If you try to impeach Trump, the American people will not stand for it

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right. You never asked the question the last eight years, but because Trump took office, now you want immediate results.

Trump budget will slash Medicaid, food stamps programs: reports

So people will suffer

What does that have to do with 95 million people out of the workforce?
Is Trumps plan to have them die?

No, nobody is going to die like nobody died after Welfare Reform was passed.

We need to get people off the dole and back to work. It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't."

Pushing people off the dole will force them back to work and yes, increase our labor participation rate. They'll have to give up smoking pot so they can pass a drug test and get a job already.

A person will not be forced to work it there is no job they can do. The states will have to come up with the money to support these people. It may take this to convince conservatives, that welfare queens are a rarities and there are good reasons why most people on the "dole" are there.

I would disagree.........too many personal experiences.

There are plenty of jobs with nobody willing to do them. As a truck driver I spend my day in industrial areas. They are all loaded with HELP WANTED signs company after company. Go back to the same industrial area about a month later, the signs are still out there.

Of course some of them are our customers, so I inquire about what they are offering. Some of them don't pay too badly for a no-skill job and offer plenty of overtime. Same goes with skill or willing to train jobs.

It's not that all Americans won't work, it's that Americans can't pass a drug test. They get applicants, but when it comes time to explain their no tolerance drug policy, the applicants walk out and don't come back.

If these people won't give up pot or whatever they are taking to get a job, how are they making ends meet?

The thing is our government rewards people for not working, or gives incentives to keep their income low. Go past government maximum income, and you lose your government benefits. For them, it's like working for free, so how could we fix that if we don't cut those benefits?

Personnel experiences, that is anecdotal evidence is worthless when you're talking about tens of millions of people of different races, ethnicity, ages, and with every conceivable medical, emotional, and social problem know to man.

I worked in a food pantry for two years, my daughter is a social worker dealing with the problems of the poor every day. I can tell you dozens of true stories about the poor on the dole, but there would be no real pattern because there is no typical person on government benefits. Some are just old, others are terrible sick, disabled, caring for young children or sick and disable parents. Many have serious emotional and mental problems such that no one in their right mind would hire them. Then there are those with zero job skills and have never held down a job for more few weeks. And yes, there are drug addicts and career criminals. And there are many people that are on benefits that are just in between jobs.

There are no typical welfare beneficiaries. The stereotypes are all wrong.

What most people don't realize is half the people on government subsidies are working in part time and temporary jobs so getting a job is not the problem. Earning enough money to support themselves and their family is.

Well you know, as I said, I work with industry. I can tell you countless stories of people at these places that tell me about the people you speak of; one of them includes a personal friend of mine that I've known since we were ten years old.

They can't pass a drug test, so they join these temporary services. Employers (when business really picks up) ask these temporary employees to work more hours. In most cases, they refuse. Why? Because they are receiving food stamps, and if they make too much money, they lose those benefits.

I experienced that on a personal level, but I believe I told you the story about one of my tenants I had to evict. They lost their home, have a court record of eviction, and for what? Food Stamps.

You and I are a perfect example of the liberal and conservative view of social programs. When a liberal thinks of a poor person, they picture a hard working dirty man just coming home from his job. His wife is sweating over a pot of hot soup. The kids are in torn clothing sitting at the kitchen table with a 40 watt lightbulb hanging from a fixture on bare wires from the ceiling.

What do we conservatives see? We see the food stamp lady in front of us at the grocery store. She has four or five kids with two shopping carts of food. She's about 250 lbs and whips out that SNAP's card to pay for that food. Then she whips out a wad of cash to pay for her perfume, huge bags of dog food and cat litter, alcohol, cigarettes and flowers. That's what we see on a consistent basis.

I remember years ago when I was training a new driver and we went into the ghetto. There were about 15 guys drinking out of paper bags around a fire they made in a 55 gallon drum. They were all laughing, some were even dancing to the ghetto blaster somebody brought over. The new guy looked at me and said WTF are they doing this time of the morning? I told them they were all discussing their job interviews.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"The best part about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said."
Author unknown

Since February, under Trump the labor force participation rate has dropped

Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Data extracted on: May 22, 2017 (7:55:15 PM)

So WTF is that supposed to tell me anyway? No link? No chart? Not that it matters anyway. He's only been President for four months.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let Ray live with his Labor Force Participation rant
Explaining it over the last four years is fruitless.....might as well pound your head against the wall

But guess what?
REPUBLICANS are calling the shots now. Let Ray explain why Trump and the Republican Congress is not doing anything to stop a declining labor force.....He voted for them

Right. You never asked the question the last eight years, but because Trump took office, now you want immediate results.

Trump budget will slash Medicaid, food stamps programs: reports

So people will suffer

What does that have to do with 95 million people out of the workforce?
Is Trumps plan to have them die?

