What workfair would look like

[zelmo1234]

I think that we can all agree that NOBODY wants to be on welfare. Some get trapped, but NOBODY sets out to become a welfare queen. So what can we as a nation do to provide people that need our help some dignity and respect. Well we can have them earn their benefits.

So first lets address those that are not of able body and mind, I suggest that we increase the payments they receive by 10% so we can better take care of those on disability. It is a shame what we are doing to them. So where does that money come from? Workfare that is where.

So for starters we would not put anyone out of work, the Janitors in public places and schools would become the supervisors of those that come to do the actual work. because any public sector that is using welfare workers it would not cost them one dime more. so the money is there. And we want people to have the time for vocational training and looking for a job so they would only work 4 days a week 2 of them being on weekends. so that would give them 3 days for training and seeking jobs.

Next they would be in charge of sweeping sidewalks picking up trash, and keeping our roadsides clean. In states with a bottle deposit they would be welcome to any that they find. Our cities would be the cleanest in the world and it would only require a broom, trash bags and a shovel, they of course would be responsible for snow removal as well, and if someone hires them to shovel a driveway, they would of course be able to keep that money.

Now they would also go through back ground checks and screening and those that pass would be able to do community service work, including taking care of community gardens. This would help them provide the repairs and upkeep that many elderly and poor folks just can't do. the money for the materials would come from charity, and those taking advantage of this program would pay a once a year fee of one hundred dollars. Public transportation gets government subsidies so these people could ride free to location. there would need to be some supervisors but because we are filling the actual work roles in many public places some of those could move to these positions, and thus NO additional payroll. this would allow many folks to live in their homes longer and save billions in the cost of nursing home care.

Farmers, and Business would also be able to file with the social service programs for workers, and they would be required to provide transportation and pay one dollar per hour for those workers. this of course would go to the state as the workers are already getting benefits. This would put the illegals out of business overnight, and save the country over 100 billion per year in costs of educating, and taking care of the illegal population.

So for those that can't see how this could work??? I guess you never really thought about it, did you?

[midcan5]

This assumes the person is able to work and can even get to the work location. We don't live in communities so small moving about is an easy task for everyone. Then most of the people on welfare are children and the elderly. Then there is the enormous task of instituting and managing this workforce. In our minds solutions are easy, in reality not so much.

I can't find the link now but sometimes I think a 'basic income' is the only workable solution to a world that is so botched up nothing will fix inequality or poverty. If everyone got this BI then there would be no reason for whining. The basics secure then it's up to you.

'A Dutch city is giving money away to test the “basic income” theory'
http://qz.com/437088/utrecht-will-give-money-for-free-to-its-citizens-will-it-make-them-lazier/


"'The Culture of Contentment' is a deliberate misnomer. Galbraith is using irony here, irony little short of sarcasm. What he really means is the culture of smugness. His argument is that until the mid 1970s round about the oil crisis the western democracies accepted the idea of a mixed economy and with that went economic social progress. Since then, however, a prominent class has emerged, materially stable and even very rich, which, far from trying to help the less fortunate, has developed a whole infrastructure - politically and intellectually - to marginalize and even demonize them. Aspects of this include tax reductions to the better off and welfare cuts to the worst off, small 'manageable wars' to maintain the unifying force of a common enemy, the idea of 'unmitigated laissez-faire as embodiment of freedom,' and a desire for cutback in government. The most important collective end result of all this, Galbraith says, is a blindness and a deafness among the 'contented' to the growing problems of society. While they are content to spend, or have spent in their name, trillions of dollars to defeat relatively minor enemy figures... they are extremely unwilling to spend money on the underclass nearer home. In a startling paragraph he quotes figures to show that 'the number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by 28% in just 10 years from 24.5 million in 1978 to 32 million in 1988 by then nearly one in five children was born in poverty in the United States more than twice as high a proportion as in Canada or Germany." Peter Watson

Above quotation from Chapter 36, 'Doing Well, Doing Good,' in http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Mind-Intellectual-History-Century/dp/0060084383/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8

"The US economy died when middle class jobs were offshored and when the financial system was deregulated.... Jobs offshoring benefited Wall Street, corporate executives, and shareholders, because lower labor and compliance costs resulted in higher profits. These profits flowed through to shareholders in the form of capital gains and to executives in the form of “performance bonuses.” Wall Street benefitted from the bull market generated by higher profits."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/19/the-us-economy-has-not-recovered-and-will-not-recover/

[Beevee]

I think that we can all agree that NOBODY wants to be on welfare. Some get trapped, but NOBODY sets out to become a welfare queen. So what can we as a nation do to provide people that need our help some dignity and respect. Well we can have them earn their benefits.

So first lets address those that are not of able body and mind, I suggest that we increase the payments they receive by 10% so we can better take care of those on disability. It is a shame what we are doing to them. So where does that money come from? Workfare that is where.

So for starters we would not put anyone out of work, the Janitors in public places and schools would become the supervisors of those that come to do the actual work. because any public sector that is using welfare workers it would not cost them one dime more. so the money is there. And we want people to have the time for vocational training and looking for a job so they would only work 4 days a week 2 of them being on weekends. so that would give them 3 days for training and seeking jobs.

Next they would be in charge of sweeping sidewalks picking up trash, and keeping our roadsides clean. In states with a bottle deposit they would be welcome to any that they find. Our cities would be the cleanest in the world and it would only require a broom, trash bags and a shovel, they of course would be responsible for snow removal as well, and if someone hires them to shovel a driveway, they would of course be able to keep that money.

Now they would also go through back ground checks and screening and those that pass would be able to do community service work, including taking care of community gardens. This would help them provide the repairs and upkeep that many elderly and poor folks just can't do. the money for the materials would come from charity, and those taking advantage of this program would pay a once a year fee of one hundred dollars. Public transportation gets government subsidies so these people could ride free to location. there would need to be some supervisors but because we are filling the actual work roles in many public places some of those could move to these positions, and thus NO additional payroll. this would allow many folks to live in their homes longer and save billions in the cost of nursing home care.

Farmers, and Business would also be able to file with the social service programs for workers, and they would be required to provide transportation and pay one dollar per hour for those workers. this of course would go to the state as the workers are already getting benefits. This would put the illegals out of business overnight, and save the country over 100 billion per year in costs of educating, and taking care of the illegal population.

