In this Jan. 9, 2017, photo, Andrea Ledesma spreads sauce on pizza dough at Classic Slice restaurant in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Carrie Antlfinger)
A 2017 report from the Center for Collegiate Mental Health at Penn State University found that, based on data from 147 colleges and universities, the number of students seeking mental-health help increased at five times the rate of new students starting college from 2011 to 2016. And a Blue Cross Blue Shield study published in 2018 revealed that major depression diagnoses surged by 44 percent among millennials from 2013 to 2016.
Increasingly, employees (about 86 percent) want their company to prioritize mental health.
Despite that — and the fact that mental health conditions result in a $16.8 billion loss in employee productivity — the report found that companies are still not doing enough to break down the stigma, resulting in a lack of identification in workers who may have a mental health condition. Up to 80 percent of individuals will manage a mental health condition at one point in their lifetime, according to the study.
Of course, sometimes employees are unaware of the different resources offered at their organizations, or are afraid of retribution if they elect to use them. In the study, millennials, ages 23 to 38, were 63 percent more likely than baby boomers, 55 to 73, to know the proper procedure for seeking mental health support from the company.
The study was based on responses collected from 1,500 U.S. adults
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/young-people-quitting-jobs-why
https://www.studyfinds.org/nervous-...ve-they-have-an-undiagnosed-anxiety-disorder/
I've got a little thought exercise for you. Now...this is to be entirely internal, not subject to "but I don't know how other people think" or similar consideration. And frankly I don't even expect a response as it is just a thought exercise.
Impeachment is not removal. It may be the first step in a process that ultimately leads to removal (fat chance given the collective spinelessness of the Republican contingent of the Republican-led Senate), but it's a duty of the lower legislative branch (and one bestowed solely unto them) in serving as a check against abuses in the executive branch. Not going forward when abuses are suspected makes them party to those suspected abuses. Potential for backfire is also not reasonable justification for not going forward when abuses are suspected, as not doing so sets a very dangerous precedent; it effectively says the executive branch and individuals therein can get away with these abuses, and that's not strong motivation to not continue them.
I'm also not certain this is a legitimate concern. The Constitution holds that the pardon, as presidential privilege, does not extend to cases of impeachment.
It isn't so much a punishment as it is--as Rep. Thaddeus Stevens stated during Andrew Johnson's impeachment proceedings--"intended as a remedy for malfeasance in office and to prevent continuance thereof." My series of questions for you was formed largely around that.
Y'know, it sure sounds like you're in favor of impeachment proceedings.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
Cause it is. They were trying to figure out how to get rid of him before he even became President. I've never seen a President go through this much crap.
One of the duties of the legislative branch is to serve as a check against abuses of the executive branch. In doing this, the legislative branch serves the People.
I think he asked them to investigate Joe Biden's son.
I'm not talking about the media or what bills he got passed. I'm taking about the impeachment witch hunt...So what? This is doubly irrelevant.
For one, impeachment isn't a question of popular opinion; it's a duty of the job they the were elected and sworn to do.
For another, looking at it from a popularity/politics standpoint, there is zero overlap between Trump supporters and the folks who voted for the Democratic representatives who would be the driving force behind any impeachment.
--
What an absurd statement. Obama spent six of his eight years unable to pass anything through a Republican Congress that opposed everything he did simply because they didn't like him. He faced a media that criticized his tan suits and the way he held coffee more harshly than they criticize our current president's almost certainly illegal behavior.
It's worth mentioning that this is the same Rep. Burgess who, in 2011, agreed with and subsequently reaffirmed the notion that the impeachment process should be used against President Obama as a means to "tie things up"--to prevent him from "pushing his agenda".
Is that hypocritical? That sure seems hypocritical.
