Entitlement Question

[PAWrocka]

@scotchtiger , here an alternative viewpoint. Work requirements don't solve any problems. It's not true to suggest that assistance breeds laziness, in fact, a number of studies show an increase in market based work among welfare recipients without an associated work requirement.

Most participants are already working or are exempt and the requirement doesn't increase earnings or participation in work meaningfully.

These requirements increase the administrative burden and cost on government AND private citizens.

The only real and proven outcome of work requirements is a dramatic reduction in the use of assistance programs, and often by people who need them.

So what problem are we trying to solve? And does this policy solve that problem? The answer seems to be no in both cases, and instead this policy is designed to make conservatives "feel better" about poors taking their money.

I just dont believe this ....

Granted, not welfare, but Mrs. Pawrocka is a Liability and Workers Compensation defense attorney. The lengths people will go to NOT work is astonishing. My wife started her career on the plantiffs side of workers comp, but switched sides after 3 years because the pure amount of lazy ass people OR people who were looking for drugs was too enraging.


we do agree on the underlined though .... the operational overhead to police such requirements, probably doesnt make for much cost benefit. Although .... I would like to see what those estimates are.

 

[dpic73]

I did not say your job. However, govt jobs and military personnel were required to do so. So were children who had minimal risk, at best, from the virus.

And should we cater to those losers that wouldn't take a perfectly safe vaccine because Trump lost the election? **** 'em, they deserved to lose their job.

 

[Clemson Goat]

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Those issues you mention could just have easily been caused by having Covid since those are very common symptoms of long haul Covid.

Mother in-law has never had covid that she knows of . Like I said she was at the doctors office on Monday morning for her annual check up and was found in the floor the very next morning and was rushed to the hospital . They did test her at the hospital which was negative. At the time my health issue started I had not had covid but did have it about 6 month's later.

 

[yoshi121374]

Mother in-law has never had covid that she knows of . Like I said she was at the doctors office on Monday morning for her annual check up and was found in the floor the very next morning and was rushed to the hospital . They did test her at the hospital which was negative. At the time my health issue started I had not had covid but did have it about 6 month's later.

Again, correlation doesn't equal causation.

 

[WapPride]

Again, correlation doesn't equal causation.

That seems to be lost on the older crowd, I’ve found.

 

[Clemson Goat]

Again, correlation doesn't equal causation.

More bang for your bucks. The person who has the most sex makes the most money. Scientists has found people who have sex 4 times a week has a 3.2 % higher paycheck than those who only have sex one time a week .

 

[scotchtiger]

@scotchtiger , here an alternative viewpoint. Work requirements don't solve any problems. It's not true to suggest that assistance breeds laziness, in fact, a number of studies show an increase in market based work among welfare recipients without an associated work requirement.

Most participants are already working or are exempt and the requirement doesn't increase earnings or participation in work meaningfully.

These requirements increase the administrative burden and cost on government AND private citizens.

The only real and proven outcome of work requirements is a dramatic reduction in the use of assistance programs, and often by people who need them.

So what problem are we trying to solve? And does this policy solve that problem? The answer seems to be no in both cases, and instead this policy is designed to make conservatives "feel better" about poors taking their money.

I appreciate the alternate viewpoint. But that position is wholly reliant on unnamed studies that contradict logical assumptions of human behavior.

My position is simple. We will take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Children, elderly and mentally or physically disabled. The rest absolutely must work, volunteer or train to receive anything from their fellow Americans who are working their ass off to provide that check in the mail. Exceptions granted for single parents with young children (which this proposal accounts for).

 

[scotchtiger]

And should we cater to those losers that wouldn't take a perfectly safe vaccine because Trump lost the election? **** 'em, they deserved to lose their job.

What about people who elected not to take the vaccine for reasons completely unrelated to the election?

BTW, I have a client in Philly that I still cannot visit because they still have a vax requirement to enter their buildings. Talk about crazy.

 

[Clemson Goat]

I appreciate the alternate viewpoint. But that position is wholly reliant on unnamed studies that contradict logical assumptions of human behavior.

My position is simple. We will take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Children, elderly and mentally or physically disabled. The rest absolutely must work, volunteer or train to receive anything from their fellow Americans who are working their ass off to provide that check in the mail. Exceptions granted for single parents with young children (which this proposal accounts for).

Clinton did one thing I will tip my hat to. He started a program called welfare to work program. People who were able to work and on welfare the government paid for them to go to a technical school to learn a trade skill. After two years that person was required to enter the work force and welfare was stopped.

 

[scotchtiger]

Clinton did one thing I will tip my hat to. He started a program called welfare to work program. People who were able to work and on welfare the government paid for them to go to a technical school to learn a trade skill. After two years that person was required to enter the work force and welfare was stopped.

100% of Americans should support policies like this.