Should receipents of Social Service (like welfare) be required to do community service?

Asked by: NelsonKnows
  • There's no such thing as a free lunch.

    Most likely I will be viewed as someone who hates poor people for saying this, but I don't and I'll say it anyway.

    I will specifically target areas of welfare such as food stamps.

    Since October 2014 the state of Maine has required that healthy adults without children enrolled on the food stamp program work, volunteer, or be in a work training program for a minimum of twenty hours a week.

    I do not find this to be unreasonable. If this was a requirement for single mothers with multiple children I would be against the plan. But for healthy non-parents I don't think it's unfair to require a minimal requirement of effort to at least help lesson the overall burden on society's pocketbook.

    If anyone wants to call me a poor person hater go ahead. But I think it's stupid not to expect at least some small amount of effort from those persons capable of doing so while on public assistance.

  • Just because your down on your luck, you shouldnt be excused from responsibility

    I dont much care for Collectivist programs and since we seem to be stuck with things like welfare shouldnt those who receive it be required to do community service?
    These people arent working and have a lot of time on their hands. After 6months of support I beleive they should be required to contribute at least 10 hours per week. After 1 year they should contribute 20 hours per week.
    This could save municipalities a lot of money in maintenance crews (like parks & highways maintenance) and simultaneously give the recepient a work ethic.

  • This is actually a pretty good idea

    People say " we can't get jobs, we can't get jobs"
    and sure to an extent the job market is crappy, but if your getting welfare to hold you through the next job. Community service will help with well, everything.
    It'll help others see work ability, wither it be labor or organization skills, it helps keeps them busy.
    Momentum is important in these cases, and there's always help needed in communities regardless of labor or management.

  • Welfare should not become a way of life for anyone unless they want to live under a master.

    Welfare is in effect a return to slavery, a lock on how a person lives their lives. When a person goes on welfare they are captive individuals living under control of government bureaucrats and those receiving who wish their benefits to continue had better vote for their benefactors, and will, to keep the benefits flowing to them, Those on welfare are slaves but the chains of slavery just aren't as visible but they are there, just as in the days of slavery, Its just a different method of enslavement , big government still owns those receiving welfare. Public service is recognizing that those on welfare are still beholden to their masters,government bureaucrats.

  • Yes they should

    If they are able bodied and healthy they should be required to give back to the community instead of just taking from it. If you take money that could otherwise be used for the community you should work for the community and make up for the money you took, even if you needed it. For example if i barrow money from someone I pay it back. I don't just ignore the people who helped me

  • Liabilities to society

    Cut the losses, lose the liabilities I say.
    If someone is not willing to work with society, for society then they should not obtain the perks that society has to offer, such as welfare.
    Recipients of social services should have some working input towards society if they expect the world to suddenly give them some input. Population is high as it is and there are far more deserving people that work hard, rather than those that rely on the system.
    Cut the losses people...

  • Yes I believe people should work for their money.

    I believe people should work for their money because every other person works for what they need/want. So I believe they need to do something so make it fair. They can people out community by just doing 20 hours of community society week to earn that money. It isn't unfair at all.

  • Nothing in life is free

    Why should we give away free money when we can have people work and gain independence from working for what they have. Its said I needed 28 more words to submit my argument so here it is pay no attention to this part if my answer. Work for what you have

  • Get what you earn

    If you aren't doing anything like working an actual job and have the ability to do so, why wouldn't you give back to the government and community supporting you. I feel it's the least someone can do who is receiving free money for doing nothing, at least contribute some of it back to society and that requirement will lead to people wanting actual jobs instead and not want to rely on welfare

  • If some of these people want to have the feeling of work, allow them to enjoy it.

    There are many pros and cons to both workfare and welfare, but if a welfare recipient wants to put some hours to have the feeling that they earned that money then let them do it. I would put some support to workfare IF they put some changes to clean up the problems with programs. Same with welfare. Once (I can imagine this will never happen) they get these programs fixed to actually help then it would be great for the workers and help people earn their money. I am not entirely for forcing people to work for welfare, let them choose, but if it comes down to it I would hope they give a good argument as to why they don't. For example, spend the time looking for a job or trying to get an education for a better job. Thoes reasons I can understand not spending 8 hours of workfare services. No program can filter everyone.

