always been an important part of our society. Government should be improved; but private charities should always have a place as well.

[Oregone]

10. "but private charities should always have a place as well"

Many of Utopias are so perfect, they have no drawbacks as to require private charities. Of course, those are hypothetical ideals, but should have as much merit to be advocated for as the alternatives involved in this thread.

If any charity is so required by society, as to help it function properly, it should be funded fully and operated by that government entity. Its existence is a sign of the governments utter failure.

[Robbien]

4. Many GOPer political action organizations are not for profits

Charitable organizations are not charitable organizations any more these days.

[Cronus Protagonist]

5. Yes

And they should have to prove they went on a reasonable number of interviews per week. They can volunteer on their own time, if they like, just like the rest of us.

[tammywammy]

21. Agreed n/t

[Ron Green]

6. If a work experience helps to develop a good work record and a resume,

then I certainly don't mind paying taxes to support it. Ultimately a free-market job, whether in the for-profit or not-for-profit category, is where such an experience ought to lead.

[damntexdem]

9. Hey, nothing wrong with snagging a government job.

And many jobs that have been outsourced to private thieves, err, enterprises should be returned to the government sector.

[emilyg]

11. Yes.

[ejpoeta]

14. i know from my experience with welfare, that as a recipient in ny

i can get five years over my whole life. also i am required to be looking for work AND work off my assistance. that was cash assistance. so, we pay taxes while we are working to pay for this program, and if we ever need it we have to work it off too. and we are only allowed five years of cash assistance for the rest of our life. that wouldn't be so bad if they didn't make it so hard to get off of help. see, if you say were to get a job at walmart making like $7/hour and had to pay a sitter... you would make too much for any help, but you still wouldn't have enough to pay bills and a sitter and get groceries. but it would be enough to make too much to get any help at all. and as far as daycare assistance goes, my sister told me that she was told there was a three year waiting list to get into that program.

[undeterred]

15. I thought there was no such thing as welfare any more.

[NJmaverick]

16. Yes, yes they should be looking for paying job

volunteering is nice, but it's not a substitute.

[Ghost in the Machine]

17. It's already required in Tennessee, unless you're certified that you can't work...

You can only draw welfare for a total of 5 years. Food Stamps are different, but the cash assistance is limited to 5 years... and they only pay something like $125/mo. because you have to be working, volunteering or going to classes to learn some work skills to draw.

Several other states are doing the same thing. Here in Tennessee it's called "Welfare to Work" program.

[Boojatta]

18. What does a financial institution need to do to qualify for cash assistance?

[Mythsaje]

19. Exist...n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

24. Have government cronies on their boards?

:shrug:

They take care of their corporate masters and don't really give a shit about "we, the people"....

[Maru Kitteh]

26. Is it your position that we should provide welfare to anyone who wants it and never ask them to work

for a living?

[Boojatta]

43. If one person was receiving welfare payments...

... while doing enough volunteer work for the total amount to be equivalent to a full-time job, and the volunteer work was done for causes more worthy than PBS and approximately as worthy as the Innocence Project ...

... and if some other person was a senior executive at a major financial institution that participated in the risky activities that created the sub-prime mortgage bubble and associated financial crisis...

... then it's not clear to me that, of those two people, the one who was doing "work for a living" actually deserved the money that he or she received.

[Maru Kitteh]

47. You have too may qualifiers to make this relevant beyond whatever ax it is you grind.

[Boojatta]

53. What's the maximum allowed number of qualifiers?

[Mythsaje]

22. My wife and I argue about this

My whole problem with "reform," as it was enacted, is that it forces people with no real skills into the private sector where they STILL contribute very little to the economy and, like as not, live in poverty just as crippling as welfare. From the very beginning it should have been tied to education and vocational training, perhaps even in poverty-related occupations such as the welfare office itself. Who better to deal with those in that situation than people who already know what it's like? Given this point of view, work experience "volunteering" in group homes, shelters, and soup kitchens would be, in effect, on-the-job training that could be used as part of a specialized certification process.

Oh, yeah... I've thought about this a lot.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

49. Since a lot of welfare is disproportionately single mothers, I have

often thought that a percentage of them who want to should be trained as certified child care givers in order to provide well-paid, government subsidized extremely affordable daycare to free up the others who would be better in other vocations to go get that training or go to work without all their money being eaten up by daycare.

It would be a great service to everyone. This answer is as plain as the nose on your face, and I have no idea why someone hasn't implemented this.

[Lorien]

61. Yep, most people do actually want to earn a living; they WANT to contribute

I know of one DUer here who lives on charity/ disability and doesn't believe in working, ever, but the vast majority of those who are not mentally ill do want to find decent employment. Education is the key; welfare payments should be increased to include retraining or education for at least two years (associates degree), imho. Of course, something like that would only pass in Scandinavia!

