The return of the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

IT's every mans inalienable right to exploit the less fortunate, given half a chance.

Did you ever notice that animals are the ones most likely to be in favor of the Law of the Jungle?

If this statement tries to claim what I think it tries to claim, you're insulting (non-human) animals.

I was speaking of certain "lower" animals, Ronja.

[Coito ergo sum]

A sensible policy for a better Blighty. Teach the rotters some damned discipline. By the time they leave school, these chaps may not be able to speak Mandarin or find a Higgs Bison but they'll dashed well know how to polish their shoes and make a bed.

...and, well, at least that's something...

[Coito ergo sum]

The CCC was likened to work camps by the Republicans. The workers got $20/week, 3/4 of that going home to help their families. The GOP said it was communism. The families that suddenly had some cash coming in thought differently. The Great Depression was a great chance for business men to step in and handle the situation. Unfortunately, they didn't have much interest in that.

The biggest opposition to the CCC came from labor unions, who thought it was a threat to them. After that, it was "conservatives" - Democrats and Republicans alike, that opposed the New Deal. It wasn't so much "Republicans" - recall that at the time, Republicans were the liberal party. The biggest complaint Republicans had over New Deal programs was corruption and inefficiency (and not in the basic premise). Opposition to the CCC and New Deal programs in general was NOT along party lines.

Oddly, today, the Democratic Party would likely oppose the measure. The CCC was limited to single, young men, age 18-25, and they were paid about $30 a month, and $25 of that $30 a month went directly to the man's parents. Basically, it amounted to "workfare" where welfare was provided in exchange for labor, fixing up parks, planting trees, and all that. Generally, Democrats oppose making people work for government aid.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Atheist-Lite]

There's a lot of people in the West nowadays saying talk is work. They have people in the far east do the work whilst they just sit in warm offices passing paper around. Check everyone for softhands. Those with softhands need to be in the workhouse breaking rocks or something until they're no longer workshy. Far left or far right the solution for the soft middle is to squeeze it until the pips squeak and get the survivors doing some real manual labor.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's true. Democrats, particularly liberal Democrats, typically oppose workfare programs. This is driven in part by union opposition, because workfare programs typically wind up having unskilled labor working on jobs union workers would or could otherwise do at higher wages. This was a big issue, I recall, in the 1980's, and liberal democrats were philosophically opposed to the idea of workfare. They have traditionally viewed it as "forced labor" which undercuts wages and working conditions for other Americans.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, yes, of course.

[MrJonno]

Nothing wrong with the goverment forcing people to work for the minimium wage (if there is a budget for it), completely different matter making them work for nothing or very little

[Coito ergo sum]

Re-instate the workhouse for the feckless poor. I'm sure Apple would be in there in a flash, having 'em assemble iPhones.

Have the Poor Law and the Tread Mill been stopped in their useful course?

Are their no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nothing wrong with the goverment forcing people to work for the minimium wage (if there is a budget for it), completely different matter making them work for nothing or very little

Depends on who gets forced, and who decides that.

[MrJonno]

Nothing wrong with the goverment forcing people to work for the minimium wage (if there is a budget for it), completely different matter making them work for nothing or very little

Depends on who gets forced, and who decides that.

Forced as you don't get any benefits of the state not forced as in you get shot of course

[Coito ergo sum]

Nothing wrong with the goverment forcing people to work for the minimium wage (if there is a budget for it), completely different matter making them work for nothing or very little

I think there is just as much wrong with the government forcing someone to work for minimum wage as there is for me or you to force someone else to work for minimum wage. If they don't want to work, they have every right to not work.

How can you possibly not see something wrong with the government forcing people to work?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nothing wrong with the goverment forcing people to work for the minimium wage (if there is a budget for it), completely different matter making them work for nothing or very little

Depends on who gets forced, and who decides that.

Forced as you don't get any benefits of the state not forced as in you get shot of course

Still, who gets forced to work? Everybody, somebody, nobody? Who decides?

[Coito ergo sum]

Nothing wrong with the goverment forcing people to work for the minimium wage (if there is a budget for it), completely different matter making them work for nothing or very little

Depends on who gets forced, and who decides that.

Forced as you don't get any benefits of the state not forced as in you get shot of course

Still, who gets forced to work? Everybody, somebody, nobody? Who decides?

Wouldn't that be the same people that decide all classifications under the law? The legislature?

But, if the government says, "we have this $X you are eligible for, but to get it, you have to participate the CCC work program." Is that "force?"

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nothing wrong with the goverment forcing people to work for the minimium wage (if there is a budget for it), completely different matter making them work for nothing or very little

Depends on who gets forced, and who decides that.

Forced as you don't get any benefits of the state not forced as in you get shot of course

Still, who gets forced to work? Everybody, somebody, nobody? Who decides?

Wouldn't that be the same people that decide all classifications under the law? The legislature?

They can write into law rules to cover every situation that might exist? Think of the draft boards in WWII. They were meant to determine if a person was eligible for call up if there was a question. It wasn't "18 and your ass is ours."

But, if the government says, "we have this $X you are eligible for, but to get it, you have to participate the CCC work program." Is that "force?"

No problem with workfare as an option, or even mandatory if there's no good reason the person can't work. But I'm saying there are too many scenarios for a law to cover, and that means something similar to the draft boards would be needed. That's when I really start wondering.