So for those that can't see how this could work??? I guess you never really thought about it, did you?

In the same way as you never thought about Union opposition, presumably.

[Mac-7]

This assumes the person is able to work and can even get to the work location. We don't live in communities so small moving about is an easy task for everyone.

how do illiterate mexicans who traveled a thousand miles from their home solve that problem when according to you an obama voter on welfare cant even get across town without government assistance?







Then most of the people on welfare are children and the elderly.


I think not.

the childen have mothers - often with live in boyfriends - who cash the check, eat the food, and live in the Section 8 housing with them.

[JDubya]

I think that we can all agree that NOBODY wants to be on welfare. Some get trapped, but NOBODY sets out to become a welfare queen. So what can we as a nation do to provide people that need our help some dignity and respect. Well we can have them earn their benefits.

So first lets address those that are not of able body and mind, I suggest that we increase the payments they receive by 10% so we can better take care of those on disability. It is a shame what we are doing to them. So where does that money come from? Workfare that is where.

So for starters we would not put anyone out of work, the Janitors in public places and schools would become the supervisors of those that come to do the actual work. because any public sector that is using welfare workers it would not cost them one dime more. so the money is there. And we want people to have the time for vocational training and looking for a job so they would only work 4 days a week 2 of them being on weekends. so that would give them 3 days for training and seeking jobs.

And so now you're paying thousands of janitors to stand around watching even greater thousands of welfare recipients do their work for them, just so you can tell yourself someone isn't getting something for nothing.

Good plan.


Next they would be in charge of sweeping sidewalks picking up trash, and keeping our roadsides clean. In states with a bottle deposit they would be welcome to any that they find. Our cities would be the cleanest in the world and it would only require a broom, trash bags and a shovel, they of course would be responsible for snow removal as well, and if someone hires them to shovel a driveway, they would of course be able to keep that money.

And what about liability? Crowds of untrained people of every background imaginable, standing around on the sides of public streets, roads and highways with vehicular traffic zooming past them mere feet away. There would inevitably be accidents and even deaths, which would result in lawsuits. If you're going to put people into potentially hazardous situations you have to provide them with workman's comp which costs money and when they get injured, pay for their medical bills. This is a disaster waiting to happen.


Now they would also go through back ground checks and screening and those that pass would be able to do community service work, including taking care of community gardens. This would help them provide the repairs and upkeep that many elderly and poor folks just can't do. the money for the materials would come from charity, and those taking advantage of this program would pay a once a year fee of one hundred dollars. Public transportation gets government subsidies so these people could ride free to location. there would need to be some supervisors but because we are filling the actual work roles in many public places some of those could move to these positions, and thus NO additional payroll. this would allow many folks to live in their homes longer and save billions in the cost of nursing home care.

Background checks cost money. The FBI would be tasked with performing them, so in order to handle such an increased work load, they'd either have to hire more agents or take existing agents off of matters like homeland security. Neither option a good one.

Public transportation? Not every area, especially rural ones, even have access to it. What would you do about them? Send a cab? Once again, not a well thought out idea.


Farmers, and Business would also be able to file with the social service programs for workers, and they would be required to provide transportation and pay one dollar per hour for those workers. this of course would go to the state as the workers are already getting benefits. This would put the illegals out of business overnight, and save the country over 100 billion per year in costs of educating, and taking care of the illegal population.

So for those that can't see how this could work??? I guess you never really thought about it, did you?

Right.

So now you've got old men and women stooped over out in the blistering hot sun, breaking their backs pulling up vegetables until they collapsed from heat stroke. Gee, how much would that cost and who would pay for it, especially given that you support no health care for these very same people.

Totally ridiculous idea.

[JDubya]

how do illiterate mexicans who traveled a thousand miles from their home solve that problem when according to you an obama voter on welfare cant even get across town without government assistance?

Those Mexicans migrant workers pay large sums of money to "coyotes" who transport them across the border hidden in the backs of trucks and vans. After they arrive, the farmers have people who pick them up, transport them to their farms and provide dormitory or bunkhouse style housing for them, so they live right where they work.

Not an issue.


I think not.

the childen have mothers - often with live in boyfriends - who cash the check, eat the food, and live in the Section 8 housing with them.

So where are your statistics on what percentage of them this applies to?

[Mac-7]

Those Mexicans migrant workers pay large sums of money to "coyotes" who transport them across the border hidden in the backs of trucks and vans. After they arrive, the farmers have people who pick them up, transport them to their farms and provide dormitory or bunkhouse style housing for them, so they live right where they work.


So where are your statistics on what percentage of them this applies to?

They dont all work on farms.

These illegal aliens have fanned out all over America and to every city far from the farms.


So where are your statistics on what percentage of them this applies to?

My statistic that children on welfare have mothers or adult guardians who spend the money for them?

Well, Duh!

Where have you been?

[gamewell45]

how do illiterate mexicans who traveled a thousand miles from their home solve that problem when according to you an obama voter on welfare cant even get across town without government assistance?

Would it be any different for a Trump voter on welfare? They do exist you know.



the childen have mothers - often with live in boyfriends - who cash the check, eat the food, and live in the Section 8 housing with them.

Of course you have a credible source that breaks down and gives percentages on this?

[Mac-7]

Of course you have a credible source that breaks down and gives percentages on this?

See post #7 above.

just using common sense how many children on welfare do you think are totally alone without a mom or grandmom taking care of them?

the answer is not many.

[Mac-7]

Based on the questions posted here it makes me wonder if liberals have any real life experience or just base every opinion they have on statistics?

[Safety]

Based on the questions posted here it makes me wonder if liberals have any real life experience or just base every opinion they have on statistics?

You mean statistics are only useful when qualifying the number of minorities committing crimes? Who'd thunk it.

[gamewell45]

See post #7 above.

just using common sense how many children on welfare do you think are totally alone without a mom or grandmom taking care of them?

the answer is not many.

I need to see a credible source; Mac 7's word on this alone, while gives an opinion, is not a credible source.

[donttread]

I think that we can all agree that NOBODY wants to be on welfare. Some get trapped, but NOBODY sets out to become a welfare queen. So what can we as a nation do to provide people that need our help some dignity and respect. Well we can have them earn their benefits.

