Are retired people unemployed for purposes of your argument?
They can be, it all depends on their circumstances. They're irrelevant though based on the WalletHub survey. Only employed people are the problem.
Here's an Atlantic article with different criteria and similar results.
Oh good, an article from a left leaning site written by a politically active writer (who has been accused of making stuff up), and based on the same WalletHub "study". So no, their criteria wasn't different, and the results were the same because it's the same study. Please don't post the Huffington Post article on this study next.
one of the more interesting maps appearing recently came from the personal-finance website Wallet Hub.
It's right there in the second paragraph and referenced multiple other times.
What metric do you want added?
How about one that doesn't skew who's "living off the government tit" for political purposes?
My argument isn't "this is a blatant lie". My argument is this study is making the conclusion it wants based on revealing certain facts, while ignoring others.
C'mon, let's not get into a days long debate about how facts can be skewed and this study being clearly politically motivated. We're all smarter than that. The study is bullshit, you know it, and you don't need it to support your actual point, which is...
Trump was being bombastic and demeaning of California during his Super Bowl interview and it's a fair point to call him out for being under-informed and a orange hued baby. Given the amount of federal income tax CA pays it's particularly dumb to go after us this way for not doing what he wants.
Completely agree. He's a total moron the way he shoots his mouth off without facts. He had to be born rich to become a success because his personality never would have gotten him anywhere. He has no idea how to talk to people and compromise. How to work out a deal that might not be the best for both, but acceptable for both. It's his way or the highway.
But to be fair, while the delivery is moronic and arrogant, withholding funds is not a new tactic. The Obama administration did a lot of "do this or get no funds" too. Forcing Common Core on the country is the first example that springs to mind. I'm not saying Obama invented it either. Hasn't this sort of threat always been a thing?
"Do what I say or don't get into Heaven. - God"
Drumpf
I have a hard time taking you seriously when you do that. It reminds me too much of my nutjob right wing uncles who purposely misspelled Obama's name for the past 8 years.
This goes back to the socialist mentality that all money and wealth belongs to the state. Since they (the state) are giving it back, they are funding you.
Right. That one metric has no business in that study and proves my point about its intent.
