Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   "What we've got here is a failure to communicate..." Would someone hand Georgia State Sen. John Albers (R-eading Deficient) a dictionary so he can look up the word "volunteer"?   (foxnews.com) divider line 95
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

3750 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Dec 2011 at 12:19 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-12-02 08:47:02 AM  
It's funny - unemployed people would have to "volunteer" to get benefits, which means they can't spend the time necessary to find jobs, which would mean that they'll have to "volunteer" to get benefits.

It's nice to see that this lawmaker is essentially proposing expanding the public workforce.
 
2011-12-02 08:47:27 AM  
Dignity for the Unemployed Act

Yep, nothing's more dignified than having to tell some organization that you need to "Volunteer" for them at least 24 hours a week since you are unemployed.
 
2011-12-02 08:58:02 AM  
But former State Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond told MyFoxAtlanta.com the proposal could create a problem, since it would conflict with federal law.

Huh.. who woulda thunk it..
 
2011-12-02 09:14:37 AM  
I guess someone decided to answer Newt's question about work houses...
 
2011-12-02 09:28:29 AM  

RexTalionis: which means they can't spend the time necessary to find jobs


Yeah, that 24 hours a week is pretty much all the available time they have.
Seriously, what fantasy world do you live in where looking for a job is a full time gig in and of itself?
 
2011-12-02 09:53:49 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Dignity for the Unemployed Act

Yep, nothing's more dignified than having to tell some organization that you need to "Volunteer" for them at least 24 hours a week since you are unemployed.


Look, lib, humiliation is an important part of the job seeking process. If not, once these people find jobs, they'll want things like livable wages, sick time and...pfffffft...benefits. And you know what happens then...they get all uppity and socialisticky and form unions and whatnot. And then Satan wins.
 
2011-12-02 09:54:06 AM  
Doesn't this make them a bigger "drain" on the system? Sure, some stuff will get done. But if these people aren't drawing incomes but still getting benefits, how does that help the economy or help get them reemployed?

The implied assumption here as offered by Albers is that people on unemployment are lazy.
 
2011-12-02 09:57:38 AM  
A guy that does diddly squat for a living wants other people to work.

Must be nice inhabiting the 1%.
 
2011-12-02 10:25:39 AM  

serial_crusher: RexTalionis: which means they can't spend the time necessary to find jobs

Yeah, that 24 hours a week is pretty much all the available time they have.
Seriously, what fantasy world do you live in where looking for a job is a full time gig in and of itself?


Here's someone who hasn't been unemployed for a significant time.
 
2011-12-02 12:23:34 PM  
Otherwise, they wouldn't receive unemployment benefits.

"We want to have a society that is responsible and that is accountable," he said.


Hey farkstick, the people getting unemployment benefits PAID FOR THEM WHEN THEY WERE EMPLOYED.
 
2011-12-02 12:24:20 PM  

RexTalionis: It's nice to see that this lawmaker is essentially proposing expanding the public workforce.


But we can't call it expanding the public workforce because that would be Godless dirty pinko Commie Kenyan Muslim fascist socialism.
 
2011-12-02 12:25:35 PM  

ignatiusst: But former State Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond told MyFoxAtlanta.com the proposal could create a problem, since it would conflict with federal law.

Huh.. who woulda thunk it..


By Federal Law, do you think they meant the 13th farking Amendment?
 
2011-12-02 12:26:23 PM  

Diogenes: Doesn't this make them a bigger "drain" on the system? Sure, some stuff will get done. But if these people aren't drawing incomes but still getting benefits, how does that help the economy or help get them reemployed?

The implied assumption here as offered by Albers is that people on unemployment are lazy.


That is exactly what it is, just as Newt *spit* Gingrich is saying that poor people are lazy.
 
2011-12-02 12:26:25 PM  
So an expansion of the public workforce.
Stalin-style, serfs of the state.
They demonize welfare as limiting as slave/lower-caste creating, and then try to make it true.
 
2011-12-02 12:31:01 PM  
Fanfarkingtastic! Another proposal to make volunteering the first rung on a career ladder. Volunteering and internships might be a great way to get your foot in the door, but if everyone, now including state governments apparently, want to start their workforce as volunteer labor, then there will be no advantage to internships. Minimum wage will become an internship, an internship will become volunteer, and an entry level position can now be compensated at minimum wage.

