Liberals. What's wrong with telling 700k lazy people to stop mooching off the government and get a job?
- BlackAdderLv 61 month agoFavorite Answer
When you consider the fact that these people are leftists, not liberals, it makes a whole lot more sense. National dependence is their end game. These 700k are just a start.
- 1 month ago
Probably b/c most of those you are referring are children, elderly, or disabled. Let me guess, you were thinking "able-bodied" aka black males? The reality isn't quite as fun is it?
- Dave B.Lv 71 month ago
I'm a liberal, and this is a perfectly fair and valid question.
The reason it is unreasonable to expect welfare recipients to simply get a job, is that we have built a system which incentivizes unemployment more heavily than it incentivizes employment. Leaving the welfare system to work nearly always means a heavy reduction in income, as well as non-monetary benefits like child care, health insurance, and rent-controlled housing.
There are two ways to solve this problem, and I suspect this is where our differences lie. The first way is dismantling welfare by various means. We can set lifetime limits, impose drug testing requirements, instate work requirements, cut payouts, reduce program funding, eliminate certain benefits entirely, or use any number of other methods to make life on welfare less attractive than life on minimum wage.
The second way is that we improve the quality of life outside the welfare system, so that people will seek employment voluntarily. Again, the options are plentiful: we can raise the minimum wage, rework the full time/part time employment laws so that employers no longer favor hiring only part time workers, expand vocational and occupational training opportunities, or make welfare qualifications more sensible so that the money earned by working isn't less than the money lost in benefits. Other reworks are possible too, such as Andrew Yang's "freedom dividend," which allows everyone (including you and I) to collect $1000/month regardless of employment, OR keep one's current welfare benefits. If minimum wage job + $1000/month is greater than welfare payouts, you'd see a lot of people looking for work in a hurry.
Even so, these strategies both ignore some fundamental problems. For example, as an employer, would you ever want to hire somebody that is looking for work simply because their welfare checks were cut? What about those of us that aren't very bright, but don't qualify for disability? Should they be left out to dry, or have to bounce from job to job to survive? Not all recipients of welfare are the same, which is why no single solution will work for all of them.
- Mike LLv 71 month ago
Nothing, the vote just shifted almost a million towards the dems. Thanks Trump!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- nineteenthlyLv 71 month ago
The fact that automation is destroying more jobs than it's creating and that many jobs are fundamentally unethical. Also, those people work. They may not have their efforts fairly recompensed, but they're engaged in childcare, housework, and all sorts of other things, e.g. voluntary work, which is not worthless, and they also keep money circulating in the economy. As a Christian, I recognise that all of us are made in the image of Christ and therefore of practically infinite value just for existing. I haven't got time for your atheist nonsense.
- 1 month ago
You want disabled people going to work?
- davidmi711Lv 71 month ago
As long as those 700K people are former coal miners waiting for Trump to reopen the mines, I am all for it.
- rustbucketLv 61 month ago
The way they got the job people are afraid they'll lose their jobs firing someone making less then they do.
- The TaxpayerLv 71 month ago
With all the love and compassion liberals say that they have...no need to worry.
- DCCCLXXXVIIILv 71 month ago
It should be 1200K