I think 2 years of service is not a bad thing. It may not be for everyone, but I think I would have benefitted from it.

As hambone said, if you want to be on welfare, you must do community service for 40 hours a week.

While on welfare these people are given vouchers for their kids to go to daycare. While at daycare you have 2 options: Do work for the government (picking up garbage, removing graffiti, planting flowers, etc.) or out interviewing for jobs.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Despite my libertarian leanings, I actually think something like this is not a bad idea. I don't toe the libertarian line 100% of the time, and this is one place I disagree.

Considering that Rangel is the author, I'd be skeptical about the specific provisions. But I wouldn't mind taking a look at the conceptual framework.

Would you support putting you neighbor in jail for refusal to participate in this type of mandate?

T-Monay820 Wrote:Requiring service in the military would be constitutional (I'm sure even a tight interpretation would render this conclusion), but I don't think that "civil service" would be.

The men in dresses have already upheld that the draft is constitutional..but..I would not be shocked by any decision by this current group after the Heller debacle.

Hambone10 Wrote:Given that community service could be anything from building roads and picking up trash to licking envelopes, I support community service in exchange for public assistance. I'm not saying it has to be equitable... but what is wrong with asking a homeless man who needs a meal and a place to stay to paint the walls of an apartment building or take out the trash or wash the pots his meal was cooked in? Seriously... How many guys have you driven by holding a sign, will work for food... Okay... go down to the food bank and break the cases of food into "family boxes" in exchange for a box yourself. Don't tell me it would put people out of work, or that the work is beyond most of the ones who need it... My kids have put in THOUSANDS of volunteer hours since they were 8.

THIS isn't slavery... it's giving something back to the community in exchange for what they give you. You want free healthcare?? 8 hours a month in the hospital laundry.

I know you could make it an insurmountable task... but lets start with those who get cash, food or homes. I know they need it, but I don't think its unreasonable to insist that they keep the place painted/weeded/mowed/repaired/cleaned/mopped/free from trash etc. Even if you are significantly disabled, there is SOMETHING you can do for your own community... if not the community that is supporting you.

I think it is the height of stupidity for us to pay someone to build public housing, give the apartments away 'for free" to people who are having trouble finding work... and then to pay someone else to maintain the buildings. Sure, they might not be particularly skilled or motivated workers, but at the very least, they might police other people in their community from messing up what they are responsible for cleaning.

Free exchange of ones labor for monetary or other compensation is certainly just free market voluntarism. While I agree that requiring those that recieve benefits to "pay into the system" in some way would be preferable to the current state of affairs, I would prefer that governmental welfare not exist at all.

The problem with the welfare state is that it lumps the "deserving poor" in with the "freeriders". I support the abolishion of all welfare programs in favor of private charity. In a private system, charities would be able to actually target those in need(freeriders would have to find a job) and the dollars would be more effectively spent. Today...only 30% of the welfare budget actually goes to those in need....70% is eaten up by bureaucrats that administer the programs.

GrayBeard Wrote:I think 2 years of service is not a bad thing. It may not be for everyone, but I think I would have benefitted from it.

I would fully support any voluntary national service program and I agree that many would benefit from the experience.

The problem with HR 392.. is its use of "force".
I would not force my neighbor to work for me or defend my property. Why would I support forcing him to work for or defend my country?

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Free exchange of ones labor for monetary or other compensation is certainly just free market voluntarism. While I agree that requiring those that recieve benefits to "pay into the system" in some way would be preferable to the current state of affairs, I would prefer that governmental welfare not exist at all.

The problem with the welfare state is that it lumps the "deserving poor" in with the "freeriders". I support the abolishion of all welfare programs in favor of private charity. In a private system, charities would be able to actually target those in need(freeriders would have to find a job) and the dollars would be more effectively spent. Today...only 30% of the welfare budget actually goes to those in need....70% is eaten up by bureaucrats that administer the programs.

Absolutely. It is MY belief that if forced to do "work" in exchange for support, that an increasing number of freeriders would make a different decision. They may or may not become productive members of society, but they will take less and less help, the more they are asked to do for it.

As some have said... If you're out of work, but CAN work... what difference is there between getting paid by Wal-Mart and paying rent/buying groceries... and working for Uncle Sam in exchange for rent/groceries??

I've got pressure on me every day to do a good job... why should that pressure be any less on someone receiving public support?? Increase the pressure, they might make a different decision if they can... and if they can't... then the pressure doesn't really matter.