Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
CaféAuLait;8827481 said:Are you even listening to yourself? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are making false connections between kid and adult users. KIDS DO NOT RECEIVE WELFARE BENEFITS. Only adults do. They control the assets. You automatically assume all the kids of these adults are doing drugs which is stupid. You really think any kids who do drugs get them from their parents?
I never said kids needed to get tested or that kids were doing drugs or that kids applied for welfare. How you managed to twist my showing the numbers were flawed to what you did must have taken some staggering contortionist moves!
You seem to be having a issue with comprehension this morning. You kept citing your "study" there was no study but stats which were used to try to
prove those getting welfare in FL had a lower rate of drug use nationwide. To back the claim your " study" used this for FL welfare rates of drug users verses the national average.
The figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. An additional 2 percent declined to take the test. The Justice Department estimates that 6 percent of Americans 12 and older use illegal drugs
Given 2.5 percent tested positive and 2 percent refused to be tested this could potentially lead to a rate of 4.5 percent of recipients using. Given the national average uses children to get the 6 percent rate ( when your study should NOT have included children) since adults are the ones who apply the numbers are skewed. MeAning the national rate of drug users would be lower to about 4.5
percent, matching the national average.
The numbers are skewed in stats to make a flawed point.
I purposely took 30 minutes to write this post very slow so you might get the point.
I'm willing to believe that what you are saying makes sense to you, but you must realize that objectively what you are saying does not make any sense at all. I have no idea what sort of mathematical point you are trying to make.
I understand the logic of the first sentence, but nothing else makes sense. How do you possibly figure that the national average of drug use is 4.5%? Further, why would it even matter? The study is about Florida and only Florida.
CaféAuLait;8827495 said:CaféAuLait;8827481 said:I never said kids needed to get tested or that kids were doing drugs or that kids applied for welfare. How you managed to twist my showing the numbers were flawed to what you did must have taken some staggering contortionist moves!
You seem to be having a issue with comprehension this morning. You kept citing your "study" there was no study but stats which were used to try to
prove those getting welfare in FL had a lower rate of drug use nationwide. To back the claim your " study" used this for FL welfare rates of drug users verses the national average.
Given 2.5 percent tested positive and 2 percent refused to be tested this could potentially lead to a rate of 4.5 percent of recipients using. Given the national average uses children to get the 6 percent rate ( when your study should NOT have included children) since adults are the ones who apply the numbers are skewed. MeAning the national rate of drug users would be lower to about 4.5
percent, matching the national average.
The numbers are skewed in stats to make a flawed point.
I purposely took 30 minutes to write this post very slow so you might get the point.
I'm willing to believe that what you are saying makes sense to you, but you must realize that objectively what you are saying does not make any sense at all. I have no idea what sort of mathematical point you are trying to make.
I understand the logic of the first sentence, but nothing else makes sense. How do you possibly figure that the national average of drug use is 4.5%? Further, why would it even matter? The study is about Florida and only Florida.
Because the national rate included children from the ages of 12-17. It should have included adults only, since they are the ones applying for welfare presumably. Including children in those rates skews the numbers if we are comparing adult welfare reciepents vs what the national average is for those admitting illegal drug use.
Quick question...................considering that quite a few states have approved the medicinal use of medical marijuana, and also considering that Washington and Colorado have approved the recreational use of cannabis as well (and I'm willing to bet that quite a few states are going to follow Colorado and Washington, especially when they see the kind of tax revenue they're getting), will pot be considered to be a "drug" any longer?
BTW.......................the main "drug" that the conservatives like to point at as the problem is marijuana, but that can be forgiven, because they swallowed the bullshit put out by Anslinger in his commissioned film "Reefer Madness".
Sorry, but pot does not make you do stupid stuff, but many people would like to treat it as if it were the stuff of the Devil himself.
CaféAuLait;8827495 said:I'm willing to believe that what you are saying makes sense to you, but you must realize that objectively what you are saying does not make any sense at all. I have no idea what sort of mathematical point you are trying to make.
I understand the logic of the first sentence, but nothing else makes sense. How do you possibly figure that the national average of drug use is 4.5%? Further, why would it even matter? The study is about Florida and only Florida.
Because the national rate included children from the ages of 12-17. It should have included adults only, since they are the ones applying for welfare presumably. Including children in those rates skews the numbers if we are comparing adult welfare reciepents vs what the national average is for those admitting illegal drug use.
