Someone fighting for Texas 2nd Amendment

[Jester]

How is that fucking up, Sean? Seriously?

You have made zero sense. You dont like welfare but you dont want to punish them. I offer a very simple solution and you dont like it either.

What do you suggest then?

[racrguy]

How is that fucking up, Sean? Seriously?

You have made zero sense. You dont like welfare but you dont want to punish them. I offer a very simple solution and you dont like it either.

What do you suggest then?

You're fucking up when you are forcing someone into labor. It's called indentured servitude. If you really want to have someone sign a contract, the best you can do would be a loan type situation.

Why do they NEED to be punished? Sometimes people need a bit of help. My personal view, if you are unable to work, because of mental or physical problems, things like ADD/ADHD don't fucking count, that's fine. We as a society should provide for those who CANNOT provide for themselves. If you're able bodied you get 3 months of welfare in your lifetime, tops. Keep in mind, unemployment is not welfare. If you're on unemployment and you are let go due to no fault of your own then the business should be on the hook for the entirety of your benefits, for a set amount of time. If you're let go for some fault of your own, sorry about your bad luck, you've got 3 months of benefits.

[bird_dog0347]

I thought this website was for mustangs...

No, that was dfwstangs.com

[Forever_frost]

Actually, it's not indentured servitude. You chose to take the money and cash the check, therefore you agree to provide your labor in exchange for it. You call it indentured servitude, yet it's actually employment. Think works program under FDR. There is no force here. You accept the money, you accept the requirement to work. How are you not understanding this? "Did you accept tens of thousands of dollars from the taxpayer? Yes? You owe the taxpayer x labor."

It's not slavery, it's not indentured servitude. It's kin to paying penalties. Especially if you obtained that money illegally. And no more section 8 housing or if there is, then it's military barracks where you have daily police calls where EVERYONE above 12 is expected to take care of common areas.

[Forever_frost]

Yeah, if you're doing it against your will, it is.Don't want to pay for their welfare? Don't work. It's not slavery if you have a choice.

So you're saying it's not slavery if I chose to work and am forced to pay taxes, but it's slavery if I'm forced to pay them and they give nothing back. Do I have that straight?

[racrguy]

Actually, it's not indentured servitude. You chose to take the money and cash the check, therefore you agree to provide your labor in exchange for it. You call it indentured servitude, yet it's actually employment. Think works program under FDR. There is no force here. You accept the money, you accept the requirement to work. How are you not understanding this? "Did you accept tens of thousands of dollars from the taxpayer? Yes? You owe the taxpayer x labor."

It's not slavery, it's not indentured servitude. It's kin to paying penalties. Especially if you obtained that money illegally. And no more section 8 housing or if there is, then it's military barracks where you have daily police calls where EVERYONE above 12 is expected to take care of common areas.

What you're fantasizing about is the textbook definition of indentured servitude, you fucking retard. If you want to call it FDR's Works Progress Administration, then IT'S NOT WELFARE. The people worked for the government and were paid a wage while doing it, and free to leave at any time.

So now that you've gotten your balls smashed between some rocks on slavery, you want to move the goalpost and make it seem like you meant the government giving the person a job. Either you were talking out your ass earlier, or you clearly aren't capable of properly expressing your thoughts.

So you're saying it's not slavery if I chose to work and am forced to pay taxes, but it's slavery if I'm forced to pay them and they give nothing back. Do I have that straight?

No, you've got it all fucked up. You don't want to pay into the welfare system, don't work. Then you aren't paying taxes, thereby not paying into the welfare system. You aren't being forced to work, nor are you being forced to pay taxes. If you're forcing someone to work somewhere against their will, that's called slavery, regardless of whether you're paying them a wage or not. Indentured servants were paid a "wage," but weren't allowed to leave until a set amount of time had passed, or a certain amount of money was made.

[Forever_frost]

You are free to leave from what I speak of as well. YOu merely forfeit any future welfare anything for the rest of your life until you pay what you owe. Where is the issue? Calling me retarded? Really? Call it refining an idea.

You're wrong. If you're paying someone, it's impossible to call it slavery. Impossible. Slaves do not get paid. That's pretty text book.

[line-em-up]

Don't want to pay for their welfare? Don't work. It's not slavery if you have a choice.

If that's not the most assbackwards assinine thing I've ever heard.

[slow06]

What is the phrase... The road to hell is paved with good intentions?

Listen I get what you guys are saying, people have been abusing the system and you are beyond sick and tired of it. I think your passion has lead you to the wrong answer. This "hey you took money we offered you and now you have to work for free" thing is flat out wrong. If you want to put strings on the money in the first place before the person takes it then great, and I would most likely support that, but I'm with racrguy, this is messed up.

[ceyko]

What is the phrase... The road to hell is paved with good intentions?

Listen I get what you guys are saying, people have been abusing the system and you are beyond sick and tired of it. I think your passion has lead you to the wrong answer. This "hey you took money we offered you and now you have to work for free" thing is flat out wrong. If you want to put strings on the money in the first place before the person takes it then great, and I would most likely support that, but I'm with racrguy, this is messed up.

You just confused the hell out of me.

So you say you'll most likely be okay with it if done up front. I've seen at least one post where Jester and/or FF accepted that scenario. However, you also say you agree with the other dude and it is messed up.

Again, no one is asking for free labor.

Here is one big reason I support this sort of thing, besides the obvious that has already been pointed out. If these people REALLY want to work and make their way (which I think a lot of folks really don't want to) - this will get them out and socializing with the people who could get them hired. Where it is a waste management or city landscaping - they'll be...

1. At work, not at home bored and spending money
2. Getting exposure to things they may not have done before and may like doing
3. Out with other people working and expanding their professional network - also being paid to be interviewed if any of those groups are hiring. Their performance on the spot would help them be hired full-time

[slow06]

You just confused the hell out of me.

So you say you'll most likely be okay with it if done up front. I've seen at least one post where Jester and/or FF accepted that scenario. However, you also say you agree with the other dude and it is messed up.

Again, no one is asking for free labor.

Here is one big reason I support this sort of thing, besides the obvious that has already been pointed out. If these people REALLY want to work and make their way (which I think a lot of folks really don't want to) - this will get them out and socializing with the people who could get them hired. Where it is a waste management or city landscaping - they'll be...

1. At work, not at home bored and spending money
2. Getting exposure to things they may not have done before and may like doing
3. Out with other people working and expanding their professional network - also being paid to be interviewed if any of those groups are hiring. Their performance on the spot would help them be hired full-time

Maybe I missed those. What I saw was them advocating making people work for money they already received. That is what I think is messed up.

If they were just talking about a "go-forward" solution of essentially giving them a job rather than a handout, well that is how I think it should be anyway.

[Baron Von Crowder]

I'd be ok with a requirement to perform a few community service hours per month. I had to do 40 before I could get my high school diploma.

[DallasSleeper]

I'd be ok with a requirement to perform a few community service hours per month. I had to do 40 before I could get my high school diploma.

I have heard that Colorado requires this for food stamps, I think it is a good idea

[stevo]

I'd be ok with a requirement to perform a few community service hours per month. I had to do 40 before I could get my high school diploma.

I have been advocating this forever. Community service hours per current minimum wage as dictated by amounts of aid received.

Stevo

[Forever_frost]