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

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

So the solution (according to you) is keep giving them assistance so they can continue their drug habit? Why am I not comfortable with that?

This is a major difference between conservatism and liberalism. We conservatives are not against helping people, we are against helping people who could otherwise help themselves. Your solution is to keep prolonging their drug addiction, and ours is to cut them off forcing (at least some of them) to stop using drugs and get a job. If they are going to steal, rob and live on the streets, they will do so with or without our tax dollars.

Oh! But these poor people can't help themselves but to feed their addiction. Well......they should have never used dope in the first place.

Then there are the people who have kids they can't afford. In a society like ours, we come to the rescue under the concern of the children. That's why in my opinion, if you apply for public assistance, you don't get one red cent until you're fixed first. No more having families while living on taxpayer dollars. That's how you start to solve poverty.

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.

Why not? That's the way private charities work. Religious and private organizations set up homeless shelters, but you will be denied help if you don't obey the rules. Rule one is you can't go there intoxicated. Rule two is no smoking in the building. Rule three is no fighting or you will be automatically kicked out. They don't seem to have too many problems at these places with those requirements.

You can't separate those who need help from those that don't? Why not? Maine did. In Maine, they created minimum requirements to get food stamps if you are just collecting them for yourself. You need to have a job working at least 20 hours per week, volunteer your time for at least 20 hours per month, or be enrolled in a vocational program to get training for a job. Guess what? Most of those people dropped out of the food stamp program. Guess they weren't as hungry as we thought.

 

[RealDave]

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.

Finally you admit that Bush left Obama with a falling LPR. It leveled out under Obama. Look at a graph.

When re you going to lame Bush who started with a balanced budget & left with the worst recession in 80 years?

 

[RealDave]

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.

So the solution (according to you) is keep giving them assistance so they can continue their drug habit? Why am I not comfortable with that?

This is a major difference between conservatism and liberalism. We conservatives are not against helping people, we are against helping people who could otherwise help themselves. Your solution is to keep prolonging their drug addiction, and ours is to cut them off forcing (at least some of them) to stop using drugs and get a job. If they are going to steal, rob and live on the streets, they will do so with or without our tax dollars.

Oh! But these poor people can't help themselves but to feed their addiction. Well......they should have never used dope in the first place.

Then there are the people who have kids they can't afford. In a society like ours, we come to the rescue under the concern of the children. That's why in my opinion, if you apply for public assistance, you don't get one red cent until you're fixed first. No more having families while living on taxpayer dollars. That's how you start to solve poverty.

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.

Why not? That's the way private charities work. Religious and private organizations set up homeless shelters, but you will be denied help if you don't obey the rules. Rule one is you can't go there intoxicated. Rule two is no smoking in the building. Rule three is no fighting or you will be automatically kicked out. They don't seem to have too many problems at these places with those requirements.

You can't separate those who need help from those that don't? Why not? Maine did. In Maine, they created minimum requirements to get food stamps if you are just collecting them for yourself. You need to have a job working at least 20 hours per week, volunteer your time for at least 20 hours per month, or be enrolled in a vocational program to get training for a job. Guess what? Most of those people dropped out of the food stamp program. Guess they weren't as hungry as we thought.

Those Maine requirements were only for adults without dependents. They limited benefits to three months. Many states have similar restraints for adults without dependents.

For every program, there are those who take advantage. Including huge corporations. To use these people to rail against a program & call all its users lazy druggies is ridiculous.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

It declined for eight years under Bush
Where was your outrage?
Where is your outrage now?

 

[Geaux4it]

POTUS will show that no nothing Obama what annual GDP growth is. Obama was useless and I doubt he has improved himself much above the little effort he applied

What a dark period for America from 2008-2016.

No pun intended

-Geaux

 

[rightwinger]

POTUS will show that no nothing Obama what annual GDP growth is. Obama was useless and I doubt he has improved himself much above the little effort he applied

What a dark period for America from 2008-2016.

No pun intended

-Geaux

Trumps first quarter of GDP was 0.7%

How's he doing?

 

[Geaux4it]

POTUS will show that no nothing Obama what annual GDP growth is. Obama was useless and I doubt he has improved himself much above the little effort he applied

What a dark period for America from 2008-2016.