Why are we even talking about the national average?
Studies show that people on welfare who use drugs is quite low.
But repubs want less govt. and less regulations, oh yeah, that only covers big business.......sorry, let's get back to GOP intrusion...
CaféAuLait;8827233 said:CaféAuLait;8827201 said:LOL what? Sorry I don't understand. Given Arizona tested about dozen people only (Not 84,000 that applied) and only one came up positive, while another 1,600 plus refused to return the drug testing materials making them ineligible, does nothing to show the testing costs more or there are less drug users.
Haven't the slightest clue how you can say Arizona's study was flawed given the potential recipient can lie without consequence, only about a dozen people were tested and another 1600 refused to return paperwork to be tested.
The only way anything like this would work is if surprise testing were enforced. That would be the only way to prove or disprove anything, yes?
Lol good god you people cling to the most feeble of arguments. Why are you just ignoring the results from the other studies?
Many people use drugs. It really shouldn't surprise anyone a small percentage of welfare recipients use them too. It doesn't even mean these people are necessarily buying drugs to use them. Poor people have friends.
You need to read the article again. Here allow me to try and help you.
84,000- number of people eligible for welfare
82,000 -people answered "No they did not do drugs without any penalty for lying at all and no test given.
1,600 -number of people who refused to answer drug testing questionnaire making them ineligible.
24 -number of people who admitted to drug use on application.
12 -the number of people that actually showed up for testing.
1- tested positive.
So tell me how that PROVES ANYTHING.
Gosh.
And herein lies that reality. It is NOT a cost saving measure and the only actual cost savings that could have been achieved anyway is the cost savings from allowing someone to sink into true and real poverty. Not really a valid option here. The real kick in the pants is that the fact that these measures would not save money was well known before anything was ever even passed. The chance that these measures would save a single dollar was essentially nil. But I think that the reality is more in depth than that.Bottom line is that it's been proven to be a waste of taxpayer money.
Florida didn't save money by drug testing welfare recipients, data shows | Tampa Bay Times
CaféAuLait;8827233 said:Lol good god you people cling to the most feeble of arguments. Why are you just ignoring the results from the other studies?
Many people use drugs. It really shouldn't surprise anyone a small percentage of welfare recipients use them too. It doesn't even mean these people are necessarily buying drugs to use them. Poor people have friends.
You need to read the article again. Here allow me to try and help you.
84,000- number of people eligible for welfare
82,000 -people answered "No they did not do drugs without any penalty for lying at all and no test given.
1,600 -number of people who refused to answer drug testing questionnaire making them ineligible.
24 -number of people who admitted to drug use on application.
12 -the number of people that actually showed up for testing.
1- tested positive.
So tell me how that PROVES ANYTHING.
Gosh.
Well, it actually shows quite a lot. The lions share of that 1600 people would almost certainly test positive or they would have not risked the loss of benefits for not answering the question. Those that said yes are just dumb - NEVER admit to committing a crime. Those who didnt show up were also likely positive.
I will never understand the outright refusal to accept that substance abuse and poverty are interrelated. Anyone that is familiar with poverty stricken areas should be well aware of the rampant substance abuse problems within them. Almost all poor people I have ever met were actively abusing multiple substances both legal and illegal. The reality is in plain sight for anyone that is willing to bother and look at it. The question really has never been whether or not this is the reality but whether or not anything should be done about it.
And herein lies that reality. It is NOT a cost saving measure and the only actual cost savings that could have been achieved anyway is the cost savings from allowing someone to sink into true and real poverty. Not really a valid option here. The real kick in the pants is that the fact that these measures would not save money was well known before anything was ever even passed. The chance that these measures would save a single dollar was essentially nil. But I think that the reality is more in depth than that.Bottom line is that it's been proven to be a waste of taxpayer money.
