It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a public work relief program that operated from 1933 to 1942 in the United States for unemployed, unmarried men from relief families as part of the New Deal. Originally for young men ages 18–23, it was eventually expanded to young men ages 17–28.[1] Robert Fechner was the head of the agency. It was a major part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal that provided unskilled manual labor jobs related to the conservation and development of natural resources in rural lands owned by federal, state and local governments. The CCC was designed to provide jobs for young men, to relieve families who had difficulty finding jobs during the Great Depression in the United States while at the same time implementing a general natural resource conservation program in every state and territory. Maximum enrollment at any one time was 300,000; in nine years 3 million young men participated in the CCC, which provided them with shelter, clothing, and food, together with a small wage of $30 (about $547 in 2015[2]) a month ($25 of which had to be sent home to their families).
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: makemethink
Compulsory labor, conscripted service, these are just some of the naturally inevitable outcomes of existential dependence on the state.
It all seems so horrifyingly reasonable.
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: makemethink
Compulsory labor, conscripted service, these are just some of the naturally inevitable outcomes of existential dependence on the state.
It all seems so horrifyingly reasonable.
If it makes working for the state worse than working for a living, I'm all for it.
Welfare programs should be necessities and incentives at the same time.
originally posted by: makemethink
***I am not looking to offend anyone with this post. I understand there are some honest people that have no choice but to receive financial help from the government. ***
Im sure in every state there's a problem with people taking advantage of the system. Popping out children just to collect checks, claiming to have faking medical illnesses and working under the table, while collecting food stamps (and driving expensive cars). It's just way too easy for dishonest people to get a free ride, while the rest of us getting chunks of our out of each check.
As I was driving down the coast today, I was seeing how much trash is on the beach. It got me thinking. The state of California is too broke to hire people to clean the beaches up regularly, so why not put welfare recipients to "work"? Same goes for the public parks. What about the DMV call centers that are swampt with calls. Can't they go down there to help answer phones? How about the disabled vets that have a hard time running their own errands, couldn't they help them out too?
Like depending on the situation, maybe putting in "X" amount of hours each month, for a certain job, before they could be granted each check. Not only would the state greatly benefit, it'd give the recipients some experience to put on their resumes. Or it could be that extra push to make them go out there and find a job they'd really want. For the ones with kids, they could have others collecting from the government watch them (or maybe even a daycare type situation), and the babysitting be apart of their "job"/hours needed.
What do you guys think?
originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Zerodoublehero
Have you not read hecates post? Yes, get them to sweep the highway. But what happens to the guy already employed to sweep the highway? Oh, the authority realises that they can get benefit recipients to do it for nothing so the fire their original sweeper.
let's make this perfectly clear. IF THERE IS WORK THERE TO BE DONE EMPLOY THEM TO DO IT AND PAY A LIVING WAGE, whether that's sweeping roads ,cleaning municipal building or any community work it should be payed for doing that job not expecting it to be done for free. And please don't say "oh, it's not free as they are getting benefit". Benefit is payed by the government not the local authorities. The local authorities get the work done for nothing.
originally posted by: Zerodoublehero
a reply to: Hecate666
Why not have them do like 15 to 20 hours of community serive? Have them clean up the highways sweep up at local municipal buildings. The point is most people take advantage of the system and things like that could have deter people from abusing the system.