No, nobody is going to die like nobody died after Welfare Reform was passed.

We need to get people off the dole and back to work. It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't."

Pushing people off the dole will force them back to work and yes, increase our labor participation rate. They'll have to give up smoking pot so they can pass a drug test and get a job already.

Well then how does Trumps budget get 95 million people back into the workforce?

Of that 95 million, over half 37 million are disabled and 35 million have one or more part time jobs and over 10 million can not work because they are caring for the sick, the disabled, or young children. Conservatives may be able to find a way to cut off all assistance from government so the weak, the sick, and unemployable will just die off then republicans will have all the money they need for a really big tax cut for wealthy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right. You never asked the question the last eight years, but because Trump took office, now you want immediate results.

Trump budget will slash Medicaid, food stamps programs: reports

So people will suffer

What does that have to do with 95 million people out of the workforce?
Is Trumps plan to have them die?

No, nobody is going to die like nobody died after Welfare Reform was passed.

We need to get people off the dole and back to work. It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't."

Pushing people off the dole will force them back to work and yes, increase our labor participation rate. They'll have to give up smoking pot so they can pass a drug test and get a job already.

Well then how does Trumps budget get 95 million people back into the workforce?

He can't. Nobody can. But at least bring it back near the level before DumBama, and he can do that by cutting down on the handouts.

Obama?
Why not to the level it was under Clinton?

The rate started to drop under Bush

Yes it did. It went down slightly because that's when the economy started to sink. But according to the left, DumBama did such a bang-up job. Employment galore, everybody has medical insurance. Yet....... the participation rate started to drop severely when he took office and connived that path until he left.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sorry, I didn't know I was talking to a fucken retard. So allow me to assist a former public school student:

In 2008, DumBama took over with (look at the chart now) 66% participation rate. In 2015, the participation rate was 62.5. Now get your Flintstone calculator out and deduct 62.5 from 66, and there's your answer.

LOLOL

You're too fucking demented.

Now you're changing the discussion and you don't even realize it because you're batshit insane.

Again.... my contention with your claim wasn't that the labor force participation rate fell under Obama -- it was your idiotic claim that 100% of those people who are not in the labor force, "dropped out" of it.

And to demonstrate how not everyone who's not in the labor force "dropped out" of it, I use teenagers turning 16 who never had a job of looked for one as an example of some of the types of people who did not drop out of the labor force.

It's been driving you nuts ever since.

The Labor Participation Rate is a rather stupid stat to use to discuss the state of the economy. Look at the 50's when things were typically considered good.

Two examples.

Fred loses his job & has to take a lower paying job so his wife now has to go to work. This bad economic news just raised the LPR.

Bill & Irma both work to make ends meet. Bill gets a new job making a pile more money & so Irma no longer has to work & decides to stay home with the kids. This is good economic news & the LPR just lowered.

Or Billy is in college and doesn't work
Or Sally just had a baby and is staying home to care for it
Or Gramps just retired and no longer works
Or Donald is retarded and can't support himself

All lower the labor participation rate

Correct, because none of those things ever happened before DumBama became President.

Obama?
You have to go back to 2000 to see where labor participation reversed. By coincidence, the year baby boomers started becoming eligible to retire

That has nothing to do with it because in our country, seniors have always worked during retirement. In fact, if you look at the data, you'd see that seniors are working more than ever, but the younger people are not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In thought you were talking about the economy? My mistake. You were talking about a stat that really isn't that relevant.

A lot of these "handouts" go to working families. They have jobs. Lots go to single mothers who can't work without child care.

So that's our liability, isn't it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, nobody is going to die like nobody died after Welfare Reform was passed.

We need to get people off the dole and back to work. It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't."

Pushing people off the dole will force them back to work and yes, increase our labor participation rate. They'll have to give up smoking pot so they can pass a drug test and get a job already.

Well then how does Trumps budget get 95 million people back into the workforce?

He can't. Nobody can. But at least bring it back near the level before DumBama, and he can do that by cutting down on the handouts.

So you want to return to an economy shrinking at a rate over 6% & unemployment rate around 8% heading to 10+?

That was before Obama was sworn in.

I think you meant before Bush Jr took office.

We were not discussing the unemployment rate, we were discussing the labor participation rate. Remember that the less people in the labor force, the lower unemployment goes. That's what started this discussion in the first place.

Again, you demonstrate you're a couple of ingredients short of a taco.

I was the one who first started taking about it (in post 699) and I was talking about the unemployment rate. That's what started it. You then made it about the labor force participation rate.

Are you mentally retarded or what? I stated that's how the subject came up. My point of the LPR is that when more people drop out of the workforce, that lowers the unemployment rate. It was the only point I was trying to make at the beginning of this conversation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So people will suffer

What does that have to do with 95 million people out of the workforce?
Is Trumps plan to have them die?

