Can someone formally explain the whole Conservative touted "social assistance = slavery" comparison?

What you describe is 10% of the welfare caseloads, you need to consider all of the others.

There is a myth that most people on welfare are short timers.

Let me explain.

At any one point in time, most on welfare are chronic - say 90%.

That other 10% come and go, short timers (like you describe). Over a long period of time, most of those are only on welfare are on a short time, but they only use a small amount of the resources.

At any moment in time, 90% of the welfare recipients are chronic, and use 90% of the resources.

Those 'few bad apples', that may only be 10% of the welfare population (probably much more), use 90% of the resources.

Moochers are not slaves, they are moochers.

But, to your question.

Are those who use addictive drugs 'slaves' to the drugs? If they are, then those who are heavily dependent on social services are also slaves.

People quit jobs because it reduces benefits. Sometimes they actually tell us.

One woman quit a $15/hr, 40hour per week job, to get more benefits.

Mostly they just don't start a job in the first place.

80% of my caseload of 400 are gaming the system, structuring their life so they get more by doing less.

I do not see drug abusers as slaves.

I do not see welfare moochers as slaves.

Others do.

Hope this helps.

Go speak to anyone from a family of generational welfare recipients.

They 100% rely on the government for all of their support. The democrats keep them stupid and keep them voting for more hand outs.

Also, they still speak ebonics which is nothing but slave language. They are incredibly stupid and it is sad that democrats have done this to the blacks.

Welfare slavery was started after the democrats lost their attempts to keep civil rights away from the blacks in the 1960s. Now they keep them as modern day slaves and keep pushing to continue to abort black children at the highest rate ever.

it sounds like you were collecting UI not welfare.

anyways while you were collecting welfare (assuming it was welfare not UI) you were at the mercy of the government, and their rules to continue getting said asst.

i have a friend for example that lives in government housing. now she has certain rules she has to OBEY to stay in that housing. one of those rules is she can't have friends or family live with her.

me on the other hand. i own my home. i can have whoever i want live here whenever i want.

but i guess the comparison fails because slaves actually work unlike my loser friend.

In the liberal enclave of thought, the government would take care of you from cradle to grave. The side of that that is rarely talked about is that, in essence, you'd be working for the government. Make too much? They'll take it from you. Make too little? They'll give you freebies to compensate. That is Marxism in a nutshell. The risk/reward ratio, in my experience, is simply not there. If you take away a man's ability to fail, you also limit his ability to succeed. That was eventually the downfall of the Soviet Union as they discovered that without incentives to excel, people will work and produce at a mediocre pace and quality.

The government that can do everything for you is capable of taking everything from you.

record me in case you like for being a *****, I formally do no longer care yet Nateena is a bloody liar. 4% of her solutions are perfect solutions. by no skill been given a perfect answer? Take an prolonged walk off a quick cliff you mendacity rat. yet that become a reasonably stable comedian tale. did no longer make me snort in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it become unique.