Florida didn't save money by drug testing welfare recipients, data shows | Tampa Bay Times
There are, as I see it, 3 possible reasons for drug testing welfare recipients the cost savings, avoiding the moral hazard and not being an enabler. The first has been addressed. The first one has been addressed and is false. It saves nothing. The second and third are related. Indeed, almost any drug abuser at some point requires an enabler to continue using. One of the core problems is that enabler continues to cover for the abuser both socially and financially until they can take it no longer. Most support groups will tell you that you MUST STOP enabling the drug abuse of the abuse will destroy you with them before eventually killing themselves. It is a vicious cycle and the best thing for the abuse is to allow them to hit rock bottom and the sooner the better. Cutting them off is BETTER for them in that respect because it FORCES the abuse to address the problem. The government is helping in this role when it pays a drug abuser when they are past the point of being able to support a decent job. The moral hazard here is much the same. We are essentially paying people who are making poor decisions so that they can continue to make those poor decisions, substance abuse being one of those poor decisions.
The question though is whether or not drug testing makes any sense. I think that the resounding answer is no because it really addresses none of the underlying problems. Both the moral hazard and the substance abuse can continue, particularly with legal substances being in abundance like beer. Not only that but we dont even test for LSD, crack and meth (the real problem here) is only in your system for a few days and pot is the main focus on tests being that it stays in your system but is not really any different than abusing cigarettes and even less destructive than booze.
Drug testing simply makes for a good sound bite but is completely ineffective (even if the program catches the abusers) and overly expensive for almost zero gains. I think that the welfare program itself needs MAJOR structural changes that allow it to reward good decisions and limit the moral hazards with paying people to be poor but drug testing is NOT one of them. Education targeting basic job skills, employment programs, more defined benefits (rather than cash benefits) and a structure that encourages employment rather than discouraging it is what is needed. And if those measures cost more so be it they would be more effective and better. Drug testing, however, is asinine and pointless. I might not want people taking MY money and spending it on drugs nut I dont see the government taking it and spending it on testing for drugs as any better. Either way, it is still wasted.
Studies show that people on welfare who use drugs is quite low.
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use - The Daily Beast
The most colossal failure of this policy was in Arizona, which passed a drug-testing law in 2009. In 2012, an evaluation of the program had startling results: After three years and 87,000 screenings, only one person had failed the drug test, with huge costs for the state, which saved a few hundred dollars by denying benefits, compared to the hundreds of thousands spent to conduct the tests.
The myth of welfare recipients spending their benefits on drugs is just thata myth. And indeed, in Utah, only 12 people out of 466or 2.5 percentshowed evidence of drug use after a mandatory screening. The total cost to the state was $25,000, or far more than the cost of providing benefits to a dozen people. The only thing gained from mandatory drug testing is the humiliation of desperate people.
Which, judging from the GOPs continued enthusiasm for the idea, is enough. In Ohio, for instance, state senator Tim Schaffer has introduced legislation that would establish a drug-testing program for the states welfare program. It is time that we recognize that many families are trying to survive in drug-induced poverty, and we have an obligation to make sure taxpayer money is not being used to support drug dealers, Schaffer said. We can no longer turn a blind eye to this problem.
If Ohio is anything like Florida, which also has a drug-testing program, Schaffer will find that the large majority of welfare recipients are neither drug users nor drug dealers. From 2011 to 2012, just 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test faileda rate of 2.6 percent, compared to a national drug use rate of over 8 percent. The total cost to Florida taxpayers? $45,780.
As you can see, another issue exposes just how full of shit republicans actually are.
CaféAuLait;8827233 said:You need to read the article again. Here allow me to try and help you.
84,000- number of people eligible for welfare
82,000 -people answered "No they did not do drugs without any penalty for lying at all and no test given.
1,600 -number of people who refused to answer drug testing questionnaire making them ineligible.
24 -number of people who admitted to drug use on application.
12 -the number of people that actually showed up for testing.
1- tested positive.
So tell me how that PROVES ANYTHING.
Gosh.
Well, it actually shows quite a lot. The lions share of that 1600 people would almost certainly test positive or they would have not risked the loss of benefits for not answering the question. Those that said yes are just dumb - NEVER admit to committing a crime. Those who didnt show up were also likely positive.
I will never understand the outright refusal to accept that substance abuse and poverty are interrelated. Anyone that is familiar with poverty stricken areas should be well aware of the rampant substance abuse problems within them. Almost all poor people I have ever met were actively abusing multiple substances both legal and illegal. The reality is in plain sight for anyone that is willing to bother and look at it. The question really has never been whether or not this is the reality but whether or not anything should be done about it.