No, nobody is going to die like nobody died after Welfare Reform was passed.

We need to get people off the dole and back to work. It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't."

Pushing people off the dole will force them back to work and yes, increase our labor participation rate. They'll have to give up smoking pot so they can pass a drug test and get a job already.

A person will not be forced to work it there is no job they can do. The states will have to come up with the money to support these people. It may take this to convince conservatives, that welfare queens are a rarities and there are good reasons why most people on the "dole" are there.

I would disagree.........too many personal experiences.

There are plenty of jobs with nobody willing to do them. As a truck driver I spend my day in industrial areas. They are all loaded with HELP WANTED signs company after company. Go back to the same industrial area about a month later, the signs are still out there.

Of course some of them are our customers, so I inquire about what they are offering. Some of them don't pay too badly for a no-skill job and offer plenty of overtime. Same goes with skill or willing to train jobs.

It's not that all Americans won't work, it's that Americans can't pass a drug test. They get applicants, but when it comes time to explain their no tolerance drug policy, the applicants walk out and don't come back.

If these people won't give up pot or whatever they are taking to get a job, how are they making ends meet?

The thing is our government rewards people for not working, or gives incentives to keep their income low. Go past government maximum income, and you lose your government benefits. For them, it's like working for free, so how could we fix that if we don't cut those benefits?

Personnel experiences, that is anecdotal evidence is worthless when you're talking about tens of millions of people of different races, ethnicity, ages, and with every conceivable medical, emotional, and social problem know to man.

I worked in a food pantry for two years, my daughter is a social worker dealing with the problems of the poor every day. I can tell you dozens of true stories about the poor on the dole, but there would be no real pattern because there is no typical person on government benefits. Some are just old, others are terrible sick, disabled, caring for young children or sick and disable parents. Many have serious emotional and mental problems such that no one in their right mind would hire them. Then there are those with zero job skills and have never held down a job for more few weeks. And yes, there are drug addicts and career criminals. And there are many people that are on benefits that are just in between jobs.

There are no typical welfare beneficiaries. The stereotypes are all wrong.

What most people don't realize is half the people on government subsidies are working in part time and temporary jobs so getting a job is not the problem. Earning enough money to support themselves and their family is.

Well you know, as I said, I work with industry. I can tell you countless stories of people at these places that tell me about the people you speak of; one of them includes a personal friend of mine that I've known since we were ten years old.

They can't pass a drug test, so they join these temporary services. Employers (when business really picks up) ask these temporary employees to work more hours. In most cases, they refuse. Why? Because they are receiving food stamps, and if they make too much money, they lose those benefits.

I experienced that on a personal level, but I believe I told you the story about one of my tenants I had to evict. They lost their home, have a court record of eviction, and for what? Food Stamps.

You and I are a perfect example of the liberal and conservative view of social programs. When a liberal thinks of a poor person, they picture a hard working dirty man just coming home from his job. His wife is sweating over a pot of hot soup. The kids are in torn clothing sitting at the kitchen table with a 40 watt lightbulb hanging from a fixture on bare wires from the ceiling.

What do we conservatives see? We see the food stamp lady in front of us at the grocery store. She has four or five kids with two shopping carts of food. She's about 250 lbs and whips out that SNAP's card to pay for that food. Then she whips out a wad of cash to pay for her perfume, huge bags of dog food and cat litter, alcohol, cigarettes and flowers. That's what we see on a consistent basis.

I remember years ago when I was training a new driver and we went into the ghetto. There were about 15 guys drinking out of paper bags around a fire they made in a 55 gallon drum. They were all laughing, some were even dancing to the ghetto blaster somebody brought over. The new guy looked at me and said WTF are they doing this time of the morning? I told them they were all discussing their job interviews.

Most of the poor are not seen out on the street drinking out of paper bags, dud.

They are disabled people, many veterans, who cannot work.

Many are children with parents who can or will not work.

Many are rural poor where the jobs are draining to the cities if not oversees.

Many are people who have had to quit work to care for a loved one who is unable to care for themselves.

Less than 7% of the poor are people like you described, and yet you seem to think your personal experiences driving around define that whole demographic?

That is not exactly a smart call, friend..

 

[Papageorgio]

You hate lies yet you constantly spew them. Pretty funny, look if you have to lie to make your point, go ahead but I call you out on it.

WTF are you referring to jackass? Try quoting any such thing> I might be mistaken, just like you dupes just might be totally FOS as usual, not lying...

Again idiot, you said the only ones talking impeachment was Fox News and the Republicans, you claimed the Democrats weren't talking about it at all. There were at least three Democrats on CNN talking impeachment and I would venture that there are more besides the three on CNN. So you lied, live with it!