For fark's sake, just hire more jobless people, then encourage private firms to hire out of your pool for a small training fee payable to the government.
 
2011-12-02 12:31:22 PM  

Gordon Bennett: Diogenes: Doesn't this make them a bigger "drain" on the system? Sure, some stuff will get done. But if these people aren't drawing incomes but still getting benefits, how does that help the economy or help get them reemployed?

The implied assumption here as offered by Albers is that people on unemployment are lazy.

That is exactly what it is, just as Newt *spit* Gingrich is saying that poor people are lazy.


No one forces you to take welfare. Unlike a slave, you're free to walk away if you don't like the terms.
 
2011-12-02 12:31:31 PM  
Why are people being forced to work for something that was already paid for through taxes?

Why not just make people jump up and down 20 times or run 5 miles?
 
2011-12-02 12:31:45 PM  

Diogenes: Doesn't this make them a bigger "drain" on the system? Sure, some stuff will get done. But if these people aren't drawing incomes but still getting benefits, how does that help the economy or help get them reemployed?

The implied assumption here as offered by Albers is that people on unemployment are lazy.


I certainly think it's fair to say that, as a group, the unemployed are certainly far lazier than the employed. With that being said this bill is completely retarded.
 
2011-12-02 12:31:47 PM  
"The problem is unemployment. It's not people not volunteering."

Here's the thing...

This guy doesn't care about unemployment. The problem in his eyes is people getting something for nothing. Nevermind the fact that they paid for unemployment insurance when they were working.
 
2011-12-02 12:32:19 PM  

Hot Rod Zoidberg: ignatiusst: But former State Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond told MyFoxAtlanta.com the proposal could create a problem, since it would conflict with federal law.

Huh.. who woulda thunk it..

By Federal Law, do you think they meant the 13th farking Amendment?


No one forces you to take welfare. Unlike a slave, you're free to walk away if you don't like the terms.

/wrong post, need coffee
 
2011-12-02 12:33:01 PM  

bdMurray: Fanfarkingtastic! Another proposal to make volunteering the first rung on a career ladder. Volunteering and internships might be a great way to get your foot in the door, but if everyone, now including state governments apparently, want to start their workforce as volunteer labor, then there will be no advantage to internships. Minimum wage will become an internship, an internship will become volunteer, and an entry level position can now be compensated at minimum wage.

For fark's sake, just hire more jobless people, then encourage private firms to hire out of your pool for a small training fee payable to the government.


The volunteering and internships are all just PC labels and justifications for one thing: workforce slavery.
We've degenerated from wage slavery, to now, going for outright slavery/serfdom.
 
2011-12-02 12:34:47 PM  

beta_plus: No one forces you to take welfare. Unlike a slave, you're free to walk away if you don't like the terms.


You mean free to die.
Looks like the "invisible hand" is really an "invisible gun" held up to your head to force conscription of your labor.
Deny people jobs, then force them to work for the government. I mean if the private owners don't want them maybe the state can take ownership of their labor.
The line between Stalinism/"socialism"/capitalism is blurring.
 
2011-12-02 12:35:13 PM  
Sigh...I may be moving to Georgia in the coming months. I don't look forward to the politics...especially during an election year.
 
2011-12-02 12:35:58 PM  

beta_plus: Gordon Bennett: Diogenes: Doesn't this make them a bigger "drain" on the system? Sure, some stuff will get done. But if these people aren't drawing incomes but still getting benefits, how does that help the economy or help get them reemployed?

The implied assumption here as offered by Albers is that people on unemployment are lazy.

That is exactly what it is, just as Newt *spit* Gingrich is saying that poor people are lazy.

No one forces you to take welfare. Unlike a slave, you're free to walk away if you don't like the terms.


Not really. If you're poor and you have a choice to either take welfare or have zero income indefinitely, you're not really free to do the latter if you have any intention of living a semi-normal life.
 
2011-12-02 12:37:09 PM  
John Albers, typical Georgia politician. Dumb as a bag of 5 day old cat shiat. With extra ammonia. Hard to insult morons like this.
 