  • Of course not

    Being a recipient of welfare rarely equates being a long-term recipient of welfare. Most people aren't on any form of social aid for more than two years straight. This doesn't make sense at all; making people work when they are already down and out doesn't actually even produce equivalent funding so now you are making those who are not making ends meet have to make time to acknowledge the fact that they aren't making ends meet? Isn't that public embarrassment and poor shaming?

    Entitled brats come up with this nonsense.

  • Hurts the working poor

    Conservatives love to portray welfare recipients a bunch of lazy bums who are able to work but refuse to. It's a lie. People on welfare are, for the most part, the working poor, single parents, disabled, elderly, or recently unemployed and actively looking for work. If there's any resentment to go around, it should be directed at the non-working rich rather than the poor. The non-working rich don't do any work. Yet, they consume a substantial large portion of the goods and services produced by our economy.

  • Other - More Important - Responsibilities

    A lot of welfare recipients are single parents, working minimum wage jobs, with limited access to child care. When would they have the time for community service? Who would watch their children?
    Also, a lot of recipients are elderly or disabled. We simply cannot require them to do community service.
    Finally, attempting to punish poor people- by forcing them to work unpaid jobs - is grotesque.

  • Arent they supposed to be beig helped?

    The poiny of welfare is to help and support a person or family until they are able to get back on their feet financially or otherwise. They need the time to look for a job, study for a career, take care of kids as a single parent or otherwise, etc. Theres no reason to eat up their time with this just because of an elitist attitude that the poor want to be in a position of having to live off government aid.

  • Welfare now costing potential job loss?

    I believe that people who get benifiets from welfare shouldn't have to do community service. If you truly believe this should happen you need to think of the bigger picture! First many people get help from the government in many ways so don't forget them. I basically mean as citizens we pay taxes which go to the government which in some cases goes back to citizen as welfare. The people rich or poor are both subject to work. To do community service defeats the entire purpose? How can you find a job if your picking up trash all day. People receive things all the time,but that does not mean they the other person anything. Instead of forcing people into things like this we can try alternatives to better the environment.

  • No, but they should find a job within a few years.

    After about two years, if you can not find a job, you don't deserve welfare. If you have a job, you shouldn't be getting welfare. That's just my opinion. You need to earn your own money, and if you don't, then you don't belong in a community. And that's that.

  • Time For Community Service?

    Having to participate in community service when applying to welfare is in my opinion dumb. Either way, rich or poor, people do have to work. If you're only doing community service then how can you go out and find a job? You can't. You'll be spending all your free time doing community service.

  • Of course not

    I don't think people that receive welfare should do community service because it's a helping need that they deserve it's not like they did something bad in order for them to feel like they're only receiving welfare because of community service I don't think it's fair to people who are actually trying to find a job

  • It takes away from the idea of being able to find work while on welfare.

    By making the people who are on welfare do community service work you are taking away the time they could be using trying to go out and find a job. Community service work are more for people who are in trouble with the law or there is good community service where you offer your time for the good of the work you're going to provide.

  • I thought community service was something we made criminals do?

    The idea that an individual who is in a capacity whereby they cannot find a job should then be made to do some pointless task just to make a bunch of middle class liberals feel happy about themselves is for me a vacuous argument at best. It also leads only to a low productivity, anti innovative system of labour, discourages skill specialization, increases wage compression, and allows the welfare system to then be abused by corporations and government departments.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
daem0n says2015-05-22T23:24:36.040
I am not arguing for or against the idea, but it does blur the line between government handouts and government jobs.

My problem with the pro and con arguments so far is that they are based on advantages and disadvantages that are only apparent from scratching the surface of the different options. They are not based on an understanding of how the two options fundamentally differ and the different principles they are based on.

Someone who *does* vote yes might as well consolidate the options and redesign the whole system from scratch. Instead of starting with a baseline system of handouts and adding compromises on top of it (e.G. Requiring recipients to do community service), start with a baseline system of government jobs available to people who people who cannot get a different job.