Now go spin your BS propaganda that you didn't lie. Lol! We all can read what you posted, you low life lying sack of crap.

Basically no Dems, right. THEY WERE ASKED ABOUT IT, dupe.

So that is why Democratic House member Green spoke from the floor of the House bringing up impeachment? So please keep lying and holding on to your lie. You said no Democrats, I found at least three.

Keep lying LWNJ and I'll keep calling you out.

I said only Fox was going on about it ( and COLLUSION!!!! and the DEM VIOLENCE!!!!), and you found the idiot exceptions who prove the rule.

Wouldn't know about FOX but I do know CNN had three Dems talking impeachment, so you lied. Just admit it and move on.

Listen, jackass- To lie you have to know it, and of course i was generalizing, and I'm sure the ones you're talking about didn't bring it up and were saying it was possible that the investigation could find grounds, hypothetically. So as always it's dupes like you who lie. Blame our stupid punditocracy trying to get clicks and viewers to their never ending repetitious BS...

So you were "generalizing"? You made a blanket statement, even you aren't stupid enough to think no Democrats talked impeachment. Keep with your BS lies, it is entertaining. What a lying little dupe you are.

 

[Papageorgio]

You are a bigot, a hater and a liar, so you are worse than the GOP! LOL!

I hate lies, and don't tell any. You believe exceptions to the rules mean something. Dems dominate the coasts, the GOP dominates farmers and rednecks and ignorant whites. And of course their greedy rich a-hole white lying core.

You hate lies yet you constantly spew them. Pretty funny, look if you have to lie to make your point, go ahead but I call you out on it.

WTF are you referring to jackass? Try quoting any such thing> I might be mistaken, just like you dupes just might be totally FOS as usual, not lying...

So you lied, just admit it and move on and quit justifying your BS.

What lie, jackass?

Again idiot, you said the only ones talking impeachment was Fox News and the Republicans, you claimed the Democrats weren't talking about it at all. There were at least three Democrats on CNN talking impeachment and I would venture that there are more besides the three on CNN. So you lied, live with it!

Now go spin your BS propaganda that you didn't lie. Lol! We all can read what you posted, you low life lying sack of crap.

Basically no Dems, right. THEY WERE ASKED ABOUT IT, dupe.

So that is why Democratic House member Green spoke from the floor of the House bringing up impeachment? So please keep lying and holding on to your lie. You said no Democrats, I found at least three.

Keep lying LWNJ and I'll keep calling you out.

The hell I did.Quote it, liar.

Already did several times, what is funny you called what you said as a generalization and in this post you need it quoted? WTF? You getting your lies confused? Lol! You need to get on some mess nutter, dupe.

 

[P@triot]

Once again, devout left-wing attorney Alan Dershowitz is on record bashing the fascism of the left and making it very clear that no laws were violated even if the idiotic accusations of the left turn out to be true.

Dershowitz argued Mueller’s appointment would benefit Trump given that “collaborating with the Russians” to get elected wasn’t illegal and Mueller’s role would be to investigate illegalities.

“ think he will be the beneficiary of the special prosecutor,” Dershowitz said. “A special prosecutor is supposed to investigate a crime and most of the things that have been leveled at the Trump administration are not criminal acts. Collaborating with the Russians to get yourself elected — not a criminal act. Terrible, morally wrong, but not criminal. The same thing is true with the leaking of the information to the Russians.”

The left has engaged in the most bizarre form of fantasies. They have no clue about the laws, the facts, or even their own government. And yet they insist that President Trump can be impeached.

Dershowitz Questions Purpose of Special Counsel - 'What Is the Crime?' - Breitbart

 

[Slyhunter]

Moron.... again .... you idiotically posited that 100% of the folks who are not in the labor force "dropped out" of it. I pointed to 16 year olds who never had a job and never looked for one are but one example of folks who are not in the labor force and did not drop "out of it."

Find that post where I said 100% of the people dropped out. What I did was post the chart showing the plunge of people that are no longer in the workforce since that big-eared creep took over. Yes, those are the people that dropped out of the workforce. You made the stupid remark that it was 16 year olds that never had a job.

We always had 16 year olds in this country. We always had stay at home moms. We always had people that didn't work. But the huge difference between when DumBama took over and when he left has only one reason.

I asked you how many people "dropped out" of the labor force and you posted the labor force participation rate in response; which of course, represents 100% of the labor force. You're dumber than shit as you now tacitly confess you don't even know what you were talking about.

And again, I never said the entire drop was due to unemployed 16 year olds who were now considered out of the work force. I pointed out d to that group as those who are neither in the labor force nor dropped out of it.

Now you're reduced to lying about what I said because you realize what you said was so stupid.