So first lets address those that are not of able body and mind, I suggest that we increase the payments they receive by 10% so we can better take care of those on disability. It is a shame what we are doing to them. So where does that money come from? Workfare that is where.

So for starters we would not put anyone out of work, the Janitors in public places and schools would become the supervisors of those that come to do the actual work. because any public sector that is using welfare workers it would not cost them one dime more. so the money is there. And we want people to have the time for vocational training and looking for a job so they would only work 4 days a week 2 of them being on weekends. so that would give them 3 days for training and seeking jobs.

Next they would be in charge of sweeping sidewalks picking up trash, and keeping our roadsides clean. In states with a bottle deposit they would be welcome to any that they find. Our cities would be the cleanest in the world and it would only require a broom, trash bags and a shovel, they of course would be responsible for snow removal as well, and if someone hires them to shovel a driveway, they would of course be able to keep that money.

Now they would also go through back ground checks and screening and those that pass would be able to do community service work, including taking care of community gardens. This would help them provide the repairs and upkeep that many elderly and poor folks just can't do. the money for the materials would come from charity, and those taking advantage of this program would pay a once a year fee of one hundred dollars. Public transportation gets government subsidies so these people could ride free to location. there would need to be some supervisors but because we are filling the actual work roles in many public places some of those could move to these positions, and thus NO additional payroll. this would allow many folks to live in their homes longer and save billions in the cost of nursing home care.

Farmers, and Business would also be able to file with the social service programs for workers, and they would be required to provide transportation and pay one dollar per hour for those workers. this of course would go to the state as the workers are already getting benefits. This would put the illegals out of business overnight, and save the country over 100 billion per year in costs of educating, and taking care of the illegal population.

So for those that can't see how this could work??? I guess you never really thought about it, did you?

My son and I talked this over for a couple of hours once and came up with what I think is a reasonable solution. The city, town , or state would build complexes full of small, basic, but secure apartments. No income test, Donald Trump or Paris Hilton could move in if they wished . But they won't wish to.
1) Those able to work would be laborers for and under the direct supervision of the contractor( much like your example) who builds the complex, the day care center so parents could take minimum wages jobs, maintaining and cleaning the grounds and manning the complex's food pantry ,the food pantries would be free for complex dwellers , free basic , nutritionally valuable food . No porterhouse steaks , candy bars , pastries, sugared cereals , soda , beer or cigarettes, or chips.
Local doctors, perhaps in order that have their student loans reduced , would provide free clinic for minor issues, keeping ER's most open to treat emergencies, resident's could work in the clinic as well. People unable to work but ambulatory could help with the food pantries garden and feed the chickens and collect eggs . There would be an on sight laundry mat but no in apartment washing machines. And the residents would not receive cash unless their salary at minimum wage exceed the value of the benefits they were receiving .
The lifestyle, because it is so basic and cashless would only draw people who could not otherwise support themselves and provide incentive to get jobs so they could move out. In the meantime they would learn marketable skills and would have very limited access to booze, drugs, cigarettes or junk food. Those who worked with the gardening and chicks would be reconnected to earth and realize that chicken and potatoes don't just grow on grocery store shelves.
Win, win , win.
What'd think?

[Mini Me]

[QUOTE=Mac-7;1519639]See post #7 above.

just using common sense how many children on welfare do you think are totally alone without a mom or grandmom taking care of them?

That's the giant fly in the soup! AFDC is for parents with DEPENDENT CHILDREN! Somebody has to take care of the kids! Now, a Nanny will need to be hired.

BTW, Old folks can't get welfare! They can't get anything from social services! I know, I have tried!
the answer is not many.

I'm 70, and I just sit around waiting for Sarah Failin's Death Panel's knock on the door! I will go meekly to the
Fema Death Camp with a smile on my face!

Been looking for a part time job, but no one wants to hire an old geezer!

[zelmo1234]

In the same way as you never thought about Union opposition, presumably.

Why would they be opposed? Their people would be moving up the food chain. And Unions are easy to handle, when it comes to government agencies. Walker proved that in WI

[Mini Me]

Zelmo, I have to give you credit, for thinking about solutions to huge social problems!

Keep that up and we will start calling you a liberal!!!:laughing4:

[zelmo1234]

And so now you're paying thousands of janitors to stand around watching even greater thousands of welfare recipients do their work for them, just so you can tell yourself someone isn't getting something for nothing.

Good plan.



And what about liability? Crowds of untrained people of every background imaginable, standing around on the sides of public streets, roads and highways with vehicular traffic zooming past them mere feet away. There would inevitably be accidents and even deaths, which would result in lawsuits. If you're going to put people into potentially hazardous situations you have to provide them with workman's comp which costs money and when they get injured, pay for their medical bills. This is a disaster waiting to happen.



Background checks cost money. The FBI would be tasked with performing them, so in order to handle such an increased work load, they'd either have to hire more agents or take existing agents off of matters like homeland security. Neither option a good one.

Public transportation? Not every area, especially rural ones, even have access to it. What would you do about them? Send a cab? Once again, not a well thought out idea.



Right.

So now you've got old men and women stooped over out in the blistering hot sun, breaking their backs pulling up vegetables until they collapsed from heat stroke. Gee, how much would that cost and who would pay for it, especially given that you support no health care for these very same people.

Totally ridiculous idea.

Actually I did not realize that my plan would create so many jobs. I guess I like it even better now. As for the elderly, they are on SS not Welfare, I already clarified Disability. and we have people that pick up the sides of highways now and they are not being killed so that is not an issue.

As for being forced, you all should know me better than that by now. they have a choice, they can take care of themselves.

[zelmo1234]

Those Mexicans migrant workers pay large sums of money to "coyotes" who transport them across the border hidden in the backs of trucks and vans. After they arrive, the farmers have people who pick them up, transport them to their farms and provide dormitory or bunkhouse style housing for them, so they live right where they work.

Not an issue.



So where are your statistics on what percentage of them this applies to?

So would not the farmers pick up US citizens, especially if it was cheaper than illegals? Why YES, YES they would.

So you are pitching strawmen.

