Mandatory community service for welfare recipients?

@vellibiz (297)
United States
September 5, 2008 8:51am CST
i was in another discussion and we came up with this, i believe people should have to work, unless proven disabled, to recieved welfare.it would be like our tax money circles back for manpower to service the community.what do you think?
2 people like this
7 responses
@sid556 (31019)
• United States
26 Oct 08
I don't know. everyone's situation is different. Those that are out of work temporarily and recieve help have already put into the system through their taxes and will likely continue to do so once they are back on their feet. I think that making them work to be on the system is likely taking up time that would be better spent out job hunting so that they can maybe get off from the system. The welfare system does require those that are able to work to be actively out looking for jobs. They even have programs that work with them in order to help them find employment. If transportation is the problem, then they help provide that. If daycare is the problem, they help with that also. Yes, the system could use some changes but I'm not sure that requiring everyone to do community service is the answer. Each situation is different and so are the reasons for being on the program. I think they maybe need more help in finding out about the ones that are actually abusing the system. Maybe they could hire some of the ones sincerely looking for work to do that job. For the short time that I recieved benefits years ago, I saw clearly many of the ways that some people abuse the system. Those are the ones that need to be targeted. It'd be wrong to group everyone on the system into one category. it is much more complex than that.
@soooobored (1187)
• United States
20 Oct 08
Bill Clinton attached a work requirement to welfare recipients back in 1992. For a parent with a child under 6 the work requirement is a minimum of twenty hours a week, a child over 6 is 30 hours a week. The only problem is the interpretation of "work activity". Community service is considered satisfactory, but there are limitations to how much community service a recipient can perform determined by the caseworker, I forget what factors into it, but typically only 17 hours a week are permitted, the other 3 or 13 would need to be made up by another activity. Unfortunately, just attaching a work requirement isn't enough.
• Australia
5 Sep 08
We had something like that in Australia, it was called "work for the dole", (the dole being welfare", and to receive the welfare money every two weeks the recipients had to go out and work and a set place, a set amount of hours per day. It was to increase work skills so the recipients could get on their feet soon and find a real job that paid more than the welfare. It didn't work very well and somehow it was cancelled. I think it's a good thing though as it gives people skills that they might not get while just receiving income. Though if people have kids it's kind of a losing situation because if they did work they would have to put their kids in childcare, which costs too much money, then they will just lose money in the end.
• United States
5 Sep 08
If a woman/person has a child it could prove problematic. How would childcare be handled? If a person has a disability that has not been cycled through the government system yet, how will that be handled? The government system is slow at best. Many SSI clients spend time on welfare while waiting for SSI clearance.
@goldeneagle (6776)
• United States
5 Sep 08
I like that idea...make them do at least a little something to earn that free money we give them out of our paychecks every month...
@sk66rc (4264)
• United States
5 Sep 08
I completely agree... Like you said, I'm sure there are few exceptions & special situations, for the most part, people should work for what they get...
@pkraj111 (2460)
• India
5 Sep 08
I say anyone who recieves welfare money should work for it. Also there is nothing wrong in doing some work to recieve some one and it is a social service.