Sorry, I didn't know I was talking to a fucken retard. So allow me to assist a former public school student:

In 2008, DumBama took over with (look at the chart now) 66% participation rate. In 2015, the participation rate was 62.5. Now get your Flintstone calculator out and deduct 62.5 from 66, and there's your answer.

LOLOL

You're too fucking demented.

Now you're changing the discussion and you don't even realize it because you're batshit insane.

Again.... my contention with your claim wasn't that the labor force participation rate fell under Obama -- it was your idiotic claim that 100% of those people who are not in the labor force, "dropped out" of it.

And to demonstrate how not everyone who's not in the labor force "dropped out" of it, I use teenagers turning 16 who never had a job of looked for one as an example of some of the types of people who did not drop out of the labor force.

It's been driving you nuts ever since.

Hey Jackass, the groups that dropped out for other reasons, than not finding a job, are the same groups that have always been counted. Yet the number grew. More people without jobs ever. What part of ever do you have problem understanding?

 

[Seawytch]

They're still investigating. Relax. These things take time. Money and dead Russians have to be followed. Patience.

Flynn has asked for immunity. Innocent people don't do that.

Yeah, they do when they know that any minor misstep by them in making statements can wind your ass up in prison. Just ask Scooter Libby.

What Scooter Libby did wasn't a "misstep". Just ask Valerie Plame.

This is just another testament to your stupidity! When Libby was being questioned, the FBI knew that Richard Armitage was the one who outed Plame. Since they knew, why were they questioning Libby? Answer: They trapped him into lying about who told him about Plame. It was a witch hunt, pure and simple. How much prison time did Armitage get since he was actually the one who outed her?

Not a day.

You can't be "trapped" into lying. Here's a hint, don't lie to the FBI.

If you tell them that it was Person A, and then later remember it was Person B, it doesn't matter. To them, you lied.

Or more likely the liar tried to cover up the lie and nobody bought it.

 

[regent]

Once again, devout left-wing attorney Alan Dershowitz is on record bashing the fascism of the left and making it very clear that no laws were violated even if the idiotic accusations of the left turn out to be true.

Dershowitz argued Mueller’s appointment would benefit Trump given that “collaborating with the Russians” to get elected wasn’t illegal and Mueller’s role would be to investigate illegalities.

“ think he will be the beneficiary of the special prosecutor,” Dershowitz said. “A special prosecutor is supposed to investigate a crime and most of the things that have been leveled at the Trump administration are not criminal acts. Collaborating with the Russians to get yourself elected — not a criminal act. Terrible, morally wrong, but not criminal. The same thing is true with the leaking of the information to the Russians.”

The left has engaged in the most bizarre form of fantasies. They have no clue about the laws, the facts, or even their own government. And yet they insist that President Trump can be impeached.

Dershowitz Questions Purpose of Special Counsel - 'What Is the Crime?' - Breitbart

Who decides what the impeachment charges will be: the House.
Who decides if Trump is guilty of the impeachment charges: the Senate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, nobody is going to die like nobody died after Welfare Reform was passed.

We need to get people off the dole and back to work. It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't."

Pushing people off the dole will force them back to work and yes, increase our labor participation rate. They'll have to give up smoking pot so they can pass a drug test and get a job already.

A person will not be forced to work it there is no job they can do. The states will have to come up with the money to support these people. It may take this to convince conservatives, that welfare queens are a rarities and there are good reasons why most people on the "dole" are there.

I would disagree.........too many personal experiences.

There are plenty of jobs with nobody willing to do them. As a truck driver I spend my day in industrial areas. They are all loaded with HELP WANTED signs company after company. Go back to the same industrial area about a month later, the signs are still out there.

Of course some of them are our customers, so I inquire about what they are offering. Some of them don't pay too badly for a no-skill job and offer plenty of overtime. Same goes with skill or willing to train jobs.

It's not that all Americans won't work, it's that Americans can't pass a drug test. They get applicants, but when it comes time to explain their no tolerance drug policy, the applicants walk out and don't come back.

If these people won't give up pot or whatever they are taking to get a job, how are they making ends meet?

The thing is our government rewards people for not working, or gives incentives to keep their income low. Go past government maximum income, and you lose your government benefits. For them, it's like working for free, so how could we fix that if we don't cut those benefits?

Personnel experiences, that is anecdotal evidence is worthless when you're talking about tens of millions of people of different races, ethnicity, ages, and with every conceivable medical, emotional, and social problem know to man.

I worked in a food pantry for two years, my daughter is a social worker dealing with the problems of the poor every day. I can tell you dozens of true stories about the poor on the dole, but there would be no real pattern because there is no typical person on government benefits. Some are just old, others are terrible sick, disabled, caring for young children or sick and disable parents. Many have serious emotional and mental problems such that no one in their right mind would hire them. Then there are those with zero job skills and have never held down a job for more few weeks. And yes, there are drug addicts and career criminals. And there are many people that are on benefits that are just in between jobs.