[zelmo1234]

[QUOTE=Mac-7;1519639]See post #7 above.

just using common sense how many children on welfare do you think are totally alone without a mom or grandmom taking care of them?

That's the giant fly in the soup! AFDC is for parents with DEPENDENT CHILDREN! Somebody has to take care of the kids! Now, a Nanny will need to be hired.

BTW, Old folks can't get welfare! They can't get anything from social services! I know, I have tried!
the answer is not many.

I'm 70, and I just sit around waiting for Sarah Failin's Death Panel's knock on the door! I will go meekly to the
Fema Death Camp with a smile on my face!

Been looking for a part time job, but no one wants to hire an old geezer!



So don't you think that some of the people on Welfare are qualified to watch their and others children? If not, why do we let them have children in their position

[zelmo1234]

Zelmo, I have to give you credit, for thinking about solutions to huge social problems!

Keep that up and we will start calling you a liberal!!!:laughing4:

My solutions are not very liberal though?

[Dr. Who]

So would not the farmers pick up US citizens, especially if it was cheaper than illegals? Why YES, YES they would.

So you are pitching strawmen.
Why would they want inexperienced, slow, out of shape workers who will cause their crops to spoil because they are not being picked fast enough? When it's time to harvest they need fast, experienced pickers. The farmers of America are not about to allow their livelihood to be sacrificed to anyone's politics. They really are not hiring the bulk of the illegals, they are bringing in Mexican workers on a special green card. Those workers start in the south and work their way north picking. I guarantee you none of those farmers want to sacrifice their crops to a new social program designed to appease the sensibilities of those who resent welfare. As much as you may think that this is unskilled work, there is a skill to picking and you need to be in really good shape to do it, as in hardened to the work and right down to the calluses on your hands that prevent you from getting all manner of painful and infected cuts. If the crops are picked incorrectly, the farmer loses money. It's nice that you are trying to think of ways to make welfare less of a drain on the public coffers, but you are not going to sacrifice someone else's livelihood to your ideals. I notice that you are not advocating putting them on your construction sites doing the framing under supervision or putting up drywall. That might just put you behind the eight ball in terms of time and screwups.

[Mac-7]

You mean statistics are only useful when qualifying the number of minorities committing crimes? Who'd thunk it.

You didnt get that stat from me.

[Mac-7]

I need to see a credible source; Mac 7's word on this alone, while gives an opinion, is not a credible source.

You really need to see a stat confirming that children on welfare have an adult in the house managing the money?

I think you know that but are too stubborn to admit it.

[Peter1469]

[QUOTE=Mac-7;1519639]See post #7 above.

just using common sense how many children on welfare do you think are totally alone without a mom or grandmom taking care of them?

That's the giant fly in the soup! AFDC is for parents with DEPENDENT CHILDREN! Somebody has to take care of the kids! Now, a Nanny will need to be hired.

BTW, Old folks can't get welfare! They can't get anything from social services! I know, I have tried!
the answer is not many.

I'm 70, and I just sit around waiting for Sarah Failin's Death Panel's knock on the door! I will go meekly to the
Fema Death Camp with a smile on my face!

Been looking for a part time job, but no one wants to hire an old geezer!



Why couldn't some of the work fare positions be child care positions so the others can go off and earn their free money?

Around here you likely could find a part time job. Do you live in a small town?

[Mac-7]

[QUOTE=Dr. Strangelove;1520348]

Why couldn't some of the work fare positions be child care positions so the others can go off and earn their free money?

Around here you likely could find a part time job. Do you live in a small town?

Anything is possible.

But show me the big brain in government thats going to make the newest welfare scheme work better than the old ones did.

If illiterate mexicans who speak no English can figure out how to survive in America without welfare then American welfare bums can figure it out too.

it starts with ending welfare entirely and deporting illegal aliens.

[donttread]

And so now you're paying thousands of janitors to stand around watching even greater thousands of welfare recipients do their work for them, just so you can tell yourself someone isn't getting something for nothing.

Good plan.



And what about liability? Crowds of untrained people of every background imaginable, standing around on the sides of public streets, roads and highways with vehicular traffic zooming past them mere feet away. There would inevitably be accidents and even deaths, which would result in lawsuits. If you're going to put people into potentially hazardous situations you have to provide them with workman's comp which costs money and when they get injured, pay for their medical bills. This is a disaster waiting to happen.



Background checks cost money. The FBI would be tasked with performing them, so in order to handle such an increased work load, they'd either have to hire more agents or take existing agents off of matters like homeland security. Neither option a good one.

Public transportation? Not every area, especially rural ones, even have access to it. What would you do about them? Send a cab? Once again, not a well thought out idea.



Right.

So now you've got old men and women stooped over out in the blistering hot sun, breaking their backs pulling up vegetables until they collapsed from heat stroke. Gee, how much would that cost and who would pay for it, especially given that you support no health care for these very same people.

Totally ridiculous idea.

[donttread]

Obviously they're would be medical exemptions, ad we also need people to answer phones

[Dr. Who]

[QUOTE=Dr. Strangelove;1520348]

Why couldn't some of the work fare positions be child care positions so the others can go off and earn their free money?

Around here you likely could find a part time job. Do you live in a small town?
It might be because childcare, particularly when directed by the government, entails child care credentials. If Ms Brown contracts with Ms Smith to mind her kids that is a private arrangement. When the government becomes involved, it immediately become legally liable and further, people will infer child care credentials. It's a recipe for litigation disaster.

[Peter1469]

[QUOTE=Peter1469;1520453]
It might be because childcare, particularly when directed by the government, entails child care credentials. If Ms Brown contracts with Ms Smith to mind her kids that is a private arrangement. When the government becomes involved, it immediately become legally liable and further, people will infer child care credentials. It's a recipe for litigation disaster.

We can have training required. And we can legislate out the right to sue. There is only so much free money to go around. Want real child care, get a skill that someone will pay good money for.

