Should people on government assistance be required to earn their entitlements?

No.

The rates of payment for most government assistance is so low, that what ACTUALLY happens when this kind of thing is done, is that you're giving the government (or whatever private group the work is done under) a coerced, lower-than-minimum-wage workforce.

So let's make this very clear -- what you propose would mean that under penalty of law, as a requirement for what they need to eat and have a roof, people would be forced to work under subhuman conditions at artificially-low wages.

And you conservatives and liberals say that REDS like ME are the ones who want "labor camps" and "social enslavement"?

Well, at least you don't want to go whole hog and put them at gunpoint behind barbed wire, with a sign over the gate reading "Arbeit Macht Frei."

What you're talking about is moving masses of people that YOU consider "lessers" around like chess pieces. And if that wasn't awful enough, the ways you propose to move them as chess pieces make no sense and hurts the "game."

If you're gonna hire people, there are certain safeguards and rights that they deserve. If you don't give it to 'em and they do any work for you, you're a damn slaver and you deserve the gallows. Period.

What you are proposing means the capitalists' government going even further into the slavery business, like with the shameful use of prison and juvenile camp labor.

We already fought a war in the U.S. about that crap. Your side lost. I'm sorry you don't approve, but guess what? Low income whites, and blacks and other minorities, are all allowed to vote now!

Your plantation is dead. This matter is closed.

.

The government had such a Program during the depression called the WPA which gave jobs to needy able-bodied unemployed workers doing community service, many Liberals think we still should have such a program now but Conservatives hated it. In practice there is no difference between the government being the employer of last resort and making people work for benefits, but people take sides on the issue depending how it is phrased

However some government assistance like food stamps and Medicaid are not just for people who are not working, but also for those have a job but do not earn enough to support their families and WIC is for pregnant women, new mothers, infants or children under age five and it would not make much sense to make them work.

Its not just labor that's needed, its supplies and the cities and states don't want to spend any money to improve the areas where the poor are put.

Able bodied people on welfare also tend to be either infants or children. Or mentally challenged or they have felony records and are the last to get hired.

Some are drug or alcohol addicts. We already know they make bad choices.

They aren't employable, don't remember to show up or they don't understand getting to work on time on a daily basis is really a necessity, that goes back to minimal intelligence.

The size of the problem makes it impractical to have hundreds of charities for one cause, and only a few for a more pressing cause, one that isn't as 'sexy',

And poor people are poor year round and even they need to know there will be money coming in to pay the electric bill, a voluntary charity can't promise that, because their donations fluctuate.

Then too, sad as it is, not all donations make it to the intended recipient, there are lots of frauds going in the charity 'game'.

Unemployment is an insurance fund, with payments in most states coming from employers and employees, its not a tax based entitlement.

WIC is for pregnant women and infants. Neither group is particularly wanted for physical labor.

New York City has had a " Workfare " program in place since 1995, whereas all able bodied people who are on welfare are required to work for their benefits. They do things like raking leaves in the city's parks as well as sweeping and mopping the platforms of the city's subway system. It's based on the amount you receive divided by the minimum hourly wage and that determines the number of hours required from you. I understand that all 50 states are trying to implement similar programs requiring at least 50% of their welfare recipients to work for their money. It's worked in NY for many years. SSI is a different animal, there are people there who truly are disabled and can't work. Those people should be afforded the same rights as the retirees in my opinion.

that observation does kindof run strongly counter to the common conservative argument that the poor are leaches living of the government teat because it is such a fun way to exist, but to answer the question, I wouldn't have a problem with that concept of work for your money if you can.

The flip side, of course, is that when you see a street person begging, you don't say, here's a buck if you wash my car. You just give the money because they need it and you are happy it isn't you there instead of them (which it could, suprisingly easily, actually be).

I don't even have a problem with making people sit in a room every week for half a day in order to get assistance, just so they are doing SOMETHING for the money, so they realize it is aid and not a gift.

I think it is a very mean person that will make a mentally or physically handicapped person perform busy work simply because they can make them, though. I don't have that level of meanness in me.

People who receive SSI are either blind, disabled or age 65 or older. The majority of people getting welfare are children. In my state their able-bodied mothers are required to either work or do community service. Most of the community service is done in offices, hospitals, nursing homes, schools - in other words they are working indoors.

We need a leader who will reestablish what made America the shining beacon of freedom in the world. I do not give a hoot in hell for a man or woman who WANTS to live off his government. Benjamin Franklin warned not to coddle the poor. When they are uncomfortable enough they will climb out. Every citizen in this country has the responsibility to provide for their own individual needs and the children they make. According to our Declaration of Independence our rights are God given and not government given. No citizen has the right to demand that another citizen pay for their keep. You can ask but you have no right to demand it and neither does the politician you elect.

50% of the budget? I'd like to see that source.

I think we should fund entitlements with the tax revenue that's supposed to be paid by trillion-dollar corporations.

when I was a child.....if someone needed assistance.... the community rallied together and provided assistance.... humanitarianism was people to people....my next door neighbor lost his home to fire.....the entire town helped him build a new home.... the local lumber yard gave wood at cost

When people were out of work and could not afford food.... the church would have a pot luck and they were invited.....and / or given a box of food...... local merchants would offer short term employment until they found permanent employment....

Today we hand off our humanitarianism to a faceless, inefficient, wasteful government ..... a government that creates more problems than the solves

The government is the WORST agency to resolve social problems......FDR tried to make recipients work for their government handouts and it did NOT solve problems.....it prolonged them

absolutely. i think this is the biggest problem with welfare, food stamps, etc. it is my biggest pet peeve with obama that tax money is going to help out some guy who doesnt do anything for him or herself. if someone says that they are too hurt or too sick to work, i want them checked by three doctors who agree that they cannot work and they can receive their welfare. other than that you have to do public projects helping your community or have a job on your own.