There are no typical welfare beneficiaries. The stereotypes are all wrong.

What most people don't realize is half the people on government subsidies are working in part time and temporary jobs so getting a job is not the problem. Earning enough money to support themselves and their family is.

Well you know, as I said, I work with industry. I can tell you countless stories of people at these places that tell me about the people you speak of; one of them includes a personal friend of mine that I've known since we were ten years old.

They can't pass a drug test, so they join these temporary services. Employers (when business really picks up) ask these temporary employees to work more hours. In most cases, they refuse. Why? Because they are receiving food stamps, and if they make too much money, they lose those benefits.

I experienced that on a personal level, but I believe I told you the story about one of my tenants I had to evict. They lost their home, have a court record of eviction, and for what? Food Stamps.

You and I are a perfect example of the liberal and conservative view of social programs. When a liberal thinks of a poor person, they picture a hard working dirty man just coming home from his job. His wife is sweating over a pot of hot soup. The kids are in torn clothing sitting at the kitchen table with a 40 watt lightbulb hanging from a fixture on bare wires from the ceiling.

What do we conservatives see? We see the food stamp lady in front of us at the grocery store. She has four or five kids with two shopping carts of food. She's about 250 lbs and whips out that SNAP's card to pay for that food. Then she whips out a wad of cash to pay for her perfume, huge bags of dog food and cat litter, alcohol, cigarettes and flowers. That's what we see on a consistent basis.

I remember years ago when I was training a new driver and we went into the ghetto. There were about 15 guys drinking out of paper bags around a fire they made in a 55 gallon drum. They were all laughing, some were even dancing to the ghetto blaster somebody brought over. The new guy looked at me and said WTF are they doing this time of the morning? I told them they were all discussing their job interviews.

Most of the poor are not seen out on the street drinking out of paper bags, dud.

They are disabled people, many veterans, who cannot work.

Many are children with parents who can or will not work.

Many are rural poor where the jobs are draining to the cities if not oversees.

Many are people who have had to quit work to care for a loved one who is unable to care for themselves.

Less than 7% of the poor are people like you described, and yet you seem to think your personal experiences driving around define that whole demographic?

That is not exactly a smart call, friend..

Now that's an interesting statistic. According to you, it's only 7%, yet with personal experiences of mine, it's more like 90%. Hmmmmm.

When I drive the highways of our state, I see people in passenger vehicles all over the place. I often wished I could set up a toll booth; not to charge people money, but just to ask them WTF they do for a living that affords them to drive around during normal working hours? Because the only time I'm out on the road is when I'm working.

I guess I'm going to retire and go to bed now. You see....... I can be rudely awaken in the middle of the night because the stupid fuck landlord next door rented to HUD people, and since they can't appreciate me getting up in the early morning to support their worthless asses in the suburbs, they wake me at 2 or 3 am coming home from the bar (or wherever) slamming car doors, playing their radio, and laughing outloud because they are so drunk or high, and I need to catch up on my sleep before that happens AGAIN!

 

[francoHFW]

WTF are you referring to jackass? Try quoting any such thing> I might be mistaken, just like you dupes just might be totally FOS as usual, not lying...
Basically no Dems, right. THEY WERE ASKED ABOUT IT, dupe.

So that is why Democratic House member Green spoke from the floor of the House bringing up impeachment? So please keep lying and holding on to your lie. You said no Democrats, I found at least three.

Keep lying LWNJ and I'll keep calling you out.

I said only Fox was going on about it ( and COLLUSION!!!! and the DEM VIOLENCE!!!!), and you found the idiot exceptions who prove the rule.

Wouldn't know about FOX but I do know CNN had three Dems talking impeachment, so you lied. Just admit it and move on.

Listen, jackass- To lie you have to know it, and of course i was generalizing, and I'm sure the ones you're talking about didn't bring it up and were saying it was possible that the investigation could find grounds, hypothetically. So as always it's dupes like you who lie. Blame our stupid punditocracy trying to get clicks and viewers to their never ending repetitious BS...

So you were "generalizing"? You made a blanket statement, even you aren't stupid enough to think no Democrats talked impeachment. Keep with your BS lies, it is entertaining. What a lying little dupe you are.

Dealing with you is like dealing with the liars and spinners of Fox or Rush. I never said there was not a single Dem talking impeachment, jackass liar...Dems are waiting for the investigation and facts, unlike your scumbag GOP propagandists ...25 years of "liar and corrupt" Clinton and Obama BS...no facts on what GOP tax policy have done to the country or about the Boooosh WORLD DEPRESSION. You live on an imaginary planet, dupe.

 

[Flopper]

As one Republican Senator said, this part of the budget is going nowhere. The reason is obvious.