[Dr. Who]

[QUOTE=Dr. Who;1521593]

We can have training required. And we can legislate out the right to sue. There is only so much free money to go around. Want real child care, get a skill that someone will pay good money for.
You will never legislate out the right to sue for harm to kids. No one will pass such legislation. There are holy grails in society and anything that objectively can be seen to potentially harm children is one of them. You can neither waive the litigation rights of a minor, nor their right to bring charges criminally. The statutes of limitation provide the following:

The child protection section, 18 U.S.C. 3283, permits an indictment or information charging kidnaping, or sexual abuse, or physical abuse, of a child under the age of 18 to be filed within the longer of 10 years or the life of the victim. 34 Section 3299 (enacted in 2006), 35 which eliminates the statute of limitations in cases of child abduction and sex offenses against children, supersedes §3283 wherever the two overlap.

Additionally, in civil law, the statute of limitations in a lawsuit for (personal) injuries to a minor does not begin to run until he or she reaches the age of 18.

[Peter1469]

[QUOTE=Peter1469;1521607]
You will never legislate out the right to sue for harm to kids. No one will pass such legislation. There are holy grails in society and anything that objectively can be seen to potentially harm children is one of them. You can neither waive the litigation rights of a minor, nor their right to bring charges criminally. The statutes of limitation provide the following:

The child protection section, 18 U.S.C. 3283, permits an indictment or information charging kidnaping, or sexual abuse, or physical abuse, of a child under the age of 18 to be filed within the longer of 10 years or the life of the victim. 34 Section 3299 (enacted in 2006), 35 which eliminates the statute of limitations in cases of child abduction and sex offenses against children, supersedes §3283 wherever the two overlap.

Additionally, in civil law, the statute of limitations in a lawsuit for (personal) injuries to a minor does not begin to run until he or she reaches the age of 18.

The premise of this thread is work-fare.

If they don't work they perhaps should rely on charity.

[Dr. Who]

[QUOTE=Dr. Who;1521664]

The premise of this thread is work-fare.

If they don't work they perhaps should rely on charity.
I'm not disputing work-fare, but if the government or even any state government chooses to press gang welfare recipients into child care, they would be risking significant liability with a very long tail.

[Peter1469]

[QUOTE=Peter1469;1521668]
I'm not disputing work-fare, but if the government or even any state government chooses to press gang welfare recipients into child care, they would be risking significant liability with a very long tail.

True

[donttread]

[QUOTE=Dr. Who;1521593]

We can have training required. And we can legislate out the right to sue. There is only so much free money to go around. Want real child care, get a skill that someone will pay good money for.

Plus we are teaching valuable job skills. Sometimes I think the ultra libs want to keep the poor dependent , because without a dependent class who would vote for them?

[Peter1469]

Right.

[Tahuyaman]

What workfair would look like
Bottom line..... Workfair should include some type of actual work.

[donttread]

What workfair would look like


Bottom line..... Workfair should include some type of actual work.

Exactly. Just getting up in the morning with a purpose and going to a job will create self esteem

[JDubya]

No matter what kind of program you create, it's going to cost money.

You have to have people to set it up, administer it, run it, keep records, provide training, liability insurance and workers comp, etc, etc, etc. That entails hiring more govt employees drawing salaries and benefits.

Then you have to take into consideration whether or not you will put people out of work who are already doing the jobs the recipients would fill.

A lot of expense and headache just because some people can't stand the idea of other people getting money without having to sweat for it.

[Mac-7]

No matter what kind of program you create, it's going to cost money.

You have to have people to set it up, administer it, run it, keep records, provide training, liability insurance and workers comp, etc, etc, etc. That entails hiring more govt employees drawing salaries and benefits.

Then you have to take into consideration whether or not you will put people out of work who are already doing the jobs the recipients would fill.

A lot of expense and headache just because some people can't stand the idea of other people getting money without having to sweat for it.

Government is far too incompetent to run such an ambitious project.

The best approach is to seal the border to stop the flood of illegal aliens and then deport the ones who are already here.

then stop giving Americans money for doing nothing.

they will have to take the jobs that illegal aliens used to do

[donttread]

No matter what kind of program you create, it's going to cost money.

You have to have people to set it up, administer it, run it, keep records, provide training, liability insurance and workers comp, etc, etc, etc. That entails hiring more govt employees drawing salaries and benefits.

Then you have to take into consideration whether or not you will put people out of work who are already doing the jobs the recipients would fill.

A lot of expense and headache just because some people can't stand the idea of other people getting money without having to sweat for it.

Do you over complicate everything? One of the goals of workfare is to teach job skills so the public assistance becomes a temporary thing again.

[zelmo1234]

[QUOTE=Peter1469;1520453]
It might be because childcare, particularly when directed by the government, entails child care credentials. If Ms Brown contracts with Ms Smith to mind her kids that is a private arrangement. When the government becomes involved, it immediately become legally liable and further, people will infer child care credentials. It's a recipe for litigation disaster.

I don't have any issues with training someone to get the credentials to run a daycare. Then they can supervise others and that would provide someone that is currently on Welfare with a Great job. I think they once called that Opportunity. This is a perfect situation for government to actually help someone.

Why is it those on the left always find wants to not do something? It drives me crazy.

[zelmo1234]

[QUOTE=Peter1469;1521668]
I'm not disputing work-fare, but if the government or even any state government chooses to press gang welfare recipients into child care, they would be risking significant liability with a very long tail.

NO, NO you see you are forcing people to do something again? If they don't want to use the welfare run daycare centers, that is fine. they just have to support themselves and not take money from the state.

[zelmo1234]

[QUOTE=Peter1469;1521607]

Plus we are teaching valuable job skills. Sometimes I think the ultra libs want to keep the poor dependent , because without a dependent class who would vote for them?

Don't think that it is sometimes??? It is exactly the intention of the left. The more self reliant you become the less dependent on the government that you are.

[zelmo1234]

No matter what kind of program you create, it's going to cost money.

You have to have people to set it up, administer it, run it, keep records, provide training, liability insurance and workers comp, etc, etc, etc. That entails hiring more govt employees drawing salaries and benefits.

Then you have to take into consideration whether or not you will put people out of work who are already doing the jobs the recipients would fill.

A lot of expense and headache just because some people can't stand the idea of other people getting money without having to sweat for it.

We already have those people there are millions of social workers, each one would now have a staff of free employee's to help them. this would increase productivity and in the long run save money.

[HoneyBadger]

Exactly. Just getting up in the morning with a purpose and going to a job will create self esteem

For many people, it just breeds resentment.

