[bubblewrap]

Lose your unemployment benefits..


At least wome have rights in America.

[Zimphire]

Hey at least they have healthcare..

Right?

[NYCFarmboy]

socialism = shared misery

[Millennium]

Unintended consequences, perhaps?

[Busemann]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
socialism = shared misery

What does socialism have to do with legalized prostitution?

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Unintended consequences, perhaps?

Exactly. No woman will be forced into prostitution the German Government. Both laws mentioned in the article are relatively new, and sooner or later such cases had to happen - expect the appropriate amendments to those laws soon.
But those 'bash socialist Yurp' types here won't pay attention to that.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
Exactly. No woman will be forced into prostitution the German Government. Both laws mentioned in the article are relatively new, and sooner or later such cases had to happen - expect the appropriate amendments to those laws soon.
But those 'bash socialist Yurp' types here won't pay attention to that.

so its ok to force women in Germany into prostitution in the meantime?

get real.

a government that can give you everything can take away everything.

[Curios Meerkat]

No she won't. She only needs to go to her local welfare agency with the case documentation and they'll take care of her needs until this issue has been solved.

Get real: the world is not as black and white as those tunnel-vision glasses of yours paint it. European governments are not socialist and do not force women into prostitution.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Busemann:


What does socialism have to do with legalized prostitution?

Socialism has reached its logical conclusion in Germany...

used to you just had to work & pay taxes to support your non-working neighbors on welfare so they can !#*%.

now your neighbors get to !#$% you direct...its the law.

ugh

the paradise that is socialism.

[Curios Meerkat]

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
European governments are not socialist

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha



Back on topic, a couple of years ago a young lady from around here had her unemployment stopped because she refused to take a job which the benefits office sent her to an interview for.
The job? Life class model - nude.
OK, so it's not prostitution, but hey same kind of deal.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
Exactly.

I'm not sure you understand what I meant. Those consequences are unintended, but they are inevitable. This is what happens when a government tries to usurp society's role in solving society's problems. They do it the only way they can -through law- and the deficiencies of law in solving social problems quickly become apparent.

No woman will be forced into prostitution the German Government.

It seems to have just happened, more or less.

Both laws mentioned in the article are relatively new, and sooner or later such cases had to happen - expect the appropriate amendments to those laws soon.

We will see about that. And in the meantime, what of the woman in the article?

But those 'bash socialist Yurp' types here won't pay attention to that.

My intent is not to bash Europe. My intent is to bash socialism in general, because I believe that it is a dehumanizing form of government. This example happens to have occurred in Europe (and more specifically Germany), but that is more of a coincidence than anything else. For it to occur, after all, it has to occur somewhere.

[bubblewrap]

When I worked in Germany in the 90's, 50% of my paycheck went to taxes. Ugh.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
My intent is not to bash Europe. My intent is to bash socialism in general, because I believe that it is a dehumanizing form of government. This example happens to have occurred in Europe (and more specifically Germany), but that is more of a coincidence than anything else. For it to occur, after all, it has to occur somewhere.

I don't get how this case (if true*) has something to do with "socialism". She turned down a job, so she gets her unemployment benefits reduced. Without "socialism" she wouldn't have unemployment benefits at all. How is that better? And why is reducing benefits now called "socialism"?

*)
I doubt it's even close to a true case. Sounds like complete ******** to me. While prostitution is legal in Germany, furtherance of prostitution is illegal. So nobody can force a woman into prostitution without facing punishment.
Also all those welfare decisions allow for hardship provisions. Nobody would force a woman into prostitution in such a case.

I haven't heard of it here.

[badidea]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
When I worked in Germany in the 90's, 50% of my paycheck went to taxes. Ugh.

Which means that you earned quite a lot of money...
Now what does this have to do with prostitution and/or socialism?

Originally posted by TETENAL:
I haven't heard of it here.

Me neither!

[finboy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I'm not sure you understand what I meant. Those consequences are unintended, but they are inevitable. This is what happens when a government tries to usurp society's role in solving society's problems. They do it the only way they can -through law- and the deficiencies of law in solving social problems quickly become apparent.