2011-12-02 12:38:11 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Otherwise, they wouldn't receive unemployment benefits.

"We want to have a society that is responsible and that is accountable," he said.

Hey farkstick, the people getting unemployment benefits PAID FOR THEM WHEN THEY WERE EMPLOYED.


Not exactly; unemployment benefits are primarily funded through taxes on an employer's payroll, but in the case of the extensions granted in the last few years, I'm pretty sure we're all paying for them.

That said, this guy is a douche, and needs to spend some time being unemployed. I'm going to suggest 2012-2014, but since I wouldn't live anywhere within 400 miles of Atlanta if you paid me, Imma have to leave that you Georgia Farkers.
 
2011-12-02 12:39:59 PM  

balloot: beta_plus: Gordon Bennett: Diogenes: Doesn't this make them a bigger "drain" on the system? Sure, some stuff will get done. But if these people aren't drawing incomes but still getting benefits, how does that help the economy or help get them reemployed?

The implied assumption here as offered by Albers is that people on unemployment are lazy.

That is exactly what it is, just as Newt *spit* Gingrich is saying that poor people are lazy.

No one forces you to take welfare. Unlike a slave, you're free to walk away if you don't like the terms.

Not really. If you're poor and you have a choice to either take welfare or have zero income indefinitely, you're not really free to do the latter if you have any intention of living a semi-normal life.


Why do you disparage dumpster diving, shoplifting food from grocery stores, eating at soup kitchens, and sleeping on park benches as not even semi-normal?
 
2011-12-02 12:40:00 PM  

serial_crusher: RexTalionis: which means they can't spend the time necessary to find jobs

Yeah, that 24 hours a week is pretty much all the available time they have.
Seriously, what fantasy world do you live in where looking for a job is a full time gig in and of itself?


Most unemployed people are not paying for daycare or other services that free up their time. 24 hours is a lot of time out of the week if you are looking for a job (during business hours) while maintaining a household without the resources for daycare, a second car, etc.

This is an added burden that will not improve unemployment.
 
2011-12-02 12:41:49 PM  

Cassius Belle: HotWingConspiracy: Otherwise, they wouldn't receive unemployment benefits.

"We want to have a society that is responsible and that is accountable," he said.

Hey farkstick, the people getting unemployment benefits PAID FOR THEM WHEN THEY WERE EMPLOYED.

Not exactly; unemployment benefits are primarily funded through taxes on an employer's payroll, but in the case of the extensions granted in the last few years, I'm pretty sure we're all paying for them.

That said, this guy is a douche, and needs to spend some time being unemployed. I'm going to suggest 2012-2014, but since I wouldn't live anywhere within 400 miles of Atlanta if you paid me, Imma have to leave that you Georgia Farkers.


Good luck. Atlanta proper is basically the only place where democrats have a shot. Anywhere outside of it.... Lets just say it was funny to look at a breakdown of the 2008 election. Atlanta was an island.
 
2011-12-02 12:44:50 PM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Atlanta was an island.


Futurama is a documentary!
Granted, there is an alternative to nationalization and being a state dependent or privatization and being a worker.
Unfortunately, both the private sector and the state likes to collude to stop libertarian mutual aid, and create people who need them.
Which was working fine for them, but since they treat people like resources and only take what they need in terms of labor, they're now trying to deny many people a chance at a job and living outside of a job simultaneously.
Unrest is the natural result.
 
2011-12-02 12:45:35 PM  

balloot: beta_plus: Gordon Bennett: Diogenes: Doesn't this make them a bigger "drain" on the system? Sure, some stuff will get done. But if these people aren't drawing incomes but still getting benefits, how does that help the economy or help get them reemployed?

The implied assumption here as offered by Albers is that people on unemployment are lazy.

That is exactly what it is, just as Newt *spit* Gingrich is saying that poor people are lazy.

No one forces you to take welfare. Unlike a slave, you're free to walk away if you don't like the terms.

Not really. If you're poor and you have a choice to either take welfare or have zero income indefinitely, you're not really free to do the latter if you have any intention of living a semi-normal life.


You're still free from compulsion by the government. But keep pushing those goal posts to where receiving money from the government requires that you perform a service for them equals slavery.
 