[Dr. Who]

[QUOTE=Dr. Who;1521593]

I don't have any issues with training someone to get the credentials to run a daycare. Then they can supervise others and that would provide someone that is currently on Welfare with a Great job. I think they once called that Opportunity. This is a perfect situation for government to actually help someone.

Why is it those on the left always find wants to not do something? It drives me crazy.
Simply stated, because anything that is operated under the auspices of the federal government becomes a deep pocket from a litigation point of view. If a daycare operates through workfare but is part of a federal program, you can bet that any assaults, injuries, negligent behavior or whatever that harms a child will result in a lawsuit with the federal government named for vicarious liability for lack of supervision, lack of due diligence or worse. If the daycare operation has no insurance, the federal government will be the only party with funds and will ultimately be financially responsible for any and all harm that befalls children in that situation. Any settlement in that regard is not final, because the child has an independent right to sue once he or she is 18 years of age. The statute of limitations with regard to such harm only begins to run for the child when they reach the age of 18, so you are looking at potential long tail liability that may only begin 18 years from now.

[Dr. Who]

[QUOTE=Dr. Who;1521677]

NO, NO you see you are forcing people to do something again? If they don't want to use the welfare run daycare centers, that is fine. they just have to support themselves and not take money from the state.
I was responding to the suggestion that people on welfare be turned into child minders for others who have children but must fulfill their workfare obligations. This would logically be deemed workfare for those who end up as daycare minders and thus federally or state mandated daycare. People are not legally allowed to leave their infants at home alone, irrespective of workfare laws.

[JDubya]

Do you over complicate everything? One of the goals of workfare is to teach job skills so the public assistance becomes a temporary thing again.

Reality is tough, isn't it?

[Mac-7]

[QUOTE=zelmo1234;1522991]
Simply stated, because anything that is operated under the auspices of the federal government becomes a deep pocket from a litigation point of view. If a daycare operates through workfare but is part of a federal program, you can bet that any assaults, injuries, negligent behavior or whatever that harms a child will result in a lawsuit with the federal government named for vicarious liability for lack of supervision, lack of due diligence or worse. If the daycare operation has no insurance, the federal government will be the only party with funds and will ultimately be financially responsible for any and all harm that befalls children in that situation. Any settlement in that regard is not final, because the child has an independent right to sue once he or she is 18 years of age. The statute of limitations with regard to such harm only begins to run for the child when they reach the age of 18, so you are looking at potential long tail liability that may only begin 18 years from now.

You are saying that workfare is unworkable and I agree with that.

The best way to help jobless people is to end the welfare handouts which will motivate them to go out and find a job

[JDubya]

You are saying that workfare is unworkable and I agree with that.

The best way to help jobless people is to end the welfare handouts which will motivate them to go out and find a job

No it isn't and no it won't.

It would only create more homelessness.

[Mac-7]

No it isn't and no it won't.

It would only create more homelessness.

More bomeless Americans?

in the short run maybe till welfare bums get the hang of working for a living.

But in time they will develop skills and become stronger and better people.

[Peter1469]

[QUOTE=zelmo1234;1522991]
Simply stated, because anything that is operated under the auspices of the federal government becomes a deep pocket from a litigation point of view. If a daycare operates through workfare but is part of a federal program, you can bet that any assaults, injuries, negligent behavior or whatever that harms a child will result in a lawsuit with the federal government named for vicarious liability for lack of supervision, lack of due diligence or worse. If the daycare operation has no insurance, the federal government will be the only party with funds and will ultimately be financially responsible for any and all harm that befalls children in that situation. Any settlement in that regard is not final, because the child has an independent right to sue once he or she is 18 years of age. The statute of limitations with regard to such harm only begins to run for the child when they reach the age of 18, so you are looking at potential long tail liability that may only begin 18 years from now.

Workfare would be run by states and local governments.

[zelmo1234]

For many people, it just breeds resentment.

Well sitting on their asses smoking weed and drinking beer on my tax dollars breeds resentment in those of us that work for a living, so I say welcome to the club!

[zelmo1234]

[QUOTE=zelmo1234;1522991]
Simply stated, because anything that is operated under the auspices of the federal government becomes a deep pocket from a litigation point of view. If a daycare operates through workfare but is part of a federal program, you can bet that any assaults, injuries, negligent behavior or whatever that harms a child will result in a lawsuit with the federal government named for vicarious liability for lack of supervision, lack of due diligence or worse. If the daycare operation has no insurance, the federal government will be the only party with funds and will ultimately be financially responsible for any and all harm that befalls children in that situation. Any settlement in that regard is not final, because the child has an independent right to sue once he or she is 18 years of age. The statute of limitations with regard to such harm only begins to run for the child when they reach the age of 18, so you are looking at potential long tail liability that may only begin 18 years from now.

Once again there is NO reason that these can't be licensed programs. Not every person working in current licensed daycares have certification. Just one has to be on staff.

What you as a Democrat are trying to do is protect your voter base by allowing them to become worthless burdens on society.

And if you think that is compassion you are WRONG. It is cruelty on the highest level. Well maybe second to what liberals are doing to our children in our public schools

[zelmo1234]

[QUOTE=zelmo1234;1522994]
I was responding to the suggestion that people on welfare be turned into child minders for others who have children but must fulfill their workfare obligations. This would logically be deemed workfare for those who end up as daycare minders and thus federally or state mandated daycare. People are not legally allowed to leave their infants at home alone, irrespective of workfare laws.

So their children go to the daycare as well. This is easy. clearly it would be easy to have certified persons on staff. that is all that is required. Imagine how this would free people up. And it could actually go further than that . In Many, if not most cities there are old schools that are not being used. Using the workfare program to fix them up and turn them into daycare would be great. then they could actually offer 25 dollar a week to the public as well. more than paying for the program and saving the tax paying members of society a lot of money.

[zelmo1234]

No it isn't and no it won't.

It would only create more homelessness.

So? if it gets cold, they might want to find a job.

[zelmo1234]

Clearly, those that are takers don't understand that we makers are starting to care less and less about their well being?

And why should we. What have they done for us lately?

[Mac-7]

Clearly, those that are takers don't understand that we makers are starting to care less and less about their well being?

And why should we. What have they done for us lately?