Another thing: What about all the women who just ACCEPTED the jobs? We haven't heard about them.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by finboy:
Another thing: What about all the women who just ACCEPTED the jobs? We haven't heard about them.

well apparently in Germany I guess most do accept it.....the article was in a paper in the U.K....not a peep from the Germans on this.

[saab95]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Lose your unemployment benefits..


At least wome have rights in America.

The Nazis forced men and women to work- at jobs they didn't necesarily want to do. Are we seeing something similar in modern Germany?

Not my idea of life, liberty, and prosperity.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
I haven't heard of it here.

Doesn't surprise me, most Europeans I've met are far more knowledgeable regarding US goings-on than they are about their own country (beam > splinter).

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Doesn't surprise me, most Europeans I've met are far more knowledgeable regarding US goings-on than they are about their own country.

I know enough of my country to know that
[list=1][*] Germany is not socialist.[*] "Reducing unemployment benefits" is not socialism. If anything, it is arguably the opposite.[*] Furthering prostitution is illegal in Germany. Nobody can be legally forced into prostitution in Germany.[/list=1]

I would say that UK newspaper misunderstood something.

[BRussell]

For you folks who are talking about socialism, this is a "capitalistic" welfare reform that brought this about. If you turn down a job, you lose unemployment benefits. It sounds like welfare reforms that we did in the US in the 1990s.

[edit] Tetenal is making the same point.

[gatekeeper]

Laws of Mass Prostitution as elusive as Iraqi WMD.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Socialism has reached its logical conclusion in Germany...

used to you just had to work & pay taxes to support your non-working neighbors on welfare so they can !#*%.

now your neighbors get to !#$% you direct...its the law.

ugh

the paradise that is socialism.

Germany (and other European countries) are not socialist governments. Germany has healthcare (introduced by conservatives) even before socialism came into existence.

[saab95]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Germany (and other European countries) are not socialist governments. Germany has healthcare (introduced by conservatives) even before socialism came into existence.

Not yet, anyway.

They all have more socialist elements infused into their system than America does.

[badidea]

Originally posted by saab95:
They all have more socialist elements infused into their system than America does.

Thank goodness!

[saab95]

Originally posted by badidea:
Thank goodness!

OK, badidea, I challenge you to tell me why you think it is that a caretaker government is better than one which merely protects the rights of its citizens.

I'll be waiting for your well-informed answer

[Busemann]

Originally posted by saab95:
OK, badidea, I challenge you to tell me why you think it is that a caretaker government is better than one which merely protects the rights of its citizens.

I'll be waiting for your well-informed answer

Well, I'm not badidea, but I like the idea of having the best education possible for free. And healthcare that gives equal treatment to everyone, not just the ones who can afford insurance. And public transport that is punctual and frequent. The list is quite long.

I don't think Europeans pay a lot more in taxes compared to what US citizens have to pay for education, health-care and other goodies welfare-states provide for free. But I guess it is the idea of sharing that you detest?

In my country at least, most of this is payed for by taxes, oil income and taxes But in the end, most people are happy about it..

[bubblewrap]

Nothing is free.
Someone is paying for it somewhere.

[badidea]

Originally posted by saab95:
OK, badidea, I challenge you to tell me why you think it is that a caretaker government is better than one which merely protects the rights of its citizens.

I'll be waiting for your well-informed answer

I am not into writing long stories right now but if you really want to challenge me, then feel free to go first and tell me why you think that a civilized community of people who care about each other is worse than <insert what ever you prefer to be called>?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by badidea:
I am not into writing long stories right now but if you really want to challenge me, then feel free to go first and tell me why you think that a civilized community of people who're forced to care about each other is worse than <insert what ever you prefer to be called>?

Correctinated.

[bubblewrap]

Redistribution of wealth. Communism.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Redistribution of wealth. Communism.

Hmm? This is non-redistribution. They're saying you have to get a job in the private sector, and if you don't, you lose your gov't-subsidized paycheck. This is capitalism at its worst, not communism. I don't understand why people are saying this is socialism or communism.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Hmm? This is non-redistribution. They're saying you have to get a job in the private sector, and if you don't, you lose your gov't-subsidized paycheck. This is capitalism at its worst, not communism. I don't understand why people are saying this is socialism or communism.

