Should Not Having To Work Be A Protected Liberty ?

i have a quick question. why woult somebody take the time to put up a poll for this question and phrase it in the way they did? there are only two options and they are so skewed it's like asking whether youd rather give away your money or live life as you usually do. it's a pointless poll. it was created to sate some persons desire for validation, despite the fact that whoever votes in the way he obviously wants them to vote voted that way because of a pathetic wording of the question and a complete lack of choices. why didn't you just put up, "do you think welfare should continue to exist as it has?" and have the answers be "yes" or "no" ? or rather you get rid of the pointless poll altogether and ask, "what do you think should be done to welfare to make it acceptable?" see, it's an actual question. it's not biased, and it allows a variety of answers. also, it allows us to actually attempt to come up with solutions instead of just blaming the opposite party for events, and calling each other incompetent.

 

There should be a constitutional amendment that guarantees substantial cash rewards for life to anyone that says "Fukit! I'm not ever gonna work 'cause it sucks!", courtesy of everyone else that says, "I will go to work today and forever so that I can be productive and help the nice folks that say 'fukit...'".

 

Everyone should work... in fact. there is no law requiring americans to give out charity. so paying for welfare should be an option for every american. in fact it should be done by the churches & people who give out of the kindness of their hearts. all americans shouldn't be forced to support others if they dont believe in it

 

Well agree somewhat according to the book, it won't say that its a protected liberty but Europeans work less hours than Americans, and they know how to "game" the system to maximize their benefits as stated in the poorly worded article. But the United States can go this direction, and it shouldn't be referred to as "lazy" as in the article, without our military spending to protect Europe and be world Police, we could afford more generous welfare for our own citizens as the Europeans do for their citizens.

Now this presents a hidden truth, meaning welfare is a protected liberty informally in their rules of law as to make everyone happy, the net contributors and net recipients, like a politically correct way of writing the law..

But all in all, we can't deny they have a more generous welfare system than anywhere in the world including the United States, and if anyone were to protect the liberty of those who choose not to work, it would be the Europeans.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51303

There is nothing wrong with working less, its not a sign of laziness but intelligence, and absolutely nothing wrong with spending lavishly on social programs.

 

apparently, not corroborated by the current case study.

 

maybe for a start we make it so everyone could support themselves on 40 hours a week...

until that happens people working a job paying less then a living wage will need assistance, that is the price society pays for cheap labor

 

The problem is the same issue with the Roman Empire in Rome, if you ignore the mob the mob becomes a major issue (remember the rise of the revolution in France and in Russia by the Communists) so you must offer something to the mob. The Romans had bread and circuses and the arena. We and many nations have welfare but I contend its badly used. If your homeless without ID a real issue now your not in the system to get on anything and that includes many programs that are charities. Some people won't take benefits like me. Some will. But there is ample waste in the system and laws do not favor wise use of assets such as stores throwing out perfectly edible food that could go to the poor.

So why not do what I suggested a assured basic life support welfare system you would get basic care, stay clean, have access to medical care and a bit of money to spend a month low enough to make even doing some self-employment odd work preferable and not enough to support bad habits. Rural areas might need to have more traditional help for people but in cities and larger towns its viable to look at. And you would not have to work but likely would want to to get some things you want. At least I'm being realistic not everyone will make it and homeless and others are issues for the system with crime, unsightly panhandling and the rest and for others down on their luck it would be good to and if people are happy with very little then fine they are taken care of.

 

I'm not really in support of handouts. Im for welfare.... sort of.... I'm more for wages. For instance hire tons of people to clean inter city areas. hire more army/police and stuff of that nature. But handing out a check to someone, who does nothing in return for you or the society is wrong. when they take that check and use it toward their substance abuse/addiction and nothing really else then its wrong. At some point people have to take their lives into their own hand

 

Only disturbed people avoid work, and they should be cared for. It costs extremely little, and think of all the people who want to work but are denied the chance by this ludicrous economic system.

 

ehhh... ive gotten two jobs in the past year. my cousin gets a new job every two months.... if you really want to work you will be. its really not that hard to find a job

 

I'm talking in my idea $60 a month scaled to inflation since they would have all they need at a basic level including laundry access and be able to keep clean that is their allowance. Hardly enough for a month of beer drinking and drugs. I don't want to make it desireable if they work at anything even very part-time they will get more than that a month. But if you have people homeless for any reason, are disabled and not to disabled to get real benefits and so forth its a basic safety net. And note wants are not included if you want a tv you must buy it, if you want to go to eat at someplace other than the area cafeteria run by the government and eat what they give you its up to you, you want deoderant its up to you even that is not covered just a bar of scented soap and maybe a razor and cheap shaving jell. I want to make it unappealing to stay in the system but make it there for people who need it.

