Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's only partially the truth though. There are many who are on disability that could work........if the work was there that paid more than minimum.
The government approves these claims to get people off the unemployment roles as high unemployment tends to hurt at election time.
So we condemn those on disability when in the big picture the problem is the screwed up economy.
Gladhands made that point. Minimum wages need to be higher than what one can earn milking out Disability if we are ever to even begin breaking the cycle of program abuse.
I believe the point of this thread was to highlight that Trump's health care policies will have a damaging effect on the very people who voted for him.
The conversation should be about why that is happening and why/how they are still supporting him.
It's only partially the truth though. There are many who are on disability that could work........if the work was there that paid more than minimum.
The government approves these claims to get people off the unemployment roles as high unemployment tends to hurt at election time.
So we condemn those on disability when in the big picture the problem is the screwed up economy.
Not even close to the point. The economy could be going great and people in rural areas making $75K annually and health care costs would still be huge problem. Ignore it all you want.
I believe the point of this thread was to highlight that Trump's health care policies will have a damaging effect on the very people who voted for him.
The conversation should be about why that is happening and why/how they are still supporting him.
Thread has already devolved into a bunch of verbal nonsense to deflect away from OP's point. As usual, somehow it's Obama's fault.
Does it bother you that under Trump they may be sending more troops to train and advise?
Rather we just totally yanked the plug and let the entire situation devolve?
"WASHINGTON — The commander of the American-led international military force in Afghanistan, warning that the United States and its NATO allies are facing a “stalemate,” told Congress on Thursday that he needed a few thousand additional troops to more effectively train and advise Afghan soldiers."
"The international force that is helping the Afghans currently has 13,300 troops, 8,400 of whom are American."
Thread has already devolved into a bunch of verbal nonsense to deflect away from OP's point. As usual, somehow it's Obama's fault.
You are correct. By setting the record straight I have added to that diversion, unfortunately.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