Capitalism forces people to take gov't-subsidized paychecks? where is the money for this coming from?

is this another "free" thing that comes from the air as if by magic?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Capitalism forces people to take gov't-subsidized paychecks? where is the money for this coming from?

is this another "free" thing that comes from the air as if by magic?

No one was forced to take gov't subsidized paychecks. This story was about someone who was to be cut off from unemployment benefits because she didn't take a job. It was an anti-welfare, "capitalistic" reform that brought about this particular situation. She could have simply not taken the job and stopped getting unemployment checks - no problem. (Assuming this story is even true.)

If you're saying that people shouldn't get any unemployment checks in the first place, OK, but the key issue in this story is how people are cut off from unemployment checks, not how they get on it. So it's kinda the opposite of what people are saying when they complain about communism.

[BoomStick]

It was an unethical attempt to get her off of unemployment.

Here in GA, you must take a job offer after 12 weeks even if it is minimum wage. The temp services here peruse the unemployment listings and send out mass job offers so they can profit off of the labor of the unemployed.

The temp agencies are unethical in their bullying of people. Even if you can't drive the hundred or so miles to the unacceptable temp job, they turn you in for refusal.

[badidea]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Correctinated.

Wrong! Maybe it's news for you but since 1945 we're not a dictatorship anymore -> we chose (not forced) to care about each other! That's called a democracy!

[saab95]

Originally posted by badidea:
Wrong! Maybe it's news for you but since 1945 we're not a dictatorship anymore -> we chose (not forced) to care about each other! That's called a democracy!

Wrong. It's called an A380.

[dialo]

You guys realize that the premise of this thread is actually false, don't you? Do you bother to research at all?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by badidea:
Wrong! Maybe it's news for you but since 1945 we're not a dictatorship anymore -> we chose (not forced) to care about each other! That's called a democracy!

We're not forced to care about each other? So I have a choice on whether to pay those taxes which are destined to go to social services?

Tell ya what, I'll print out your post and send it along to the tax people with only half my usual taxes next time I file. They'll accept it no problem 'coz we live in a democracy.

[Randman]

So, would it be incorrect to say that this woman is seriously fu**ed?

[dialo]

A spokesman for the Federal Labor Office said that if job seekers said they were prepared to work as, for example, dancers in strip bars, advisers could put them in touch with any suitable employers, but vacancies would not be displayed in job centers.

He also stressed job centers would not look for prostitutes on behalf of brothels, nor offer sex industry jobs to people who hadn't specifically mentioned it as an area of interest.

Speculation has grown over recent weeks that Germany's new welfare reforms, obliging the long-term unemployed to take any available job or risk losing their benefits, could lead to women being offered jobs in the sex industry

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...499994]reuters

The story that's been circulating is just media hype spreading a myth.

[MacNStein]

I'm really impressed with how quickly Germany has went on damage control regarding this issue. They've cleared out the sources and smoothed things over in record time. Very efficient.

[dialo]

Actually, my understanding is that the telegraph article, and all subsequent articles, are just plain wrong. They spelled the lawyer's name wrong. Also, this article from august states that there would be a clause in the law which prevents women from being forced into prostitution:

Under the new law, long-term unemployed who refuse jobs can have their welfare benefits reduced. If a person is under 25 years of age, the government can cut all support except the monthly housing reimbursement and non-cash benefits. A person is required to take any legal job. A special morality clause, however, ensures that unemployed will not be forced into prostitution -- which is legal and regulated in Germany.

I don't know whether the clause made it in, I don't trust the sensational telegraph article and I can't read german, but it appears to be a non-issue that has spread like wildfire by a bunch of people who want to look for something to condemn to make themselves feel righteous.