And herein lies that reality. It is NOT a cost saving measure and the only actual cost savings that could have been achieved anyway is the cost savings from allowing someone to sink into true and real poverty. Not really a valid option here. The real kick in the pants is that the fact that these measures would not save money was well known before anything was ever even passed. The chance that these measures would save a single dollar was essentially nil. But I think that the reality is more in depth than that.Bottom line is that it's been proven to be a waste of taxpayer money.
Florida didn't save money by drug testing welfare recipients, data shows | Tampa Bay Times
There are, as I see it, 3 possible reasons for drug testing welfare recipients the cost savings, avoiding the moral hazard and not being an enabler. The first has been addressed. The first one has been addressed and is false. It saves nothing. The second and third are related. Indeed, almost any drug abuser at some point requires an enabler to continue using. One of the core problems is that enabler continues to cover for the abuser both socially and financially until they can take it no longer. Most support groups will tell you that you MUST STOP enabling the drug abuse of the abuse will destroy you with them before eventually killing themselves. It is a vicious cycle and the best thing for the abuse is to allow them to hit rock bottom and the sooner the better. Cutting them off is BETTER for them in that respect because it FORCES the abuse to address the problem. The government is helping in this role when it pays a drug abuser when they are past the point of being able to support a decent job. The moral hazard here is much the same. We are essentially paying people who are making poor decisions so that they can continue to make those poor decisions, substance abuse being one of those poor decisions.
The question though is whether or not drug testing makes any sense. I think that the resounding answer is no because it really addresses none of the underlying problems. Both the moral hazard and the substance abuse can continue, particularly with legal substances being in abundance like beer. Not only that but we dont even test for LSD, crack and meth (the real problem here) is only in your system for a few days and pot is the main focus on tests being that it stays in your system but is not really any different than abusing cigarettes and even less destructive than booze.
Drug testing simply makes for a good sound bite but is completely ineffective (even if the program catches the abusers) and overly expensive for almost zero gains. I think that the welfare program itself needs MAJOR structural changes that allow it to reward good decisions and limit the moral hazards with paying people to be poor but drug testing is NOT one of them. Education targeting basic job skills, employment programs, more defined benefits (rather than cash benefits) and a structure that encourages employment rather than discouraging it is what is needed. And if those measures cost more so be it they would be more effective and better. Drug testing, however, is asinine and pointless. I might not want people taking MY money and spending it on drugs nut I dont see the government taking it and spending it on testing for drugs as any better. Either way, it is still wasted.
I'm willing to concede the methodology for that study may be flawed, but I provided 4 studies with results based on actual drug test results. Those findings find a very low percentage of hot tests. Those are the studies that matter. The truth of the matter is that people on welfare can rarely even afford drugs as you can see by the facts I provided about food stamps. Does that mean NONE Of these people don't do drugs? Of course not. I'm sure there are a few that do through friends. 1600 out of 87,000 people is a low percentage and not all of the 1600 were necessarily on drugs.
Well, it actually shows quite a lot. The lions share of that 1600 people would almost certainly test positive or they would have not risked the loss of benefits for not answering the question. Those that said yes are just dumb - NEVER admit to committing a crime. Those who didnt show up were also likely positive.
I will never understand the outright refusal to accept that substance abuse and poverty are interrelated. Anyone that is familiar with poverty stricken areas should be well aware of the rampant substance abuse problems within them. Almost all poor people I have ever met were actively abusing multiple substances both legal and illegal. The reality is in plain sight for anyone that is willing to bother and look at it. The question really has never been whether or not this is the reality but whether or not anything should be done about it.
And herein lies that reality. It is NOT a cost saving measure and the only actual cost savings that could have been achieved anyway is the cost savings from allowing someone to sink into true and real poverty. Not really a valid option here. The real kick in the pants is that the fact that these measures would not save money was well known before anything was ever even passed. The chance that these measures would save a single dollar was essentially nil. But I think that the reality is more in depth than that.
There are, as I see it, 3 possible reasons for drug testing welfare recipients the cost savings, avoiding the moral hazard and not being an enabler. The first has been addressed. The first one has been addressed and is false. It saves nothing. The second and third are related. Indeed, almost any drug abuser at some point requires an enabler to continue using. One of the core problems is that enabler continues to cover for the abuser both socially and financially until they can take it no longer. Most support groups will tell you that you MUST STOP enabling the drug abuse of the abuse will destroy you with them before eventually killing themselves. It is a vicious cycle and the best thing for the abuse is to allow them to hit rock bottom and the sooner the better. Cutting them off is BETTER for them in that respect because it FORCES the abuse to address the problem. The government is helping in this role when it pays a drug abuser when they are past the point of being able to support a decent job. The moral hazard here is much the same. We are essentially paying people who are making poor decisions so that they can continue to make those poor decisions, substance abuse being one of those poor decisions.