[Winterblues]

23. 99% of all people thaty receive welfare are unmarried women with children

I don't believe they should be forced to leave their children with strangers so they can go to a minimum wage job...

[ourbluenation]

50. actually, the overwhelmingly vast majority of welfare rcpt's are children. but...

the majority of adult welfare rcpt's, which are not many in the grand scheme of things, are single moms.

[tabbycat31]

25. they should be doing SOMETHING productive

not necessarily looking for paid employment (could be one option).
Others would be attending school, volunteering, etc.

[Oregone]

31. If they are recieving money in exchange for (and contingent on) being "productive" (laboring)...

that is, by definition, a "job".

Why should the government create new jobs for private charities, in such positions deemed so unnecesarry they are not already funded by the government or the private market? Would any volunteering work? Shouldn't the government draw a line, so it isn't essentially creating jobs for people to labor for religious institutions?

I don't think many realize exactly how much a bad idea this all is. Firstly, if you are talking about unemployment, well, it is an insurance system. You have already worked and paid into it enough to receive non-contingent benefits. Secondly, if it is welfare entitlements that should be contingent on productivity, you must also understand the demographics of welfare recipients (and their ability to volunteer, which may also restrict their ability to work in the first place).

[Boojatta]

39. "by definition, a job"

The Mayor of New York City proposed that anyone who has a job should pay to use homeless shelters. Has the Mayor of New York City developed a brilliant solution to homelessness? After all, it would be possible for you to claim that anyone who is required to make periodic payments to use accommodations is by definition a tenant rather than a homeless person.

[Oregone]

40. Well, if you are a tenant, you aren't homeless, and shouldn't be using a homeless shelter!

Case closed :) So kick them out....but, wait a minute

[Bluenorthwest]

27. If you are suggesting that people be required to 'volunteer'

full time, I'd say that IS a job, if that is what they must do to get paid. You seem to be saying that the government should give people jobs working for charities. I might go for that, but if you want to call it 'welfare' and then require full time work to get it, you are simply benefiting those who will get cheap workers, harming current workers, and leaving the benefit recipient in the exact same role, only with a job. So they'd have a job, but still be on welfare. A full time job, being called 'volunteering' is what you seem to be talking about.
As it is there is very little 'welfare' available, for a limited amount of years in a lifetime, and there are already work/training requirements in all the states I know.

[jmg257]

30. Yes. n/t

[Oregone]

32. Should poverty level children be denied welfare because their parents are too busy raising them...

too busy work or volunteer? (single mother's with many young children, despite your moral stand against their circumstance and how they get there, do meet this criteria)

Is creating productive individuals for a future society (parenting) not as worthy/valuable as working or volunteering?

What is the point of having entitlements if they are contingent upon conditions that the most needy are unable to meet?

[eilen]

37. I think I would support paying a stipend and provide additional

support (such as childcare, foodstamps and/or transport--bus passes) to those who cannot get jobs or have otherwise exhausted unemployment benefits and are still unable to find a job who go to school and receive a better education or vocational training for as long as that program lasts or at least until they are able to be otherwise employed in a paying job.

It is important to offer hope to people that they can progress their lives and have a contribution that can enrich others as well as their family and community. Neighborhoods in cities do not benefit with idle people on the street or in front of a screen.

In regard to charitable endeavors like volunteers for hospice or at schools to listen to children read... I think that need to give must come from inside a person and not be a compulsory condition. Giving with a giving heart, not a coerced one is best.

[DatManFromNawlins]

44. Yes

I personally know at least 4 people who could hold down a desk job fine without any problems whatsoever, but they're on disability for various reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to sit upright, walk around malls, go shopping, or play on the computer. Their "disabilities" are chronic pains of some sort or another, but there are plenty of non-physical jobs they could handle with no problem whatsoever.

One of them even decided to divorce her husband, 1 year from his retirement (and not in the greatest health), for reasons that seemed to legitimately bewilder him and everyone who knows them. She mows her own goddamned grass but she's disabled? My fucking ass. He's going to end up dying before he's able to retire now.

[Boojatta]

45. "their ability to sit upright, walk around malls, go shopping, or play on the computer"

How many of those (at least four) people do full-time volunteering for organizations that do work more worthy than what PBS does?

[eridani]

48. Being required to work for less than minimum wage = slavery n/t

[AngryOldDem]

51. Yes.

And at the very least, "work" should be defined as getting the education and training needed in order to look for productive employment.

Being on the dole is ultimately destructive -- to the person's sense of self-efficacy, self-worth, and self-determination.

