They aren't applying. What do we do about that? The people on welfare? Not applying. People in unemployment? Not applying. People losing benefits, not applying.

 

They aren't applying because the government subsidies their lifes. Not everyone but a good number. I'm 33 and sound like an old man. But I went to private school and played sports only because I worked and my Mom cleaned doctors offices at night. I went to college and lived on my own only because I worked 40-50 hours a week sometimes between two different jobs. Remove the incentive to be lazy.

College college college, gotta focus on that college.

 

What are you talking about? For the past 4 years Career Ready seniors count the same as college ready seniors, so any KY school worth its salt focused on career Ed.

What are you talking about? For the past 4 years Career Ready seniors count the same as college ready seniors, so any KY school worth its salt focused on career Ed.

 

Graduation rate counts a lot too

They aren't applying because the government subsidies their lifes. Not everyone but a good number. I'm 33 and sound like an old man. But I went to private school and played sports only because I worked and my Mom cleaned doctors offices at night. I went to college and lived on my own only because I worked 40-50 hours a week sometimes between two different jobs. Remove the incentive to be lazy.

 

It's just not so simple as saying people are lazy. Remember, extended unemployment benefits haven't been offered in quite some time. Most only get 6 months of unemployent. And yet there are still many, many people that have been unemployed for much longer. Those people aren't getting paid to sit around. Only about a quarter of unemployed folks are collecting unemployment....these people aren't collecting welfare either. The myth of lazy people living off the government dime is one of the most overstated and well played rhetoric the right has led people to believe, and ultimately has resulted in the further abandonment of the long term unemployed.

Donald Trump’s Labor Secretary Pick Andrew Puzder Owes Millions To UBS As Bank Seeks Waiver From Sanctions

 

New controversy. Owes millions to USB. USB was charged with defrauding the US in 2015 and is now looking for relief from Labor. He failed to list this debt on his ethics paperwork.

Donald Trump’s Labor Secretary Pick Andrew Puzder Owes Millions To UBS As Bank Seeks Waiver From Sanctions

 

New controversy. Owes millions to USB. USB was charged with defrauding the US in 2015 and is now looking for relief from Labor. He failed to list this debt on his ethics paperwork.

Was he legally required to list his USB debt on his ethics paperwork? If so, then he should withdraw from consideration. If not, then it seems to me that he has publicly disclosed the debt and this seems like just one more politically motivated liberal smear. Puzder has not yet been confirmed, so U.S Senators can use this information to decide how to vote on his consideration.

 

Every time that liberals disparage one of Trump's appointees based on ethical grounds, I am reminded that Hillary Clinton was confirmed by a 94-2 vote, despite a mountain of ethical questions surrounding her years as a public "servant." It just shows how bad a Democratic nominee must be to register a comparable level of outrage to a Trump nominee.

 

Has Puzder broken a law, Clyde? If not, then why is this information relevant?

Was he legally required to list his USB debt on his ethics paperwork? If so, then he should withdraw from consideration. If not, then it seems to me that he has publicly disclosed the debt and this seems like just one more politically motivated liberal smear. Puzder has not yet been confirmed, so U.S Senators can use this information to decide how to vote on his consideration.

 

Every time that liberals disparage one of Trump's appointees based on ethical grounds, I am reminded that Hillary Clinton was confirmed by a 94-2 vote, despite a mountain of ethical questions surrounding her years as a public "servant." It just shows how bad a Democratic nominee must be to register a comparable level of outrage to a Trump nominee.

 

Has Puzder broken a law, Clyde? If not, then why is this information relevant?

 

 

It's relevant because it's being talked about. It's relevant because it raises questions as to why he left it off the ethics form. Seems pertinent. It's also relevant because of the potential for conflict or the appearance of conflict if USB is granted relief.

 

Other than that it's not.

It's relevant because it's being talked about. It's relevant because it raises questions as to why he left it off the ethics form. Seems pertinent. It's also relevant because of the potential for conflict or the appearance of conflict if USB is granted relief.

 

Other than that it's not.

 

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln - how did you enjoy your evening?

It's relevant because it's being talked about. It's relevant because it raises questions as to why he left it off the ethics form. Seems pertinent. It's also relevant because of the potential for conflict or the appearance of conflict if USB is granted relief.

 

Other than that it's not.

Was it illegal not to included it on the ethics form, but to publicly disclose it on a different form, prior to his confirmation vote? Unless he broke a law, I fail to see the relevance of which form he used to disclose the detailes of his debt. If what he did was legal, then it seems like more anti-Trump nit-picking to me. That's all..

Was it illegal not to included it on the ethics form, but to publicly disclose it on a different form, prior to his confirmation vote? Unless he broke a law, I fail to see the relevance of which form he used to disclose the detailes of his debt. If what he did was legal, then it seems like more anti-Trump nit-picking to me. That's all..

 

 

We disagree. It's the purpose of the Ethics board to make sure there aren't problems. Not putting it on there, legal or not, correctly raises questions as to why.

We disagree. It's the purpose of the Ethics board to make sure there aren't problems. Not putting it on there, legal or not, correctly raises questions as to why.

Sorry, this just does not seem like a gotcha moment to me. Had he failed to disclose legally required information prior to his being confirmed as the Secretary of Labor, then I would join you in calling for his resignation. If the intent was to hide this information, then he would not have publicly disclosed it. Mole hill ===> Mountain.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln - how did you enjoy your evening?

 

:lol2: I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

Sorry, this just does not seem like a gotcha moment to me. Had he failed to disclose legally required information prior to his being confirmed as the Secretary of Labor, then I would join you in calling for his resignation. If the intent was to hide this information, then he would not have publicly disclosed it. Mole hill ===> Mountain.

 

I did t say it was a "gotcha " moment.

 

It's fair to wonder why he left it off the document considering UBS is asking for relief.

I did t say it was a "gotcha " moment.

 

It's fair to wonder why he left it off the document considering UBS is asking for relief.

Anything is fair to wonder. Maybe one of the U.S. Senators who are wondering should simply ask him the question and end the speculation.

Anything is fair to wonder. Maybe one of the U.S. Senators who are wondering should simply ask him the question and end the speculation.

 

 

 

The answer is immaterial, right? The act is the issue.