2011-12-02 12:47:22 PM  

Serious Black: balloot: beta_plus: Gordon Bennett: Diogenes: Doesn't this make them a bigger "drain" on the system? Sure, some stuff will get done. But if these people aren't drawing incomes but still getting benefits, how does that help the economy or help get them reemployed?

The implied assumption here as offered by Albers is that people on unemployment are lazy.

That is exactly what it is, just as Newt *spit* Gingrich is saying that poor people are lazy.

No one forces you to take welfare. Unlike a slave, you're free to walk away if you don't like the terms.

Not really. If you're poor and you have a choice to either take welfare or have zero income indefinitely, you're not really free to do the latter if you have any intention of living a semi-normal life.

Why do you disparage dumpster diving, shoplifting food from grocery stores, eating at soup kitchens, and sleeping on park benches as not even semi-normal?


I'm old fashioned like that. I consider "semi-normal" having some minimum level of housing, food, and (gasp!) health care. And I think all Americans should have at least this kind of life, regardless of employment status.

In short, I am a SOCIALIST MONSTER
 
2011-12-02 12:48:07 PM  
Fark charities. Winter is coming. Appropriate some billions and outfit all unemployed with gloves and snowshovels as well as a street to keep free.

If someone hurts themselves on the streets they were supposed to keep snow and ice free, they will not get any benefits. Also, the rest of us would get to work on time.

"Dignity for the Unemployed Act" Why are any laws always the exact opposite of what is inside? So congress passes it because they don't read? I should sponsor a law that is titled "Death penalty for pot smokers" and on page 573 of this law text, I'd slip in wording to stop the war on drugs.
 
2011-12-02 12:48:14 PM  

beta_plus: balloot: beta_plus: Gordon Bennett: Diogenes: Doesn't this make them a bigger "drain" on the system? Sure, some stuff will get done. But if these people aren't drawing incomes but still getting benefits, how does that help the economy or help get them reemployed?

The implied assumption here as offered by Albers is that people on unemployment are lazy.

That is exactly what it is, just as Newt *spit* Gingrich is saying that poor people are lazy.

No one forces you to take welfare. Unlike a slave, you're free to walk away if you don't like the terms.

Not really. If you're poor and you have a choice to either take welfare or have zero income indefinitely, you're not really free to do the latter if you have any intention of living a semi-normal life.

You're still free from compulsion by the government. But keep pushing those goal posts to where receiving money from the government requires that you perform a service for them equals slavery.


Seems like you're obligated to suck the GOP's dick whenever you want to threadshiat, you should know all about it.
 
2011-12-02 12:48:21 PM  

beta_plus: You're still free from compulsion by the government.


But you're not.
A person who can't find a job then has to go to the state. The state then says you must do this or not receive benefits we forced you to pay for in taxes.
And when this person ends up homeless and tries to squat somewhere, realizing the ridiculousness of a homeless problem and simultaneous foreclosures, the policeman comes and attacks him.
There's your compulsion by the government.
Be a slave to us, your bosses, or die swiftly.
 
2011-12-02 12:48:37 PM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Cassius Belle: HotWingConspiracy: Otherwise, they wouldn't receive unemployment benefits.

"We want to have a society that is responsible and that is accountable," he said.

Hey farkstick, the people getting unemployment benefits PAID FOR THEM WHEN THEY WERE EMPLOYED.

Not exactly; unemployment benefits are primarily funded through taxes on an employer's payroll, but in the case of the extensions granted in the last few years, I'm pretty sure we're all paying for them.

That said, this guy is a douche, and needs to spend some time being unemployed. I'm going to suggest 2012-2014, but since I wouldn't live anywhere within 400 miles of Atlanta if you paid me, Imma have to leave that you Georgia Farkers.

Good luck. Atlanta proper is basically the only place where democrats have a shot. Anywhere outside of it.... Lets just say it was funny to look at a breakdown of the 2008 election. Atlanta was an island.


As someone here on Fark once said, "Atlanta is no longer a Southern city. The only reason to move to Atlanta is to come out of the closet."
 
2011-12-02 12:51:40 PM  
"Herpin' the derp, boss!"
 
2011-12-02 12:53:08 PM  
If you've tapped out the amount of benefits you've paid into the system and are on your second round or "Emergency Benefit" then there's no reason why someone can not 'volunteer' in exchange for benefits.