I did note the issue poor people with nothing to lose under a motivational hot head group can be a major problem, if you provide for them something it eases concerns and the poor are more content.

 

Depends where you are, how civilized it is, how much you'd lose, how your dependants would fare, whether you are crippled or not (here they are passing everyone as fit for work), how much you are bullied, how far you have to travel and on all sorts of other things. It is easy to strike attitudes, hard to deal with real and really complex situations.

 

the government shouldnt be involved with that period. if the churches/charity wants to do it fine. but the govenrment shouldnt be paying for people to do nothing period in my book.

 

its hard for democrats to handle the real truth.... truth that people just milk the system.. i see it every day with my own two eyes. thats just how the democrats buy votes from the poor. while the "poor" go on doing whatever they please not even working and making hard working americans pick up the tag. its plain wrong

 

Why this would replace food stamps in urban areas, section eight, welfare checks (save for the small allowance) and other government funds into one basic program to provide for all the needy? How much waste is in the current system?

I would add the other issue the fact poor people with nothing to lose often cost more money from victimless homeless crimes like public sleeping to if you want extreme the French Revolution where the poor cut the heads off of the rich just for being rich. At least my plan doesn't encourage people NOT to work the small amount of money and bare bones benefits is just that bare bones a family could survive but not be prosperous but also if homeless wouldn't have to worry either.

 

If you believe that, you are brainwashed, I'm afraid. I am not an American, and I think people see the brainwashing going on rather better from abroad - like the monstrous lies your Party told about the NHS, which enraged everyone here. Most people prefer to work than be sneered at and bullied by selfrighteous and ignornant hypocrites, that I do know.

 

I am brainwashed? by who? the tv? nope the TV is obviously all liberal biased media. Im not brainwashed at all. I'm on the front lines. i see DAILY people on welfare, and how they live their life. i see it with my own two eyes. they can work but choose not to period. and many because of substance abuse. if your from out of country its obvious that YOU are being brainwashed by the liberal media across the world. you wanna know why? because the liberals hurt america while other nations rise up. while conservative want america to keep rising up and the other nations going ddown. so obviously other nations would be supporting liberals

whats really monstrous here is how the liberals are BUYING votes from the illegals, poor, and people who just want to pay less, and get free stuff. Selling out America for votes.... sad and pathetic. I see illegal immigrants EVERY DAY. you have NO IDEA obviously since your not from here. you cant tell me you know my own country better when your only viwing of it is through a liberal box of pictures choosing what to show and what not to show.

 

If you believe your television is 'liberal' you are extremely brainwashed - it is the most extreme-right drivel permitted in the world. Capitalism, obviously, throws masses of people out of work to force down wages and makes the other mugs pay to keep them alive, because if they starved to death poeple might notice - but it then tells your type that those it has denied work are 'lazy'. Nobody except the rich can afford to buy votes, kid, as you know, if it actually mattered, since they control all the means of propaganda - and your head - anyway. Liberalism, as eveyone except rednecks from Lyncher's Creek knows, is the normal ideologyof capitalism. Grow up.

 

okay maybe you didnt hear the first time, so i'll repeat myself. my view on the people on welfare has come from MY OWN LIFE EXPERIENCES. not the freaking TV where yours has come from. i SEE people who are on welfare every day at work or school. every day. i know how they live, what kind of cars they drive, what clothes they have, etc. you dont know (*)(*)(*)(*) except what YOUR biased liberal media tell you, because under liberal rule america is your country's dog and bends to the will of anything your government says. not the case under conservatism

 

Think of it like this, the more people on welfare the more supply of jobs there are for businesses to hire those who want to work.

So if you're forcing all these people who don't want to work by taking away their welfare, that means less jobs for those of you who want to work.

 

I'm in favour of Scandinavian style welfare states, but I also think people have a responsibility to do their fair share for society. So no, I don't think "people should be allowed to live off welfare for the rest of their lives." It's called a safety net, not a gravy train.

 

Any society that values liberty should protect it like any other liberty.