Republicans why not provide mandatory work for the unemployed?
December 15th, 2010 | 
Author: Question by Jim M: Republicans why not provide mandatory work for the unemployed?
Since Repubs commentators claim that the unemployed just do not want to work. Why not provide a job for everyone who needs one and end Social benefit programs? Socialism? Maybe, but are you more afraid that it would drive the unemployment rate down below 1%? We wouldn’t need social programs anymore. Or is this really putting your money where your mouth is, when most would just rather put it in their pocket?
Best answer:
Answer by mattle
Uh…is there really any difference? Why put people to work doing nothing useful and give them money, when it’s easier to just give them money? You clearly have no understanding of the value of labor.
What do you think? Answer below!
Popular Posts:
- Stocks Posting Sharp Losses In Early Afternoon Trading – U.S. Commentary
- TIer 5 Unemployment Extension Update 05/15/2010
- How does one qualify to receive the FED-ED unemployment insurance extension in California?
- NCESC Unemployment Benefits – www.ncesc.com « Breaking News
- How can i get money?I am a jobless person and don’t have any source of income with me.?
Tags:
What don’t you understand that government can’t create jobs?
You don’t like freedom too much do ya?
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” —Robert A Heinlein
Actually, it would be easier if we made people on welfare do the jobs that the illegal immigrants do. This would solve two problems, the use of illegal immigrants by businesses and welfare. The sad thing is that more and more of the young people coming of age think that they are either entitled to 6 figure incomes with little work or that the government should provide for them.
Also, I find it funny how Democrats keep on saying put your money where your mouth is but it is the Republicans that give the most to charities that help out the down trodden get back on their feet using their own money. The Democrats would rather take my money from me, filter it through the government before it goes to the needy so it costs more.
You’re right, Obama has a better idea.
Instead of finding jobs, Obama’s plan is to make jobs mandatory, and to impose fines on people who don’t have jobs, as an incentive for them to find work.
Either that, or just give unlimited extensions to unemployment benefits.
He hasn’t decided yet.
From your question I have to ask, did someone type it in for you, because I don’t think you are old enough to read or write. Where would the money come from? What would they do? Small business isn’t Gov’t. They can’t just print magic fun money.
Those first two just don’t understand the question. The repubs say everyone should be working no matter what the situation, but they aren’t willing to mandate that all people should have jobs. So I am asking those where are all those jobs that you think are out there that everyone that is looking for?
But if all those unemployed people are working…would they still be unemployed?
Or are you suggesting that Republicans are right, that the vast majority of the unemployed just do not want to work?
If that were true, I could see some kind of public service jobs being forced on them if they want a check.
But it is not true. The vast majority of the unemployed WANT to find a steady and realiable job.
Now just how would they find those jobs if they are working 9-5 for an “unemployment” check?
Yet another libby fully displaying their utter ignorance to how and why jobs are created.
Maybe it should be done like in Montana. If you collect unemployment benefits, then you are obligated to look for work (and go on interviews set-up by the state), and accept the work if offered, any work, even if outside your chosen field, or lose your benefits.
But too many unions guys and gals would balk at this, I’m sure.