It's not like people actually take time to go door to door looking for work anymore and I'd be willing to bet that the time spent online looking for work is really not so extensive that they can't put in 24 hours a week.

My only question is why they haven't mandated something like this with welfare recipients.
 
2011-12-02 12:53:17 PM  

beta_plus: balloot: beta_plus: Gordon Bennett: Diogenes: Doesn't this make them a bigger "drain" on the system? Sure, some stuff will get done. But if these people aren't drawing incomes but still getting benefits, how does that help the economy or help get them reemployed?

The implied assumption here as offered by Albers is that people on unemployment are lazy.

That is exactly what it is, just as Newt *spit* Gingrich is saying that poor people are lazy.

No one forces you to take welfare. Unlike a slave, you're free to walk away if you don't like the terms.

Not really. If you're poor and you have a choice to either take welfare or have zero income indefinitely, you're not really free to do the latter if you have any intention of living a semi-normal life.

You're still free from compulsion by the government. But keep pushing those goal posts to where receiving money from the government requires that you perform a service for them equals slavery.


------------------------------

What is "compulsion"?

If I said "you do X or I shoot you in the head", is that compulsion?
If I said "you do X or I torture you", is that compulsion?
If I said "you do X or you will be destitute and homeless with no way of recovering", is that compulsion?

I would say all three are definitely forms of compulsion. I would certainly rather be waterboarded than told that I will have everything I own taken away with no way to start over.
 
2011-12-02 12:55:06 PM  

GAT_00: serial_crusher: RexTalionis: which means they can't spend the time necessary to find jobs

Yeah, that 24 hours a week is pretty much all the available time they have.
Seriously, what fantasy world do you live in where looking for a job is a full time gig in and of itself?

Here's someone who hasn't been unemployed for a significant time.


Heh that's exactly what I was going to say, I'm glad I read down the thread and didn't repeat the thought.
 
2011-12-02 12:55:08 PM  

balloot: Diogenes: Doesn't this make them a bigger "drain" on the system? Sure, some stuff will get done. But if these people aren't drawing incomes but still getting benefits, how does that help the economy or help get them reemployed?

The implied assumption here as offered by Albers is that people on unemployment are lazy.

I certainly think it's fair to say that, as a group, the unemployed are certainly far lazier than the employed. With that being said this bill is completely retarded.


I don't know if I believe that. How would you like it if your job got outsourced or downsized through no fault of your own, and you're forced to go on unemployment for an extended period because the economy's in the toilet and no one's hiring -- only to be called lazy because you got caught in the employment squeeze?

On the flip side, I contracted to the DoD for about 6 years and saw numerous people whose only job was to fill a seat. To me, they're worse than people on unemployment. They're sucking from the government teat and have job security to continue doing exactly that.

Of course there are lazy people who take advantage of government assistance. But there are plenty of employed people doing exactly the same thing.
 
2011-12-02 12:55:33 PM  

madcan34: If you've tapped out the amount of benefits you've paid into the system and are on your second round or "Emergency Benefit" then there's no reason why someone can not 'volunteer' in exchange for benefits.

It's not like people actually take time to go door to door looking for work anymore and I'd be willing to bet that the time spent online looking for work is really not so extensive that they can't put in 24 hours a week.

My only question is why they haven't mandated something like this with welfare recipients.


Then why not just employ them? Why not have every person on unemployment take a competency test for several fields and then get referred to an agency/project that could use them so they can be employed? That's a Career.
 
2011-12-02 12:58:55 PM  
I don't think 24 hours a week is unreasonable, although I do think there needs to be a wage attached along with the benefits so there is some level to which they can exist.

Personally I think there could be some sort of labor pool which employers could utilize for temporary workers and get some kind of tax incentives for using and paying these pooled and otherwise "unemployed" workers.
 
2011-12-02 12:59:20 PM  
For those of you in support of this idea, let's consider.

Every person who claims U/E benefits will have to volunteer somewhere, then provide proof to someone at the U/E office to get their benefits. That's another level of bureacracy, another level of papework, and may lead to the government having to hire more workers just to keep up.