No pun intended

-Geaux

Trumps first quarter of GDP was 0.7%

How's he doing?

read 'Annual'
Come back after 8 years and I'll answer.

Pace yourself dude

-Geaux

 

[Flopper]

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.

So the solution (according to you) is keep giving them assistance so they can continue their drug habit? Why am I not comfortable with that?

This is a major difference between conservatism and liberalism. We conservatives are not against helping people, we are against helping people who could otherwise help themselves. Your solution is to keep prolonging their drug addiction, and ours is to cut them off forcing (at least some of them) to stop using drugs and get a job. If they are going to steal, rob and live on the streets, they will do so with or without our tax dollars.

Oh! But these poor people can't help themselves but to feed their addiction. Well......they should have never used dope in the first place.

Then there are the people who have kids they can't afford. In a society like ours, we come to the rescue under the concern of the children. That's why in my opinion, if you apply for public assistance, you don't get one red cent until you're fixed first. No more having families while living on taxpayer dollars. That's how you start to solve poverty.

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.

Why not? That's the way private charities work. Religious and private organizations set up homeless shelters, but you will be denied help if you don't obey the rules. Rule one is you can't go there intoxicated. Rule two is no smoking in the building. Rule three is no fighting or you will be automatically kicked out. They don't seem to have too many problems at these places with those requirements.

You can't separate those who need help from those that don't? Why not? Maine did. In Maine, they created minimum requirements to get food stamps if you are just collecting them for yourself. You need to have a job working at least 20 hours per week, volunteer your time for at least 20 hours per month, or be enrolled in a vocational program to get training for a job. Guess what? Most of those people dropped out of the food stamp program. Guess they weren't as hungry as we thought.

Cutting food stamps or other subsidies is not a cure for addiction. Addicts are going to use regardless because they are addicted. People that are heavy into drugs will do without food, without sheller, beg, borrow, or steal to support their habit.

Let's take a look at the Maine program that was to reduce dependency, save the state millions of dollars and rid the streets of drug addicts. After 2 years, the facts tell a much different. story.

Since 2015, only 23 people were subjected to testing, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services told The Associated Press. That’s is about 0.01 percent of the total welfare recipients in Maine. Of those 23 people that were tested 11 failed and 4 refused to take the test and they lost TANF benefits. Interviews with those that lost benefits, had no significant change in level of employment. Several said they had entered a drug treatment program. The remainder said their drug use was about the same as before they lost benefits.

What has happen in Maine supports the findings of the Urban Institute and a study done by the University of Michigan. Unlike the conservation vision of full employment by abolishing government support, people dropped from welfare rolls do not get a job or a better job. So what do they do? They sell food stamps, sell blood, skip meals, shoplift, doubled up with friends, ask support from families and friend, scavenged trash bins for bottles and cans and returned to relationships with violent partners all with children in tow.

 

[Flopper]

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.

So the solution (according to you) is keep giving them assistance so they can continue their drug habit? Why am I not comfortable with that?

This is a major difference between conservatism and liberalism. We conservatives are not against helping people, we are against helping people who could otherwise help themselves. Your solution is to keep prolonging their drug addiction, and ours is to cut them off forcing (at least some of them) to stop using drugs and get a job. If they are going to steal, rob and live on the streets, they will do so with or without our tax dollars.

Oh! But these poor people can't help themselves but to feed their addiction. Well......they should have never used dope in the first place.

Then there are the people who have kids they can't afford. In a society like ours, we come to the rescue under the concern of the children. That's why in my opinion, if you apply for public assistance, you don't get one red cent until you're fixed first. No more having families while living on taxpayer dollars. That's how you start to solve poverty.

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.

Why not? That's the way private charities work. Religious and private organizations set up homeless shelters, but you will be denied help if you don't obey the rules. Rule one is you can't go there intoxicated. Rule two is no smoking in the building. Rule three is no fighting or you will be automatically kicked out. They don't seem to have too many problems at these places with those requirements.

