Senator Elizabeth Warren introduces '$10 a day' child care legislation

You don't want them to be a factor, but they exist and you failed to account for them. I'm merely pointing out that you included them in your claim (without mentioning them) in order to claim there isn't a labor shortage.

That's not my fault. That's your fault.
there isnt a ;labor shortage,, thers a shortage of people willing to work,, so lets start with the ones living off the government that are fully capable of working and see what we have after that,,
 
there isnt a ;labor shortage,, thers a shortage of people willing to work,, so lets start with the ones living off the government that are fully capable of working and see what we have after that,,
How many people are fully capable of working but living off the government?
 
Let's check the record:

Turns out I did ask which ones your brother was on.

Go ahead, tell me what he gets from the government. Let's talk about it.
and again thats not the comment I waas referring too,,

dud you are all over the place,, and since you seem to know what I meant ir thinking you should be able to answer your own questions,,

why would I want to talk to you about my lazy brother,, I just said they pay him to not work when he is fully capable of working,,
 
How many people are fully capable of working but living off the government?
thats the problem,, we dont know because the government doesnt care if they are,, they just hand it out,,

you said you didnt know how government benefits work so how about you go educate yourself and get back to me??
 
and again thats not the comment I waas referring too,,

dud you are all over the place,, and since you seem to know what I meant ir thinking you should be able to answer your own questions,,

why would I want to talk to you about my lazy brother,, I just said they pay him to not work when he is fully capable of working,,
Ah, so you're again ignoring what isn't convenient to you.

If you didn't want to talk about your lazy brother, you shouldn't have brought him up. I didn't do that. You did.

It's pretty slimy the way you bring things up and then run away from them. Who is paying your brother what?
 
Ah, so you're again ignoring what isn't convenient to you.

If you didn't want to talk about your lazy brother, you shouldn't have brought him up. I didn't do that. You did.

It's pretty slimy the way you bring things up and then run away from them. Who is paying your brother what?
I brought him up as an example that you asked for you stupid inbred fuck,,
 
thats the problem,, we dont know because the government doesnt care if they are,, they just hand it out,,

you said you didnt know how government benefits work so how about you go educate yourself and get back to me??
So you're in a discussion you know nothing about?

Your entire point is that we don't have a labor shortage because the government pays people not to work but you just revealed that you don't actually have any idea if that's the case or not.

Congrats. You just ended your own argument.
 
So you're in a discussion you know nothing about?

Your entire point is that we don't have a labor shortage because the government pays people not to work but you just revealed that you don't actually have any idea if that's the case or not.

Congrats. You just ended your own argument.
I am well aware of the discussion,, its you that said you knew nothing about how government benefits worked,,
 
But he's not an example since you're unwilling to describe what he's an example of.
hes an example of a fully capable person that can work but doesnt because the government covers his living expenses,,

but since as you said you know nothing about how gov benefits work you dont understand it,,
 
I am well aware of the discussion
You're ignorant about your own argument since you have no idea how many people are in the category of "government paying them not to work", which is the foundation of your entire argument. You just revealed that your own argument has no substantiation.
its you that said you knew nothing about how government benefits worked,,
That's actually not what I said. You just lied about me.
 
You're ignorant about your own argument since you have no idea how many people are in the category of "government paying them not to work", which is the foundation of your entire argument. You just revealed that your own argument has no substantiation.

That's actually not what I said. You just lied about me.
how would you know if I am ignorant when you admitted you dont even know what I am talking about works??
 
hes an example of a fully capable person that can work but doesnt because the government covers his living expenses,,

but since as you said you know nothing about how gov benefits work you dont understand it,,
If he's an example, then you'd be able to tell us what the government pays him.

Do you know or not?
 
In the US? Probably about 50 million.
Unlikely. As was already pointed out. There's 160 million people working. There's 210 million people between the ages of 15 and 65.

There's 20 million college students. Another 10 million or so who are in high school. There's 9 million disabled people. There's 10 million people who don't work because they're taking care of family.

When you start picking part the data, there's just not a lot of room left over for these mythical workers who are living off government.
 
Putting aside the petty personal nick picking
Why not just read the bill & comment on that???????????????????????
Read the bill, SEEMS its just to good of a deal for 90% of those who would use it.
Has merit, But by opinion, would say it needs to go back to the drawing board.
 

Forum List

Back
Top