sleeper;1583211 wrote:Do you really think people don't understand that putting P in V unprotected can create a child? Come on man. These people know; they just do it anyway.

I tend to agree with this, but then you see how stupid people are in some of these surveys/poll/"Jay-walking"...Of course, if they are that stupid sex ed is probably wasted on them, anyway.

gut;1583260 wrote:I tend to agree with this, but then you see how stupid people are in some of these surveys/poll/"Jay-walking"...Of course, if they are that stupid sex ed is probably wasted on them, anyway.

I disagree. They have the math and social skills to know that a few moments of irresponsible sex + more babies = more gubmint assistance.

Enter Isadore to tell me how insensitive I am....

believer;1583372 wrote:I disagree. They have the math and social skills to know that a few moments of irresponsible sex + more babies = more gubmint assistance.

Enter Isadore to tell me how insensitive I am....

You are insensitive.
And while the stereotype of the “welfare queen” is a woman who has more children to increase the benefits she gets from government programs, families who are enrolled look similar to those who aren’t. “Average family size was the same (3.7 persons), whether or not a family received assistance,” the report notes.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081791/welfare-recipient-spending/#

isadore;1583395 wrote: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081791/welfare-recipient-spending/#

Hahahahaa....One trip to the local cable or cell phone store will disprove a number of claims made in that article.

gut;1583410 wrote:Hahahahaa....One trip to the local cable or cell phone store will disprove a number of claims made in that article.

gosh a ruddies it is too bad there is no medication to cure your cognitive dissonance.

isadore;1583434 wrote:... your cognitive dissonance.

I don't think you understand what that means.

gosh gut, you supply an example of cognitive dissonance.

isadore;1583546 wrote:gosh gut, you supply an example of cognitive dissonance.

No need to repeat yourself - you already made it clear you don't understand the term

Pro tip: when people laugh at you and ignore you because you try to use big words you don't understand, they are being neither a racist nor elitist.

gut;1583563 wrote:No need to repeat yourself - you already made it clear you don't understand the term

Pro tip: when people laugh at you and ignore you because you try to use big words you don't understand, they are being neither a racist nor elitist.

obviously you do not understand the terms. Gosh your bias against those in need have caused you to be unable to accept the statistics about welfare recipients.

gut;1583410 wrote:Hahahahaa....One trip to the local cable or cell phone store will disprove a number of claims made in that article.

Hell you need only stand in line at Wal Mart, Kroger, or the neighborhood 7-Eleven store (gotta get those cigarettes and lottery tickets too ya know) to see even more examples.

Not long ago I'm standing in line behind a gal who was paying for her groceries with Food Stamps. She happened to have a few cans of dog food on the line too. The clerk, of course, reminds her that Food Stamps won't cover the dog food. She looks in her wallet and says "Shit, I don't have enough money for the dog food but can you wait a minute?" The clerk says "sure" and then looks at me and says, "sorry sir". A few minutes later Welfare Gal comes back with several packages of stew beef. She shrugs, looks at me, and says "my dog loves meat too".

I guess I'm too insensitive. After all, poor dogs need to eat too.

believer;1583682 wrote:Hell you need only stand in line at Wal Mart, Kroger, or the neighborhood 7-Eleven store (gotta get those cigarettes and lottery tickets too ya know) to see even more examples.

Not long ago I'm standing in line behind a gal who was paying for her groceries with Food Stamps. She happened to have a few cans of dog food on the line too. The clerk, of course, reminds her that Food Stamps won't cover the dog food. She looks in her wallet and says "Shit, I don't have enough money for the dog food but can you wait a minute?" The clerk says "sure" and then looks at me an says, "sorry sir". I few minutes later Welfare Gal comes back with several packages of stew beef. She shrugs, looks at me, and says "my dog loves meat too".

I guess I'm too insensitive. After all, poor dogs need to eat too.

I think what you were going for is "not a very good Christian."

But hey, let's eliminate the welfare state and institute an EOLR and a guaranteed minimum income for all people who work and voila no more crab mentality about the welfare state but disgruntled faux-Christian conservatives and we can all live in solidarity as United Americans with incentives properly aligned!

BoatShoes;1583774 wrote:I think what you were going for is "not a very good Christian."

But hey, let's eliminate the welfare state and institute an EOLR and a guaranteed minimum income for all people who work and voila no more crab mentality about the welfare state but disgruntled faux-Christian conservatives and we can all live in solidarity as United Americans with incentives properly aligned!

..and the truth will set you free.

The destruction of the family unit has lead to generational poverty. Multi children via one man with no responsibility to support, care or nurture with no regard to the future of the children is a crime. Mothers with multi children via multi men is a issue and a crime but the father of those children needs to be punished and held responsible. No job, no education, history of crime .... Time to fix the problem by fixing the men reproduction system

simplest reason the poor are poor...the government lets them stay "poor, not work, and have a cell phone, food, home" Why work...?

Liberals and Democrat have created 100 years of a poverty agenda. Hold people down and create a voting base of entitlement society, keep them poor, helpless and uneducated and then tell them its the rich who are the reason they are poor.

Liberal and Democrat have lowered the standard of living so those in poverty, those that are in poverty have no hope of achievement but the next level of more poverty..

BoatShoes;1583774 wrote:I think what you were going for is "not a very good Christian."

But hey, let's eliminate the welfare state and institute an EOLR and a guaranteed minimum income for all people who work and voila no more crab mentality about the welfare state but disgruntled faux-Christian conservatives and we can all live in solidarity as United Americans with incentives properly aligned!

I'm open to this idea Boatshoes as I've stated in the past. My concern is, how is Shaniqua supposed to work when she has 12 children to take care of?

before the federal government took action
1. The poverty rate was much higher
2. The suffering of the poor was much greater

isadore;1584539 wrote:before the federal government took action
1. The poverty rate was much higher
2. The suffering of the poor was much greater

And likewise when the federal government got involved in the student loan business, university tuition became more affordable.

Manhattan Buckeye;1584671 wrote:And likewise when the federal government got involved in the student loan business, university tuition became more affordable.

And so did health care....

Manhattan Buckeye;1584671 wrote:And likewise when the federal government got involved in the student loan business, university tuition became more affordable.

it is a fact that when the government became involved the poverty rate dropped
and it is a fact that when the government became involved the condition of those in poverty improved.

isadore;1584539 wrote:before the federal government took action
1. The poverty rate was much higher
2. The suffering of the poor was much greater

the problem with healthcare cost became a problem
began when business became responsible for providing health care, rather than the government.

Business has never been responsible for providing healthcare insurance until the Affordable Care Act. Healthcare insurance was an additional form of compensation provided to employees.

The real problem began to arise when people stopped considering that healthcare insurance isn't the only means of satisfying healthcare service costs. People began relying on it not as risk management but as a primary funding tool and became dependent upon it as the only means of healthcare funding.

isadore;1584681 wrote:it is a fact that when the government became involved the poverty rate dropped
and it is a fact that when the government became involved the condition of those in poverty improved.

I think that is the point everyone is making, isn't it? That government got involved and made being poor easy with not much consequence.

Con_Alma;1584685 wrote:Business has never been responsible for providing healthcare insurance until the Affordable Care Act. Healthcare insurance was an additional form of compensation provided to employees.

The real problem began to arise when people stopped considering that healthcare insurance isn't the only means of satisfying healthcare service costs. People began relying on it not as risk management but as a primary funding tool and became dependent upon it as the only means of healthcare funding.

Businesses chose to take on that responsibility starting during WWII. They became the major provider of healthcare for working people as part of their terms of employment.