You can't separate those who need help from those that don't? Why not? Maine did. In Maine, they created minimum requirements to get food stamps if you are just collecting them for yourself. You need to have a job working at least 20 hours per week, volunteer your time for at least 20 hours per month, or be enrolled in a vocational program to get training for a job. Guess what? Most of those people dropped out of the food stamp program. Guess they weren't as hungry as we thought.

Far from it. Democrats typically support programs that attack the root cause of poverty, lack of job skills, poor home environment for children, drug and alcohol treatment programs, low wages, and creation of jobs for the poor all of which are vigorously opposed by conservatives.

Most conservatives support programs that give the poor a good kick in ass, take away food stamps to starve them, close down government housing to put them on the streets, cut off financial support so they can't buy necessities. This reasoning is based on the erroneous believe that most people on government assistance are just lazy, ignoring the fact that most of the money goes to the elderly, sick and disabled, and single parent families.

 

[rightwinger]

POTUS will show that no nothing Obama what annual GDP growth is. Obama was useless and I doubt he has improved himself much above the little effort he applied

What a dark period for America from 2008-2016.

No pun intended

-Geaux

Trumps first quarter of GDP was 0.7%

How's he doing?

read 'Annual'
Come back after 8 years and I'll answer.

Pace yourself dude

-Geaux

Trump promised 4% annual GDP growth

With 0.7% in his first quarter.....looks like he got a lot a splain'n to do!

 

[ph3iron]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/us/politics/democrats-trump-impeachment.html

A few of the saner Democrats are trying to cool off the radicalized base, but apparently insanity has become the prevailing wind.

Let me tell you this. Millions of Americans voted for Donald Trump, we still support him, and if you do manage to topple him, all hell will break loose.

Simply put, we have had enough of the Democrats, the media, the academia, the bureaucrats, and the Hollywood types who have ruined our country and Trump has promised to fix it.

If you think you can depose him without a fight, you are wrong.

We will form human barricades to keep him from leaving the White House, and we will go into the streets, if necessary and show you what it means when the normally law abiding, patriotic, tax paying, hard working American people have finally had enough.

This is a warning which you should heed.

If you depose Trump, it will lead to all out civil war.

So you support a guy who dragged his wife by the hair before raping her, grabbed vaginas because he was "important" insulted deformed people , peeps into teenage girls dressing rooms. A total low life
What kind of guy are you? Jealous?
Sex starved?
I presume you are a high school white guy?

 

[ph3iron]

POTUS will show that no nothing Obama what annual GDP growth is. Obama was useless and I doubt he has improved himself much above the little effort he applied

What a dark period for America from 2008-2016.

No pun intended

-Geaux

Trumps first quarter of GDP was 0.7%

How's he doing?

read 'Annual'
Come back after 8 years and I'll answer.

Pace yourself dude

-Geaux

Trump promised 4% annual GDP growth

With 0.7% in his first quarter.....looks like he got a lot a splain'n to do!

OMG facts? Give him time That was Obamas fault.
Did we see the economist who said the peak was 1973? world will have low growth forever?
Trumpies don't care they will a
Ways blame somone else

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Far from it. Democrats typically support programs that attack the root cause of poverty, lack of job skills, poor home environment for children, drug and alcohol treatment programs, low wages, and creation of jobs for the poor all of which are vigorously opposed by conservatives.

Oh really? Then why did Democrats have a Welcome Mat on or borders during DumBama's eight years? Those immigrants took jobs away from Americans, particularly lower skilled jobs that our poor people could do. A root cause of poverty is single-parent homes, and Democrats strongly supported that in the 70's and 80's to buy votes of women libbers. Drug and alcohol programs? Do you know who leads the charge for the legalization of marijuana?

Most conservatives support programs that give the poor a good kick in ass, take away food stamps to starve them, close down government housing to put them on the streets, cut off financial support so they can't buy necessities. This reasoning is based on the erroneous believe that most people on government assistance are just lazy, ignoring the fact that most of the money goes to the elderly, sick and disabled, and single parent families.

Yeah, we did something like that in the 90's called Welfare Reform. And guess what? Nobody was out on the streets. Nobody did without necessities. In fact, the program was quite successful until it got watered down.