The question though is whether or not drug testing makes any sense. I think that the resounding answer is no because it really addresses none of the underlying problems. Both the moral hazard and the substance abuse can continue, particularly with legal substances being in abundance like beer. Not only that but we dont even test for LSD, crack and meth (the real problem here) is only in your system for a few days and pot is the main focus on tests being that it stays in your system but is not really any different than abusing cigarettes and even less destructive than booze.
Drug testing simply makes for a good sound bite but is completely ineffective (even if the program catches the abusers) and overly expensive for almost zero gains. I think that the welfare program itself needs MAJOR structural changes that allow it to reward good decisions and limit the moral hazards with paying people to be poor but drug testing is NOT one of them. Education targeting basic job skills, employment programs, more defined benefits (rather than cash benefits) and a structure that encourages employment rather than discouraging it is what is needed. And if those measures cost more so be it they would be more effective and better. Drug testing, however, is asinine and pointless. I might not want people taking MY money and spending it on drugs nut I dont see the government taking it and spending it on testing for drugs as any better. Either way, it is still wasted.
I'm willing to concede the methodology for that study may be flawed, but I provided 4 studies with results based on actual drug test results. Those findings find a very low percentage of hot tests. Those are the studies that matter. The truth of the matter is that people on welfare can rarely even afford drugs as you can see by the facts I provided about food stamps. Does that mean NONE Of these people don't do drugs? Of course not. I'm sure there are a few that do through friends. 1600 out of 87,000 people is a low percentage and not all of the 1600 were necessarily on drugs.
Like I said, I dont believe that for a second because of my personal experience within poor neighborhoods. Substance abuse is irrelevant if we disregarded booze anyway the goto drug for many low income people but the idea that even illicit drug abuse is rather low is completely off base in my mind. As I stated (and other have as well) most of the REAL problem drugs (aka not pot) are not caught anyway because the drug is in your system for such a short span of time. Meth is one of those drugs that presents a real problem, is prevalent in low income areas and runs out of your system pretty fast so is not usually caught in testing. Further, ANY study into drug use is not accurate in my mind because they almost universally rely on people admitting to use. That, in general, is going to yield far fewer results than actual due to the stigma and illegality of drug use. How can we trust a survey of drug use when the act itself is illegal and most simply are not going to admit use. I can tell you right now that if I was asked if I were user and I was using I certainly would not admit to that. It seems rather dangerous in general.
I think that it is the incorrect angle to argue this anyway. IF we give up that rampant drug abuse is prevalent within poor neighborhoods and then look into the drug testing program you STILL end up with a program unworthy of perusing. Aside from the obvious recoil of funding drug habits there really is nothing of value within the program itself. It does not really discourage use to a point that is meaningful, misses ALL the hard drugs, completely ignores the legal ones that are just as bad and costs a mountain of cash. All in the name of what? Stepping up the drug war yes THAT has been so successful I cant think of anything better to spend my tax dollars on /sarcasm
IOW, I think the arguments stand on their own merits even without questioning the targets so why bother even going there. It only gives the advocates an avenue out of dealing with the fact that the testing program is a farce on its face and allows them to focus on the drug abuse itself (and then delves into moral issues).
But repubs want less govt. and less regulations, oh yeah, that only covers big business.......sorry, let's get back to GOP intrusion...
left-wing nutjobs are losers who lie to themselves.
people on welfare are getting paid by the government to do what others do for free; raise their children.
people who work for the federal government; especially the military; get drug-tested all the time; that is a fact.
why would left-wing nutjobs object to drug-testing for people on welfare?
because the ignorant Left wants to keep their heads in their asses about inconveniant truths
I'm willing to concede the methodology for that study may be flawed, but I provided 4 studies with results based on actual drug test results. Those findings find a very low percentage of hot tests. Those are the studies that matter. The truth of the matter is that people on welfare can rarely even afford drugs as you can see by the facts I provided about food stamps. Does that mean NONE Of these people don't do drugs? Of course not. I'm sure there are a few that do through friends. 1600 out of 87,000 people is a low percentage and not all of the 1600 were necessarily on drugs.
