Should those on welfare be required to do community service?

  • Give back a little

    This is an excellent question that I honestly never gave any thought to. Having thought about this, I think it's a great idea. If someone is going to live off the Government, then yes, they should have to give just a little back. I say perhaps 10 hours/month of community service of their choosing.

  • They should have to give back to the community

    Why should they receive welfare and not have to give back to those that supply that money (taxpayers) They should also have to take a drug test at random and only receive it for a year. There are too many people today that live off welfare and have no reason to go get a job when they get "Free" money.

  • Yes, they owe a debt to society.

    Yes, those on welfare should be required to do community service, because they owe a debt to society for the welfare they receive. People who receive welfare should also feel what it is like to work. If they are forced to do community service, they will be more grateful for what they are given from others.

  • Yes they should.

    Those people who are currently on welfare should be required to do community service. This would help save the states some money by not having to pay for someone to do the community service things, since they are already footing the bill for people who are currently collecting welfare benefits.

  • Yes, community service is a good idea.

    It would be preferable if anyone on welfare would be looking for work or being trained for work. But even if someone is a mother of young children, there is some time during the week when she can do something for the community as her unpaid work and feel valuable and gain skills thereby.

  • Of Course they Should!!

    If a person is out of work they should be required to work within their communities. The hours they work should be credited and the balance of their welfare payments should be subsidized. How can anyone dispute this simple solution? This program can only help the recipients as well as the communities in which they reside.

  • Yeah starting on the 3rd month, as a deterrent from welfare abusers mostly.

    It wouldn't need to be 40 hrs a week, and it would not likely equal the pay received. But the people who are abusing the system need a deterrent. If you need help, it's best to give you the help. On the 3rd month going to 10hrs a week of CS, will get the people waking up, and going somewhere. The depression from being at home or jobless is fought. There's networking, and an exercise in getting ready and going somewhere. 4th month, we begin 24 hrs a week. At this point we are making it is easier to get a job than to stay on welfare. A cellphone may be provided to those who don't have one, for job searching. And a "get a vehicle program" should be proposed and work shopped (extra hours, etc...) Also, kids need to see their parents get up and go somewhere everyday, Not learn that life is just sitting around the house. Also classes should be a couple hrs a month. Of course, drug testing is a must! People who need help should always be able to get it, But they should not be able to live on it forever. If you don't want to work, too bad, you will want to work when you have to in order to eat and stay warm.

  • Welfare recipients can be rehabilitated

    I’d like to offer a definition of the word “rehabilitate.” The Oxford English dictionary defines it as “Restor[ing] (someone) to former privileges or reputation after a period of disfavour.” I’m arguing that having welfare recipients participate in community service is a form of rehabilitation back into the workforce. It's a program that would provide people with the social skills needed in most jobs and it would get people back on their feet. Most jobs are found through word of mouth, too. So by getting up every week and going to an environment that encourages hard work and community participation, I think welfare recipients could benefit themselves and others. Obviously you'd need to work out the kinks and logistics, such as who is eligible, but I can't see why community service would be perceived as a bad thing in this situation. In 2014, Maine began to require work participation for food stamp recipients who are able-bodied adults and have no dependents. As a result, the number of people enrolled in the food stamp program fell from 13,332 people to 2,678 in just three months. The recipients were told about the resources to find employment and the option for community service, but most people just decided to forgo the benefits altogether. Imagine how much money we would save if we implemented this style of program in every state. It would weed out the recipients who are taking advantage of the system.

  • Because of dick

    Evguvfhgr fvwurfvugwvfjvwkfvdjvwvefjhdvcjkvfjkgvakjvsdkjcvkgvfkjsdjsdjsrjfkjdvkgvdugfvwgifvrgwvfchgwv wef e wf wef wf wef w efw ef wef wef wef we fw ef wef wf we fw efwe f wef wef we f w ew f we w ef wf w efw ef we fwe f wef w ef we fw ef we f wef wef w

  • Absolutely, That's Good For America

    The bottom line is that way too many people on welfare milk it, because its easy. Make them work like the rest of us and watch the crime rates plummet in poor neighborhoods. When everyones tired from working 8 hrs a day, they don't want to cause trouble in the community, they want peace when they go home. Even the honest and dignified poor people know this would help.

  • No, it should not be mandated simply due to the dehumanizing concept that poor people are lazy and need to work for what they earn.

    I think it's as disgrace and absolutely appalling that people stereotype all poor people as "lazy". Rich people could be considered lazy as well; after all, a lot of them don't do "blue collar" or strenuous labor jobs. The people who do hard work, like construction workers and police officers, get paid crap. Perhaps the reason why so many people are on government aid programs is because so many people aren't making enough to make ends meet, or they're being let go. The problem in this society is that it is designed so that the people on the bottom work and stay where they are, while the wealthy just keep getting wealthier. Homes, food, cars, etc. should be reasonably priced. Make sure EVERYBODY'S needs are met, first, and then let the people with extra money spend it as they wish. It is so inhumane and cold to believe for a second that people are poor because they choose to be. Ask those homeless people on the street freezing in the dead of winter with no food and no shelter if they enjoy being homeless. Ask the next person who gets their car repossessed and their house foreclosed if they enjoyed losing everything they own. So many people in this country are struggling to make ends meet, but they can't, because the people on the top make it impossible for the people on the bottom to grow. Maybe the rich people need to be the ones who learn what it is like to go without a job, and see what a hard and humbling experience it is. Poor people are grateful for what they have. They are happy to just be able to feed their kids and keep a roof over their heads. It's the rich people who are greedy and buy more than they will ever need.

  • No way hozay

    Because it is unfair to the unfairnees and should not be unfair so we keep a strong and healthy family country that is fair and fairee and will never be unfairee for as long as our human race is alive and donald trump is president. If hilary clinton was president it would be unfairee for the fairee.

  • Not if they are working 40hrs/week

    If someone on welfare is already working 40 hours a week, then they shouldn't have to do community service. If they are working less than that, or unemployed, then they should be required to do community service.

    Additionally, if a person on welfare is not working or is working less than 40 hours/week but are taking care of elderly parents or children full-time, they should not be required to do community service, or at least a minimal amount.

    Finally, if someone on welfare keeps having children, they should have to get snipped. If you can't support the kids you have, stop having friggin kids and costing us more tax dollars. Ridiculous.

  • Not fair for them

    They would be hungry because of the community service and thus would need more food. But they cant afford it and community service shouldnt be forced upon anybody anyways. It just isn't fair and they could use their time more productively honestly. I give this bill a big fat no.

  • Not fair for them

    They would be hungry because of the community service and thus would need more food. But they cant afford it and community service shouldnt be forced upon anybody anyways. It just isn't fair and they could use their time more productively honestly. I give this bill a big fat no.

  • No, community service shouldn't be mandated.

    I find this question insulting. The reason that people are on welfare is because they don't have enough money. Time is money. The time spent "mandating" community service could be time spent actually working. This is an ignorant and discriminatory idea and I think that it is very distastefully done.

  • Welfare Doesn't Exist

    I believe the welfare system as it was once known, is by far a myth people cling to, thinking someone is getting something they are not. The majority of the people "on the system" are receiving food stamps, another small percentage are receiving child care services for free or reduced prices so they can go to work, an even smaller percent receive rent assistance. I do not believe people on welfare systems should do community service because they probably aren't receiving benefits like many would like to think they are.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.