Federal aid as a percentage of general revenue

1. Mississippi, 42.9%
2. Louisiana, 41.9%
3. Tennessee, 39.5%
4. South Dakota, 39.0%
5. Missouri, 38.2%
6. Montana, 37.4%
7. Georgia, 37.3%
8. New Mexico, 36.6%
9. Alabama, 36.1%
10. Maine, 35.3%

All Trump can do is try. For those that stop him, they will be held accountable come election time.

Not gonna happen, FBI (Special Council) are going to stop him.

They don't have the authority. If Trump makes a budget and the houses pass it, it's officially the budget.

That's not how the US budget becomes law.

1. The President submits a budget request to Congress
2. The House and Senate each pass budget resolutions which are changes, deletions, and additions to the presidents budget
3. House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees "markup" appropriations bills which contain new appropriations
4. The House and Senate vote on appropriations bills and reconcile differences
5. The President signs each appropriations bill and the budget becomes law. The president can not veto the budget itself, no matter what congress comes up with.

Budget Process

How is that different than what I said? You claim that somehow, the FBI can stop that. I've never seen that done in my entire life.

I don't think we are discussing the same thing.

You said, All Trump can do is try. For those that stop him, they will be held accountable come election time.
I replied, Not gonna happen, FBI (Special Council) are going to stop him.
Then you replied, They don't have the authority. If Trump makes a budget and the houses pass it, it's officially the budget
How did we get on the budget?

 

[Flopper]

So people will suffer

What does that have to do with 95 million people out of the workforce?
Is Trumps plan to have them die?

No, nobody is going to die like nobody died after Welfare Reform was passed.

We need to get people off the dole and back to work. It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't."

Pushing people off the dole will force them back to work and yes, increase our labor participation rate. They'll have to give up smoking pot so they can pass a drug test and get a job already.

A person will not be forced to work it there is no job they can do. The states will have to come up with the money to support these people. It may take this to convince conservatives, that welfare queens are a rarities and there are good reasons why most people on the "dole" are there.

I would disagree.........too many personal experiences.

There are plenty of jobs with nobody willing to do them. As a truck driver I spend my day in industrial areas. They are all loaded with HELP WANTED signs company after company. Go back to the same industrial area about a month later, the signs are still out there.

Of course some of them are our customers, so I inquire about what they are offering. Some of them don't pay too badly for a no-skill job and offer plenty of overtime. Same goes with skill or willing to train jobs.

It's not that all Americans won't work, it's that Americans can't pass a drug test. They get applicants, but when it comes time to explain their no tolerance drug policy, the applicants walk out and don't come back.

If these people won't give up pot or whatever they are taking to get a job, how are they making ends meet?

The thing is our government rewards people for not working, or gives incentives to keep their income low. Go past government maximum income, and you lose your government benefits. For them, it's like working for free, so how could we fix that if we don't cut those benefits?

Personnel experiences, that is anecdotal evidence is worthless when you're talking about tens of millions of people of different races, ethnicity, ages, and with every conceivable medical, emotional, and social problem know to man.

I worked in a food pantry for two years, my daughter is a social worker dealing with the problems of the poor every day. I can tell you dozens of true stories about the poor on the dole, but there would be no real pattern because there is no typical person on government benefits. Some are just old, others are terrible sick, disabled, caring for young children or sick and disable parents. Many have serious emotional and mental problems such that no one in their right mind would hire them. Then there are those with zero job skills and have never held down a job for more few weeks. And yes, there are drug addicts and career criminals. And there are many people that are on benefits that are just in between jobs.

There are no typical welfare beneficiaries. The stereotypes are all wrong.

What most people don't realize is half the people on government subsidies are working in part time and temporary jobs so getting a job is not the problem. Earning enough money to support themselves and their family is.

Well you know, as I said, I work with industry. I can tell you countless stories of people at these places that tell me about the people you speak of; one of them includes a personal friend of mine that I've known since we were ten years old.

They can't pass a drug test, so they join these temporary services. Employers (when business really picks up) ask these temporary employees to work more hours. In most cases, they refuse. Why? Because they are receiving food stamps, and if they make too much money, they lose those benefits.

I experienced that on a personal level, but I believe I told you the story about one of my tenants I had to evict. They lost their home, have a court record of eviction, and for what? Food Stamps.

You and I are a perfect example of the liberal and conservative view of social programs. When a liberal thinks of a poor person, they picture a hard working dirty man just coming home from his job. His wife is sweating over a pot of hot soup. The kids are in torn clothing sitting at the kitchen table with a 40 watt lightbulb hanging from a fixture on bare wires from the ceiling.

What do we conservatives see? We see the food stamp lady in front of us at the grocery store. She has four or five kids with two shopping carts of food. She's about 250 lbs and whips out that SNAP's card to pay for that food. Then she whips out a wad of cash to pay for her perfume, huge bags of dog food and cat litter, alcohol, cigarettes and flowers. That's what we see on a consistent basis.