Yes, we need to cut down on government housing. When HUD people are getting homes in the suburbs instead of in the city where they belong, we are giving HUD way too much money. You want me to get up and go to work everyday to support you? Fine with me, but I'll support you over there--not next door to me. That's what I'm against.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

So the solution (according to you) is keep giving them assistance so they can continue their drug habit? Why am I not comfortable with that?

This is a major difference between conservatism and liberalism. We conservatives are not against helping people, we are against helping people who could otherwise help themselves. Your solution is to keep prolonging their drug addiction, and ours is to cut them off forcing (at least some of them) to stop using drugs and get a job. If they are going to steal, rob and live on the streets, they will do so with or without our tax dollars.

Oh! But these poor people can't help themselves but to feed their addiction. Well......they should have never used dope in the first place.

Then there are the people who have kids they can't afford. In a society like ours, we come to the rescue under the concern of the children. That's why in my opinion, if you apply for public assistance, you don't get one red cent until you're fixed first. No more having families while living on taxpayer dollars. That's how you start to solve poverty.

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.

Why not? That's the way private charities work. Religious and private organizations set up homeless shelters, but you will be denied help if you don't obey the rules. Rule one is you can't go there intoxicated. Rule two is no smoking in the building. Rule three is no fighting or you will be automatically kicked out. They don't seem to have too many problems at these places with those requirements.

You can't separate those who need help from those that don't? Why not? Maine did. In Maine, they created minimum requirements to get food stamps if you are just collecting them for yourself. You need to have a job working at least 20 hours per week, volunteer your time for at least 20 hours per month, or be enrolled in a vocational program to get training for a job. Guess what? Most of those people dropped out of the food stamp program. Guess they weren't as hungry as we thought.

Cutting food stamps or other subsidies is not a cure for addiction. Addicts are going to use regardless because they are addicted. People that are heavy into drugs will do without food, without sheller, beg, borrow, or steal to support their habit.

Let's take a look at the Maine program that was to reduce dependency, save the state millions of dollars and rid the streets of drug addicts. After 2 years, the facts tell a much different. story.

Since 2015, only 23 people were subjected to testing, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services told The Associated Press. That’s is about 0.01 percent of the total welfare recipients in Maine. Of those 23 people that were tested 11 failed and 4 refused to take the test and they lost TANF benefits. Interviews with those that lost benefits, had no significant change in level of employment. Several said they had entered a drug treatment program. The remainder said their drug use was about the same as before they lost benefits.

What has happen in Maine supports the findings of the Urban Institute and a study done by the University of Michigan. Unlike the conservation vision of full employment by abolishing government support, people dropped from welfare rolls do not get a job or a better job. So what do they do? They sell food stamps, sell blood, skip meals, shoplift, doubled up with friends, ask support from families and friend, scavenged trash bins for bottles and cans and returned to relationships with violent partners all with children in tow.

Then that's their choice. It's no reason why taxpayers should support them.

If a person takes drugs to get high, and then gets hooked on them, that should be their problem, not ours. If they break any laws along the way, we should lock them up where there are no drugs.

As far as Maine is concerned, I was talking about their food stamp program which you didn't want to discuss, so you changed the subject to general welfare. Anybody that can't take care of their children for any reason should have those children taken away for adoption.

 

[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.

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.

It declined for eight years under Bush
Where was your outrage?
Where is your outrage now?

It declined 1% in his eight years of office, and considering the economy at the time and after the tragedy of 911, that wasn't all too bad.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

So the solution (according to you) is keep giving them assistance so they can continue their drug habit? Why am I not comfortable with that?

This is a major difference between conservatism and liberalism. We conservatives are not against helping people, we are against helping people who could otherwise help themselves. Your solution is to keep prolonging their drug addiction, and ours is to cut them off forcing (at least some of them) to stop using drugs and get a job. If they are going to steal, rob and live on the streets, they will do so with or without our tax dollars.

Oh! But these poor people can't help themselves but to feed their addiction. Well......they should have never used dope in the first place.

Then there are the people who have kids they can't afford. In a society like ours, we come to the rescue under the concern of the children. That's why in my opinion, if you apply for public assistance, you don't get one red cent until you're fixed first. No more having families while living on taxpayer dollars. That's how you start to solve poverty.