[TETENAL]

The law in question:

http://www.bmwa.bund.de/Redaktion/In...operty=pdf.pdf

And the paragraph about reasonable work:

§ 10
Zumutbarkeit
(1) Dem erwerbsfähigen Hilfebedürftigen ist jede Arbeit
zumutbar, es sei denn, dass
1. er zu der bestimmten Arbeit körperlich, geistig oder
seelisch nicht in der Lage ist,
2. die Ausübung der Arbeit ihm die künftige Ausübung
seiner bisherigen überwiegenden Arbeit wesentlich
erschweren würde, weil die bisherige Tätigkeit besondere
körperliche Anforderungen stellt,
3. die Ausübung der Arbeit die Erziehung seines Kindes
oder des Kindes seines Partners gefährden würde; die
Erziehung eines Kindes, das das dritte Lebensjahr
vollendet hat, ist in der Regel nicht gefährdet, soweit
seine Betreuung in einer Tageseinrichtung oder in
Tagespflege im Sinne der Vorschriften des Achten
Buches oder auf sonstige Weise sichergestellt ist; die
Agentur für Arbeit soll in Zusammenarbeit mit dem
örtlichen Träger der Sozialhilfe darauf hinwirken, dass
Erziehenden vorrangig ein Platz zur Tagesbetreuung
des Kindes angeboten wird,
4. die Ausübung der Arbeit mit der Pflege eines Angehörigen
nicht vereinbar wäre und die Pflege nicht auf
andere Weise sichergestellt werden kann,
5. der Ausübung der Arbeit ein sonstiger wichtiger
Grund entgegensteht.
(2) Eine Arbeit ist nicht allein deshalb unzumutbar, weil
1. sie nicht einer früheren beruflichen Tätigkeit des
erwerbsfähigen Hilfebedürftigen entspricht, für die er
ausgebildet ist oder die er ausgeübt hat,
2. sie im Hinblick auf die Ausbildung des erwerbsfähigen
Hilfebedürftigen als geringerwertig anzusehen ist,
3. der Beschäftigungsort vom Wohnort des erwerbsfähigen
Hilfebedürftigen weiter entfernt ist als ein früherer
Beschäftigungs- oder Ausbildungsort,
4. die Arbeitsbedingungen ungünstiger sind als bei den
bisherigen Beschäftigungen des erwerbsfähigen Hilfebedürftigen.
(3) Die Absätze 1 und 2 gelten für die Teilnahme an
Maßnahmen zur Eingliederung in Arbeit entsprechend.

I'm not going to translate anything but two sentences:

Work is reasonable for any fit for work person in the need for help unless:
(1) he is physically, mentally, or emotionally not able to do the work
…
(5) other important reasons oppose the exercise of the work.

[BoomStick]

Yeah, that really helped.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I'm really impressed with how quickly Germany has went on damage control regarding this issue. They've cleared out the sources and smoothed things over in record time. Very efficient.

As you can see above (and as I said here already) the law has an escape clause for any kind of work that is unreasonable. And the law is from December 24, 2003, over a year before we discuss this non issue here. Record time damage control indeed.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
As you can see above (and as I said here already) the law has an escape clause for any kind of work that is unreasonable. And the law is from December 24, 2003, over a year before we discuss this non issue here. Record time damage control indeed.

What I'm saying is that something apparently did happen (and it was likely illegal), and the German gov't has done an outstanding job of smothering and distancing themselves from it.

[badidea]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
We're not forced to care about each other? So I have a choice on whether to pay those taxes which are destined to go to social services?

Tell ya what, I'll print out your post and send it along to the tax people with only half my usual taxes next time I file. They'll accept it no problem 'coz we live in a democracy.

The time you get old enough to vote, you will understand....

[spiky_dog]

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

sorry if this has been posted above.

Claim: Women in Germany face the loss of unemployment benefits if they decline to accept work in brothels.

Status: False.

...

This was another case where, like a game of "telephone," a story was sensationalized for political purposes and passed from one news source to the next, and somewhere in the rewriting and translating process what was originally discussed as a mere hypothetical possibility has now been reported as a factual occurrence.

Last updated: 6 February 2005

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by badidea:
The time you get old enough to vote, you will understand....

Understand what? That once every four/five years I have the choice of one of four idiotic parties generally populated by morons who all share the same basic policies and can't see past their immediate need to get re-elected?