And what if the place where the person volunteers gets their records wrong, or doesn't report on time that the person complied? he's denied his benefits? Ok, now we need to work in an appeal process that will allow the person claiming benefits to challenge this problem. ANOTHER level of bureacracy and time and resource consuming paperwork, not to mention the fact that it would involve MORE Administrative Law Judges to hear all the problems.

And what makes up volunteering? Going to a homeless shelter and sweeping floors? Chatting with folks at an old folks' home? Who are you to determine what is 'good' volunteer work? What if you don't like my type of volunteering, which is walking dogs at the local animal shelter? You guessed it- more bureacracy.

For the party of "small government", Republicans loooove to expand governmental power and work.
 
2011-12-02 01:03:11 PM  

Koalaesq: For the party of "small government", Republicans loooove to expand governmental power and work.


State socialism is the government as one big firm with the dictator one big boss.
Capitalism is business as usual.
What happens after the capitalists and the government have termed they don't need extra labor or have found ways not to pay for it and have a class of undesirables to put into slavery and/or eliminate the natural resistance to such schemes if need be it morphs into fascism.
That Republicans are fascists is obvious.
 
2011-12-02 01:07:03 PM  

balloot: Serious Black: balloot: beta_plus: Gordon Bennett: Diogenes: Doesn't this make them a bigger "drain" on the system? Sure, some stuff will get done. But if these people aren't drawing incomes but still getting benefits, how does that help the economy or help get them reemployed?

The implied assumption here as offered by Albers is that people on unemployment are lazy.

That is exactly what it is, just as Newt *spit* Gingrich is saying that poor people are lazy.

No one forces you to take welfare. Unlike a slave, you're free to walk away if you don't like the terms.

Not really. If you're poor and you have a choice to either take welfare or have zero income indefinitely, you're not really free to do the latter if you have any intention of living a semi-normal life.

Why do you disparage dumpster diving, shoplifting food from grocery stores, eating at soup kitchens, and sleeping on park benches as not even semi-normal?

I'm old fashioned like that. I consider "semi-normal" having some minimum level of housing, food, and (gasp!) health care. And I think all Americans should have at least this kind of life, regardless of employment status.

In short, I am a SOCIALIST MONSTER


You're not just a socialist monster; you are the biggest socialist monster in the entire history of existence. You're clearly far worse than the bastard offspring of Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Kim jong-Il, Adolf Hitler, Vlad the Impaler, Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Darth Vader, Lord Voldemort, Sauron, and Satan combined.
 
2011-12-02 01:09:19 PM  

balloot: I certainly think it's fair to say that, as a group, the unemployed are certainly far lazier than the employed.


The "unemployed" and "those on unemployment" are two groups of people with some overlap but different and important characteristics..
 
2011-12-02 01:12:13 PM  

Koalaesq: For those of you in support of this idea, let's consider.

Every person who claims U/E benefits will have to volunteer somewhere, then provide proof to someone at the U/E office to get their benefits. That's another level of bureacracy, another level of papework, and may lead to the government having to hire more workers just to keep up.

And what if the place where the person volunteers gets their records wrong, or doesn't report on time that the person complied? he's denied his benefits? Ok, now we need to work in an appeal process that will allow the person claiming benefits to challenge this problem. ANOTHER level of bureacracy and time and resource consuming paperwork, not to mention the fact that it would involve MORE Administrative Law Judges to hear all the problems.

And what makes up volunteering? Going to a homeless shelter and sweeping floors? Chatting with folks at an old folks' home? Who are you to determine what is 'good' volunteer work? What if you don't like my type of volunteering, which is walking dogs at the local animal shelter? You guessed it- more bureacracy.

For the party of "small government", Republicans loooove to expand governmental power and work.


For the most part, that is exactly what I was thinking.

Also, what is someone gets hurt doing their "volunteer" activities? Lawsuits?

It would be great if people on welfare/unemployment would take some of their time to volunteer.
 
2011-12-02 01:15:52 PM  
Republicans - Undercutting the lowest class at every turn.

Sorry current and recent college grads looking forward to starting a life. Now we can get some indentured servitude from experienced unemployed. Freedom on the march!

Job creators indeed.
 
2011-12-02 01:24:50 PM  
Where have I seen this concept before...

renovomedia.com
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report