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.

Why not? That's the way private charities work. Religious and private organizations set up homeless shelters, but you will be denied help if you don't obey the rules. Rule one is you can't go there intoxicated. Rule two is no smoking in the building. Rule three is no fighting or you will be automatically kicked out. They don't seem to have too many problems at these places with those requirements.

You can't separate those who need help from those that don't? Why not? Maine did. In Maine, they created minimum requirements to get food stamps if you are just collecting them for yourself. You need to have a job working at least 20 hours per week, volunteer your time for at least 20 hours per month, or be enrolled in a vocational program to get training for a job. Guess what? Most of those people dropped out of the food stamp program. Guess they weren't as hungry as we thought.

Those Maine requirements were only for adults without dependents. They limited benefits to three months. Many states have similar restraints for adults without dependents.

For every program, there are those who take advantage. Including huge corporations. To use these people to rail against a program & call all its users lazy druggies is ridiculous.

Yes, I pointed that out. Those requirements were not for people with dependents.

There are several Republican states with similar requirements, but the point is all those people did not need food stamps, it's just that anybody will take anything for free if it's offered. So I don't understand why we can't take such a successful strategy and apply it across the entire country.

 

[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.

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.

Finally you admit that Bush left Obama with a falling LPR. It leveled out under Obama. Look at a graph.

When re you going to lame Bush who started with a balanced budget & left with the worst recession in 80 years?

Maybe you better look again. DumBama took over in 2008:

So where is this leveling off at???

 

[RealDave]

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.

It declined for eight years under Bush
Where was your outrage?
Where is your outrage now?

It declined 1% in his eight years of office, and considering the economy at the time and after the tragedy of 911, that wasn't all too bad.

And the Bush recession - the worse in 80 fricken years is of no concern. I get it.

You keep p;lacing all this importance on the LPR. When the recession was finally ended, the unemployment rate was over 10% & Obama took it to under 5% yet the LPR dropped. Explain it.

 

[Borillar]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/us/politics/democrats-trump-impeachment.html

A few of the saner Democrats are trying to cool off the radicalized base, but apparently insanity has become the prevailing wind.

Let me tell you this. Millions of Americans voted for Donald Trump, we still support him, and if you do manage to topple him, all hell will break loose.

Simply put, we have had enough of the Democrats, the media, the academia, the bureaucrats, and the Hollywood types who have ruined our country and Trump has promised to fix it.

If you think you can depose him without a fight, you are wrong.

We will form human barricades to keep him from leaving the White House, and we will go into the streets, if necessary and show you what it means when the normally law abiding, patriotic, tax paying, hard working American people have finally had enough.

This is a warning which you should heed.

If you depose Trump, it will lead to all out civil war.

Yeah, well millions of voters voted for Bill Clinton. That didn't stop the pugs from putting his entire life under a microscope and impeaching him over lying about a blowjob. Giving away secrets to the Russians and colluding with them to affect the presidential election is a lot more serious than a blowjob.

BTW, millions more voted against Trump than voted for him. The guy can't go a day without stepping on his own dick. A lot of people have had enough of his lying, tweeting, golfing, and daily gaffes.

I really doubt that Trump will ever be impeached though. Too many repugs have tied their careers to him. Just a matter of numbers. I doubt that there would be 66 votes against him even if all the allegations against him prove to be true.

 

[RASTAMEN]

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.

The point that you aren't getting is that a change in the LPR is not automatically good or bad but rather one needs to find out why the change was made.

As an example, when the Exchanges kicked in & a lot of people over 50 could quit working because their health insurance rates went way down. Some could retire. When you are paying $1800 a month & then your rate is $950 before subsidies , some decided to retire.

If you are getting a subsidy for Commie Care, you are not making enough to retire. Commie Care is a vote buying program designed so french fry makers could afford insurance. If you make a standard income, you don't get much of a subsidy if anything at all, so it's unaffordable.

But french fry makers vote Democrat and many middle-class people vote Republican, so we don't count in the eyes of a Democrat politician.