This topic does not excite much interest among liberals.

I guess the idea of people on welfare having to find jobs and work for a living is insulting to them

[donttread]

For many people, it just breeds resentment.

Give it a month, most of them will feel better about themselves. But they are free to resent their work as many Americans do , as long as they do the work

[Mac-7]

Give it a month, most of them will feel better about themselves. But they are free to resent their work as many Americans do , as long as they do the work

If not working means not eating even welfare bums will work.

[donttread]

[QUOTE=zelmo1234;1522991]
Simply stated, because anything that is operated under the auspices of the federal government becomes a deep pocket from a litigation point of view. If a daycare operates through workfare but is part of a federal program, you can bet that any assaults, injuries, negligent behavior or whatever that harms a child will result in a lawsuit with the federal government named for vicarious liability for lack of supervision, lack of due diligence or worse. If the daycare operation has no insurance, the federal government will be the only party with funds and will ultimately be financially responsible for any and all harm that befalls children in that situation. Any settlement in that regard is not final, because the child has an independent right to sue once he or she is 18 years of age. The statute of limitations with regard to such harm only begins to run for the child when they reach the age of 18, so you are looking at potential long tail liability that may only begin 18 years from now.

Ah the magic words "federal government" They have no business in being involved in state affairs anyway. So return this duty to the states and we can eliminate running everything through the least efficient organization in the country.

[Dr. Who]

[QUOTE=Dr. Who;1523021]

Workfare would be run by states and local governments.
Same liability, different level of government.

[Peter1469]

Same liability, different level of government.

True. But federalism matters.

[Dr. Who]

[QUOTE=Dr. Who;1523028]

So their children go to the daycare as well. This is easy. clearly it would be easy to have certified persons on staff. that is all that is required. Imagine how this would free people up. And it could actually go further than that . In Many, if not most cities there are old schools that are not being used. Using the workfare program to fix them up and turn them into daycare would be great. then they could actually offer 25 dollar a week to the public as well. more than paying for the program and saving the tax paying members of society a lot of money.
You are missing the point. If you force people on welfare to become the childminders of workfare participants, then the government that does so becomes liable for any harm that comes to any children. You then have a virtually unlimited deep pocket to pick in any lawsuit.

[Peter1469]

You are missing the point. If you force people on welfare to become the childminders of workfare participants, then the government that does so becomes liable for any harm that comes to any children. You then have a virtually unlimited deep pocket to pick in any lawsuit.

Congress can pass a law to remove liability. Or remove it except for gross negligence.

[donttread]

[QUOTE=Peter1469;1523133]
Same liability, different level of government.

If our society has become too red taped to put some work crews together from people we are supporting anyway there is little hope for this economy. Besides the program could eventually reduce the number of town employees needed. No layoffs, just through attrition . Fairly important because most of our governments are in debt

[Peter1469]

On the one hand the left wants people on their welfare assistance programs to buy votes. On the other hand they claim that we should live more as a community for the common good.

Workfare seems to touch on both of those. Is it the work part that turns them off to it?

[donttread]

[QUOTE=zelmo1234;1523163]
You are missing the point. If you force people on welfare to become the childminders of workfare participants, then the government that does so becomes liable for any harm that comes to any children. You then have a virtually unlimited deep pocket to pick in any lawsuit.

Lots of government run institutions treat people and could incur liability. What about the VA? Or community owned hospitals ?

[donttread]

On the one hand the left wants people on their welfare assistance programs to buy votes. On the other hand they claim that we should live more as a community for the common good.

Workfare seems to touch on both of those. Is it the work part that turns them off to it?

IMO, most ultra libs don't really see the poor and even minorities as able to fend for themselves, which of course is discrimination and racism in it's own right. They blather on about the man keepin the poor folk down, but resist nearly every practical hand up idea and opt for hand outs. They need the poor to be dependent on their good nature to stroke their egos and of course to buy votes.
Think about it, if the poor became entirely self sufficient what platform would the ultra libs have left?

[Peter1469]

IMO, most ultra libs don't really see the poor and even minorities as able to fend for themselves, which of course is discrimination and racism in it's own right. They blather on about the man keepin the poor folk down, but resist nearly every practical hand up idea and opt for hand outs. They need the poor to be dependent on their good nature to stroke their egos and of course to buy votes.
Think about it, if the poor became entirely self sufficient what platform would the ultra libs have left?

It is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[Dr. Who]

Congress can pass a law to remove liability. Or remove it except for gross negligence.
Why would Congress do so if it is individual states choosing to enact this sort of workfare? Furthermore, the act of press ganging anyone on welfare into child minding could, in and of itself, be considered gross negligence. People choosing daycare facilities in the normal scheme of things contract with them and make an educated decision whether or not to do so, based on things like reputation and qualified personnel. A workfare daycare would be comprised of the coerced taking care of other welfare recipient's children whose parents also had no choice as to daycare options. The individual states could try to remove liability, but I doubt that any such legislation would stand up to scrutiny unless the state exercised a significant degree of supervision, which would probably cost more than the program would be worth.

[Peter1469]

Why would Congress do so if it is individual states choosing to enact this sort of workfare? Furthermore, the act of press ganging anyone on welfare into child minding could, in and of itself, be considered gross negligence. People choosing daycare facilities in the normal scheme of things contract with them and make an educated decision whether or not to do so, based on things like reputation and qualified personnel. A workfare daycare would be comprised of the coerced taking care of other welfare recipient's children whose parents also had no choice as to daycare options. The individual states could try to remove liability, but I doubt that any such legislation would stand up to scrutiny unless the state exercised a significant degree of supervision, which would probably cost more than the program would be worth.

Well if the nation wants welfare recipients to work you have to solve the child care issue. That is a solution.

[Dr. Who]

[QUOTE=Dr. Who;1523924]

Lots of government run institutions treat people and could incur liability. What about the VA? Or community owned hospitals ?
They employ people with credentials (who have their own insurance) and they also have plenty of insurance coverage for hospital staff. Doctors are self-employed contractors who are independently liable for their own actions.

[Dr. Who]

Well if the nation wants welfare recipients to work you have to solve the child care issue. That is a solution.
You may be taking people who don't take proper care of their own children and put them in charge of the children of others. Not the best idea ever.