[Boojatta]

52. Kick

[mmonk]

54. As long as the CEO's of banks and other companies receive

welfare, I think if they find a job, they should still receive money whether it's a paying job or not (only fair).

[ContinentalOp]

56. Everyone should be provided basic food, shelter and health care.

No strings attached. Since welfare is the best thing we have then no, people shouldn't be required to look for work.

[EndersDame]

58. My mom recieves $ 400 SSI which is a form welfare

I don't want to go into the mental and physical reasons she can not work. She receives $ 400 every month. My dad (who she is not married to ) helps out and so do my siblings and I. I just pose to y'all who thinks every one should work if they recieve benefits what should become of the disabled who cannot work

[Skip Intro]

59. Yes. There should be a safety net for all of us, but each should carry his own load

to the extent that is is reasonable and possible.

I am about to go begin to receive unemployment benefits for the first time - I'm in my 40s have have been working since I was 16. And I will seek full time employment asap.

We as a national community, through our government, help each other through such programs when hard times befall us individually, but we must each be, to the extent that we can be, responsible for ourselves.

Yes, people receiving public assistance, and that could be any of us, must actively seek to support ourselves as soon as possible.

That's the only way it can work.

[Lorien]

60. I consider PBS more important than our over 700 military bases overseas

What does one hove to do with the other? Hating PBS is a RW position; they hate education and PBS is the only educational television out there. Less than 30% of their operating budget comes from the government. The rest comes from private donations. Compared to all other expenses it's next to nothing. Hell, two of my neighbors are employed by PBS. They don't deserve jobs too?

If someone "volunteers" and gets paid for it, it's no longer volunteering. That's called being an employee.

[Boojatta]

64. You have added a special element: "for it"

If someone "volunteers" and gets paid for it, it's no longer volunteering. That's called being an employee.

Underlining added by Boojatta

A key element that makes it possible to distinguish between a porn star and a prostitute is who pays.

Who said anything about hating PBS? I simply said that there are charitable causes that I consider more important than television. If you believe that there doesn't exist any charitable work more important than the work done by PBS, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think you are entitled to characterize my question as an indication of hatred of PBS.

[Boojatta]

67. "What does one have to do with the other?"

Government spending is finite. If you approve of one spending proposal on the grounds that the only alternative is right-wing hatred of PBS, and you simultaneously condemn another spending proposal on the grounds that people who volunteer full-time, regardless of what kind of volunteering they do, shouldn't receive welfare, then you are expressing preference for a state of affairs that will force some volunteers to replace their volunteering work with some form of paid employment, and you are in effect rating the work done by PBS as more worthy of tax dollars than the work done by any volunteer, such as a volunteer who helps obtain the release from prison of the wrongfully convicted.

[bemildred]

62. Food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education should be free to anyone

who cannot afford them, without any other conditions.

[Nikia]

63. Not always

They should be assigned a case worker who first determines if it would be beneficial for them to work. For a single mother, with minimal skills, with two preschool, it would not be beneficial for her to go to work, for example. For others, education and skills workshops might be an important endevor before attempting full time employment. I am convinced that anyone who would "take advantage of the system" when they could be working feels aliented from society for some reason and perhaps there would be ways to deal with it. In any case, it is still less expensive to pay for that person's survival than pay for them to be in prision.
As far as paying someone to volunteer, for some people it may be more beneficial to have an active volunteer life than work. As these currently stand, some volunteering that is currently being done is in response to the government cutting programs either directly or by not giving grants for paid positions. For example, I volunteered to be an ESL teacher and teach one evening per week in the area where I live. At a training session, I later learned that there had been several paid positions a few years ago, but the grant money ran out and we were left with the volunteer program despite increased demand for that service. Another program that I did for a short time does work that the state deparetment of naturual resources can't do itself because of cuts in staffing. I guess the point is, that it would be bad for the government to cut many middle class positions and then pay low skilled "volunteers" low wages to do that work.

[JerseygirlCT]

65. Of course they should be looking for work - or getting

an education.

Charity work is supposed to be something one does out of the charitable impulse - not a way to get welfare.

And your personal preference for one charity illustrates the other problem, of course. Your worthy charity is another person's waste of money, and vice versa. It's subjective.

Certainly volunteering is a very worthy thing; I heartily endorse it, and think it ought to be more valued by much of our society. And it *can* be a good way of developing some new skills, which can lead to paid work. But it should not be a permanent replacement for searching for a job - just to maintain welfare payments.

[blogslut]

68. I just wish they'd bring back the JTPA

It was flawed program but it had merit and any adults on welfare were automatically eligible for it, not just those aged 16-24.