WebFire;1584688 wrote: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.

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

rrfan;1584696 wrote:They suffer until they get motivated to change it. Can't get up at 11:00 am, smoke a pack of Cigs, play some cards, watch some TV....and expect to get a job. I am not saying that government can't help some, but to many sandbaggers that have no motivation to do anything in life. I am tired of paying for those people!

isadore;1584704 wrote:most of "those people" on tanf are children. let them sandbagging kids suffer.

rrfan;1584707 wrote:That is BS and you know it!

rrfan;1584707 wrote:That is BS and you know it!

isadore;1584695 wrote:you would prefer to see poor families suffer from lack of food, clothing, shelter and healthcare?

rrfan;1584716 wrote:I never said the kids were sandbagging. So what motivates the adults to get off of the gravy train??? Serious question.

isadore;1584720 wrote:A few examples of what would is

1. Raise the minimum wage
2. Provide free post secondary academic and vocational education

rrfan;1584721 wrote:So you want to raise the minimum wage and put people out of work??? Logical Obama Fan!


They would have to be motivated to do any academic education...so what gets them motivated? That is the same question I asked you before if you care to answer it.

isadore;1584693 wrote: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.

majorspark;1584725 wrote:
A choice made because of the actions of the federal government. Wage freezes on employers during WWII accelerated the spread of employer provided health care. Employers unable by law to attract workers by paying more, were allowed to improve their benefit packages by adding health care.

rrfan;1584728 wrote:Let me ask you guys a question. If you are on government assistance and you work for current minimum wage do you need less assistance? YES! However, that is not what is happening to many. They take the assistance and sit at home, which is much more expensive.

Your argument is they don't work because they don't make enough? How much do they make sitting at home?

isadore;1584730 wrote:gosh since most of the people we are talking about are children they are sitting at school.
Or if they are too young at home, with no supervision if we are shipping their single mothers off to work.

rrfan;1584733 wrote:I am not talking about the children...you are. Those children came from the birds and the bees. Ask you dad to explain it to you. It is on the adults to raise the kids...if it is a single mother I would be for helping with child care FOR THEM TO GO TO WORK!

isadore;1584736 wrote:with adequate child care
to a job that paid a living wage and\ or receiving a post secondary education that would provide a chance at upward social mobility.

rrfan;1584737 wrote:isadore you must be in politics because you never answer a question. Keep dodging and it will go away right Obama!

Devils Advocate;1584742 wrote:

isadore;1584743 wrote:you asked what would motivate them to leave I suggested those programs.
some of other seem to thing starving their children would work better.
"the let them eat cake" view.

rrfan;1584749 wrote:I never said anything about starving a Child! I asked what would motivate the "adults" to work. I think your suggestions would do nothing to get them to work. They would not be motivated to work when they can sit at home and still have what they need. It is a slippery slope but it is real.

I have properties all over NE Ohio. I recently switched one of my duplex to low income housing. Government pays 90% of the rent each month and the renter has a Lincoln navigator SUV. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

isadore;1584767 wrote:My suggestions have everything to do with getting them to go to work. They are offering them a true opportunity to better themselves and provide for their families.

Lets see what do you want to do:
throw them off government support, let them and their families sink or swim, eat or starve
maybe just take their children away from them.
but then they would just have more, well then maybe required abortions for them. US has had some experience with eugenics.


Why don't you ask that person about his\her particular situation and then you can find out why?

isadore;1584729 wrote:a war time measure which they chose to continue to offer after price control were ended soon after WWII and which expanded to more and more business.