[donttread]

[QUOTE=donttread;1524151]
They employ people with credentials (who have their own insurance) and they also have plenty of insurance coverage for hospital staff. Doctors are self-employed contractors who are independently liable for their own actions.

Actually there is a growing trend for doctors to actually be hospital employees. And not everyone in a hospital has "credentials" You are comparing apples to oranges anyway.
Doctors to supervised child care aids.

[donttread]

You may be taking people who don't take proper care of their own children and put them in charge of the children of others. Not the best idea ever.

Where does this "in charge" come from? And why do you assume poor people are automatically bad parents? They won't be in charge of anything.

[Peter1469]

You may be taking people who don't take proper care of their own children and put them in charge of the children of others. Not the best idea ever.

Check. We covered that. The primary goal is work. The rest are secondary goals.

[zelmo1234]

[QUOTE=zelmo1234;1523163]
You are missing the point. If you force people on welfare to become the childminders of workfare participants, then the government that does so becomes liable for any harm that comes to any children. You then have a virtually unlimited deep pocket to pick in any lawsuit.

NO you are missing the point. NO harm has to come to these children. It is liberals that keep telling us that they are NO welfare queens and people on welfare are just down on their luck. Now that I am proposing that they work to earn their keep, You have turned them into child molesters. And if your point is true and NO people on welfare are actually qualified to watch children??? Then where the hell is child protective services, and why are they not taking these kids away from these horrible parents.

So which one is it are they good people down on their luck? or are they dirt bags?

[zelmo1234]

You may be taking people who don't take proper care of their own children and put them in charge of the children of others. Not the best idea ever.

Here is a typical liberal, We here how compassionate they are and just how much they care? Yet when it comes to these people that they spend millions each election cycle to tell us just what good people they really are?

Now that something could get in the way of the Liberals oppression of minorities and women. DR WHO is trying to tell us that you can't find any qualified people on welfare to watch children. Yet he wants the rich to pay more in taxes so they can get more benefits so they can stay home, do drugs, and become alcoholics, and of course vote for democrats.

I have no idea how liberals sleep at night.

[Dr. Who]

[QUOTE=Dr. Who;1524163]

Actually there is a growing trend for doctors to actually be hospital employees. And not everyone in a hospital has "credentials" You are comparing apples to oranges anyway.
Doctors to supervised child care aids.
Anyone with a medical title, must by definition be accredited. Heads of departments are generally insured by the hospital as are its directors, admin and nursing staff, med techs, lab assistants, orderlies, cafeteria workers etc. I have not heard of this trend for doctors to generally be insured by hospitals. I am familiar with hospitals being named in all medical malpractice litigation stemming from treatment in a hospital.

[Dr. Who]

Where does this "in charge" come from? And why do you assume poor people are automatically bad parents? They won't be in charge of anything.
I don't. You will note that I said may be, not will be. However, it is also a fact that there are many people living on welfare that are either substance abusers or are otherwise not the most capable people either mentally or physically, which is why they are not employable.

[Doublejack]

My co-workers and I have brain stormed the hell out of this idea. Workfare.

We generally hit road blocks all over the place. It can't happen without first breaking down public worker regulations and that's not going to happen as no politician wan't that kind of chaos.

Now the prison system we have better results but I don't know if chain gangs would be publicly acceptable these days.

[Dr. Who]

[QUOTE=Dr. Who;1523924]

NO you are missing the point. NO harm has to come to these children. It is liberals that keep telling us that they are NO welfare queens and people on welfare are just down on their luck. Now that I am proposing that they work to earn their keep, You have turned them into child molesters. And if your point is true and NO people on welfare are actually qualified to watch children??? Then where the hell is child protective services, and why are they not taking these kids away from these horrible parents.

So which one is it are they good people down on their luck? or are they dirt bags?
Oh Zelmo, you don't live in my world of litigation. Stuff happens to kids, sometimes because people are actually irresponsible or negligent and sometimes just because they are poor predictors of the actions of children. Regardless, the children are innocent and the adults are at-fault at least until kids are about 10 or 11 years old. It is worse if children are put into the care of people who are not accredited and if a child sustains harm for any reason, whoever is in charge, and in this case the government would be seen to be in charge, will be held liable. There is this thing in the law called the master/servant relationship. The master is always at the very least, vicariously responsible for the actions of the servant when the servant is acting the on the business of the master. The master can also be found purely negligent if he/she didn't ensure that the servant was not fundamentally unqualified based on history. As an example, if you have a salesperson whom you send to the property of another and while no one is looking your salesperson commits theft, you are vicariously responsible for the loss.

[Mac-7]

I don't. You will note that I said may be, not will be. However, it is also a fact that there are many people living on welfare that are either substance abusers or are otherwise not the most capable people either mentally or physically, which is why they are not employable.

Since that is your arguement then why is it a good idea to legalize drugs that lead to unemployable Americans.

If your claim is that most people on welfare are incompetent due to drug abuse that seems to prove that legaling drugs is a bad idea.

And it also tells me that drug abusers who cant work should not be allowed to vote.

[donttread]

[QUOTE=donttread;1524169]
Anyone with a medical title, must by definition be accredited. Heads of departments are generally insured by the hospital as are its directors, admin and nursing staff, med techs, lab assistants, orderlies, cafeteria workers etc. I have not heard of this trend for doctors to generally be insured by hospitals. I am familiar with hospitals being named in all medical malpractice litigation stemming from treatment in a hospital.

Some hospitlist are sub contractors but some are hospital employees. However we are getting way off point. None of our workfare people are going to be preforming surgery, none will be running departments. They won't run the daycare program, they will work in it under direct supervision. If they show interest and promise in an area perhaps they can go to college or trade school, while they continue to work part time. They will do ground level work and possibly move up , many may eventually be hired by the organization over seeing their work.

[Dr. Who]

Since that is your arguement then why is it a good idea to legalize drugs that lead to unemployable Americans.

If your claim is that most people on welfare are incompetent due to drug abuse that seems to prove that legaling drugs is a bad idea.

And it also tells me that drug abusers who cant work should not be allowed to vote.
I said substance abusers, which could be anything from alcohol to prescription drugs and that is certainly not the majority of people on welfare, but it is a factor in some cases.