Given the quote in Post #32533, why?
Holy fuck, the depths to which this “administration” will go to fuck over the less fortunate out of a few bucks, while enabling those at the top to rake it in are astounding. They must never stop looking for minutiae in order to come up with this.
Are you with them on this? Fuck you, give yourself a pat on the back.
Do you think the inability to communicate in English should be factored into disability?
I would prefer it to be changed to “inability to communicate,” leaving out the “in English.”
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk
Is it perhaps directed at folks who cannot actually COMMUNICATE in English, or any other language? For example, someone who has a severe stutter or is mute may well have been eligible for a disability allowance??
I thought that too, which would be ok. But post #32533 show, it says this:
Therefore, under our current
rules, we consider an individual’s
ability to communicate in English when
we evaluate what work, if any, he or she
can do. We do not consider fluency in
other languages.
Man, I am LOVIN’ the concrete poetry at posts 32533 and 32544.
It’s like the Sixties all over again!
“…in mute nostril agony…”
Hoarse Platitudes
Morrison, man. Fuckin’ deep.
It doesn’t even necessarily come from “not having learned English”: it can come as a consequence of a stroke which has not affected other parts of the brain too badly or because the person has become too deaf to comunicate in spoken English (for most jobs and most people’s level of patience, having to communicate in writing is a bitch; note that “learning ASL”… heeey, ASL is not English). It’s the kind of thing I would expect to see more often in combination with other things (from having had strokes, to deafness, to arthritis which makes continuing working in heavily-physical jobs difficult) than by itself: the level of English one needs to work as a receptionist is much higher than that needed to work as a cleaning lady or gardener.
I’m not sure I trust the OMB spokesperson’s take on Trump moving Pell grant money to fund NASA. My initial, secondary, and tertiary reactions are all: “Yep, this should prove how anti-education Trump is”.
He’s reassuring the rest of the Republican party that he’s not just looking out for himself. By attacking education and promoting ignorance, he’s doing something to help ensure a supply of Republican voters for the future. It’s a legacy issue.
Sigh. It really is taking longer than we thought.
Sure, but that’s not what the rule says. It clearly doesn’t matter how fluent you are in another language, if for some reason you can’t communicate in English, it is taken into account. I don’t have a problem with removing that part.
The continued increase in the number of college graduates as a percentage of the electorate is indeed worrisome to the current GOP. It’s one more demographic moving against them (and one which they used to win). Making college more affordable, much like efforts to make it easier to vote, must feel like political suicide to Republicans.
And this:
Sure seems to be saying that someone is disabled because they did not learn English.
They do not seem to be talking about a speech impediment, learning disability or brain injury. (I imagine that these are addressed in other sections)
Cecil Adams retired and Donald Trump was elected President.
I think ignorance is winning this fight.
The way I read it is that they currently look at the ability to understand English when someone is disabled from their own job and SSDI is evaluating whether the person can do some other kind of work. In other words, the worker can’t go out on a fishing boat any more because of a busted knee or something, so they have to consider whether he could find another job he’s suited for by age, experience, and education. Under the current rule, not speaking English would be considered and they wouldn’t try to say he could work as a cashier at Walmart. (or some other job where English was required) Under the proposed change, they would ignore the fact he couldn’t speak English and assume he could find a job somewhere and thus he would not be considered totally disabled.
Individual 1 claims that windmills are killing bald eagles.
Judge in Individual 1’s lawsuit to prevent Congress from investigating his finances finds his lawyers’ arguments lacking.
I hate it when that happens.
More on the Kudlow-Trump affair:
This is what happens when you correct the president’s misconceptions/blatant lies.