Like I said, I dont believe that for a second because of my personal experience within poor neighborhoods. Substance abuse is irrelevant if we disregarded booze anyway the goto drug for many low income people but the idea that even illicit drug abuse is rather low is completely off base in my mind. As I stated (and other have as well) most of the REAL problem drugs (aka not pot) are not caught anyway because the drug is in your system for such a short span of time. Meth is one of those drugs that presents a real problem, is prevalent in low income areas and runs out of your system pretty fast so is not usually caught in testing. Further, ANY study into drug use is not accurate in my mind because they almost universally rely on people admitting to use. That, in general, is going to yield far fewer results than actual due to the stigma and illegality of drug use. How can we trust a survey of drug use when the act itself is illegal and most simply are not going to admit use. I can tell you right now that if I was asked if I were user and I was using I certainly would not admit to that. It seems rather dangerous in general.
I think that it is the incorrect angle to argue this anyway. IF we give up that rampant drug abuse is prevalent within poor neighborhoods and then look into the drug testing program you STILL end up with a program unworthy of perusing. Aside from the obvious recoil of funding drug habits there really is nothing of value within the program itself. It does not really discourage use to a point that is meaningful, misses ALL the hard drugs, completely ignores the legal ones that are just as bad and costs a mountain of cash. All in the name of what? Stepping up the drug war yes THAT has been so successful I cant think of anything better to spend my tax dollars on /sarcasm
IOW, I think the arguments stand on their own merits even without questioning the targets so why bother even going there. It only gives the advocates an avenue out of dealing with the fact that the testing program is a farce on its face and allows them to focus on the drug abuse itself (and then delves into moral issues).
You are basing your opinion on anecdotal accounts which is completely unreliable. You are deliberately ignoring the studies whose results are based on data of actual hot drug testing for welfare recipients. You are being disingenuous about this and you know it
Like I said, I dont believe that for a second because of my personal experience within poor neighborhoods. Substance abuse is irrelevant if we disregarded booze anyway the goto drug for many low income people but the idea that even illicit drug abuse is rather low is completely off base in my mind. As I stated (and other have as well) most of the REAL problem drugs (aka not pot) are not caught anyway because the drug is in your system for such a short span of time. Meth is one of those drugs that presents a real problem, is prevalent in low income areas and runs out of your system pretty fast so is not usually caught in testing. Further, ANY study into drug use is not accurate in my mind because they almost universally rely on people admitting to use. That, in general, is going to yield far fewer results than actual due to the stigma and illegality of drug use. How can we trust a survey of drug use when the act itself is illegal and most simply are not going to admit use. I can tell you right now that if I was asked if I were user and I was using I certainly would not admit to that. It seems rather dangerous in general.
I think that it is the incorrect angle to argue this anyway. IF we give up that rampant drug abuse is prevalent within poor neighborhoods and then look into the drug testing program you STILL end up with a program unworthy of perusing. Aside from the obvious recoil of funding drug habits there really is nothing of value within the program itself. It does not really discourage use to a point that is meaningful, misses ALL the hard drugs, completely ignores the legal ones that are just as bad and costs a mountain of cash. All in the name of what? Stepping up the drug war yes THAT has been so successful I cant think of anything better to spend my tax dollars on /sarcasm
IOW, I think the arguments stand on their own merits even without questioning the targets so why bother even going there. It only gives the advocates an avenue out of dealing with the fact that the testing program is a farce on its face and allows them to focus on the drug abuse itself (and then delves into moral issues).
You are basing your opinion on anecdotal accounts which is completely unreliable. You are deliberately ignoring the studies whose results are based on data of actual hot drug testing for welfare recipients. You are being disingenuous about this and you know it
Yeah, who's he going to believe....you and your studies, or his lying eyes.
isnt it nice of this left-wing IDIOT Billy to copy and paste so much evidence showing how much the rich have gotten RICHER and the poor have gotten POORER?
ONLY ONE PROBLEM; it's HAPPENING ON PROGRESSIVE'S WATCH; and they keep pretending they arent in charge; when in fact this is the EIGHT-STRIAGHT YEAR OF PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY RULE in the USA.
libs are losers who lie to themselves