I remember years ago when I was training a new driver and we went into the ghetto. There were about 15 guys drinking out of paper bags around a fire they made in a 55 gallon drum. They were all laughing, some were even dancing to the ghetto blaster somebody brought over. The new guy looked at me and said WTF are they doing this time of the morning? I told them they were all discussing their job interviews.

I agree with some things you're saying but I certain do not see people on government welfare as meeting any particular stereotype because I've seen so many with different situations. There is just no one size fits all. My grandson lost his job at the bank during the recession and the family had food stamps and Medicaid for nearly year till he got a full time job. There's a guy that panhandles on the entrance to the interstate. He is a complete mental case and belongs in an institution. I doubt he has had a job in 10 years and probably will never have one. There's needle alley downtown, a favorite gather places for drug addicts. I would bet most of those people are on some type of assistance. Take it away, they will just steal more, sleep on the streets, beg money from their families.

Probably the biggest misconception about social services is that they can be delivered to just the people who really deserve the help and all the irresponsible, undeserving, lazy people can be denied services forcing them to get a job.

 

[Faun]

Well then how does Trumps budget get 95 million people back into the workforce?

He can't. Nobody can. But at least bring it back near the level before DumBama, and he can do that by cutting down on the handouts.

So you want to return to an economy shrinking at a rate over 6% & unemployment rate around 8% heading to 10+?

That was before Obama was sworn in.

I think you meant before Bush Jr took office.

We were not discussing the unemployment rate, we were discussing the labor participation rate. Remember that the less people in the labor force, the lower unemployment goes. That's what started this discussion in the first place.

Again, you demonstrate you're a couple of ingredients short of a taco.

I was the one who first started taking about it (in post 699) and I was talking about the unemployment rate. That's what started it. You then made it about the labor force participation rate.

Are you mentally retarded or what? I stated that's how the subject came up. My point of the LPR is that when more people drop out of the workforce, that lowers the unemployment rate. It was the only point I was trying to make at the beginning of this conversation.

You're fucking deranged. You just said, "we were not discussing the unemployment rate, we were discussing the labor participation rate."

That's not true. I first started talking about the unemployment rate here:

By electing a president who took the unemployment down from 10% to 5%, nearly tripled the stock market, gave us national healthcare, kept this country from slipping into a depression despite Republicans best efforts.

... before you pivoted to the labor force participation rate.

 

[Faun]

Moron.... again .... you idiotically posited that 100% of the folks who are not in the labor force "dropped out" of it. I pointed to 16 year olds who never had a job and never looked for one are but one example of folks who are not in the labor force and did not drop "out of it."

Find that post where I said 100% of the people dropped out. What I did was post the chart showing the plunge of people that are no longer in the workforce since that big-eared creep took over. Yes, those are the people that dropped out of the workforce. You made the stupid remark that it was 16 year olds that never had a job.

We always had 16 year olds in this country. We always had stay at home moms. We always had people that didn't work. But the huge difference between when DumBama took over and when he left has only one reason.

I asked you how many people "dropped out" of the labor force and you posted the labor force participation rate in response; which of course, represents 100% of the labor force. You're dumber than shit as you now tacitly confess you don't even know what you were talking about.

And again, I never said the entire drop was due to unemployed 16 year olds who were now considered out of the work force. I pointed out d to that group as those who are neither in the labor force nor dropped out of it.

Now you're reduced to lying about what I said because you realize what you said was so stupid.

Sorry, I didn't know I was talking to a fucken retard. So allow me to assist a former public school student:

In 2008, DumBama took over with (look at the chart now) 66% participation rate. In 2015, the participation rate was 62.5. Now get your Flintstone calculator out and deduct 62.5 from 66, and there's your answer.

LOLOL

You're too fucking demented.

Now you're changing the discussion and you don't even realize it because you're batshit insane.

Again.... my contention with your claim wasn't that the labor force participation rate fell under Obama -- it was your idiotic claim that 100% of those people who are not in the labor force, "dropped out" of it.

And to demonstrate how not everyone who's not in the labor force "dropped out" of it, I use teenagers turning 16 who never had a job of looked for one as an example of some of the types of people who did not drop out of the labor force.

It's been driving you nuts ever since.

Hey Jackass, the groups that dropped out for other reasons, than not finding a job, are the same groups that have always been counted. Yet the number grew. More people without jobs ever. What part of ever do you have problem understanding?

Which has nothing to do with what I said. I see you have the attention span of a gnat.

Your G-d given limitations aside, the not in labor force figures always rise. Try naming the last president who left office with fewer people without jobs than when they started....

Here, I'll even help you out by giving you the link needed to answer that.....

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data