Gingrich: Middle class unemployed are lazy!

[code1211]

Thuis period of hig unemployment is just another step down on the class of living scale for many Americans.
Get less from life for the same amount or more actual productive work.
Don't forget the employees are the one that actually amkes a franchise or business owner the money.
Of course if you pay them less they buy less. which would be bad if this were a consumer driven economy.
However because of cheap labor produced imports businesses must drop their wages to be competitive. Or automate more and reduce employee headcount.
Just a function of the machine of global economics.
And seperating the haves more widely from the have nots.
See the longer view people. Both forwards and backwards. And put a global spin on it.
And we cannot stop it folks, all we may be able to do is steer it a bit.

But I have seen none so far with the brains and balls to do what needs to be done for long term stability and prosperity of the American people.

This is just amazing. Nobody knows what went into the prosperity enjoyed by our country in the past and they just assume that our parents and grandparents were sitting on their collective behind and the Good Times Fairy swateed them all with his wand.

My dad worked two jobs. Mrs. Code's Dad was a master electrician when i knew him but in her youth he drove a school bus, owned a laundramat, did numerous jobs after hours and built his house with his own hands.

In the neighborhood in which I was raised, the neighbor across the street built his own house with his own hands. Dug the basement with a shovel.

I can't imagine the wailing and the screaming that would accompany the labor required to do this kind of thing, but in the past, it was expected that the man do whatever it took to get it done. That included lots of work and not much whining.

The good old days were good because our parents worked like dogs for peanuts and thanked God for the opportunity to do so. They'd look at most of us and shake their heads.

Ungrateful whimps.

 

[rikules]

Odd...Democrats said the same thing about Bill Clinton's affair. I agreed with them.

Clinton shouldn't have been getting BJ's from someone NOT his wife. Especially while President. But, while wrong, he was lying to his wife. It was Republicans who made it a "national cause".

But did he serve his cancer stricken wife with divorce papers while she was getting surgery? Has he been married time and again while publicly saying his gay sister shouldn't have the same rights as him because he's protecting the "sanctity" of marriage?

Ah, Republican values. So few, so predictable, so awful.

Oh, so Newt is worse because his wife was sick. I get it: it's not okay to cheat, but it's less okay to cheat on a sick person.

Democrats values: as long as you ain't Republican, it's okay!

aside from the fact that one of main tenets of modern conservatives is;
republicans are morally superior to democrats, democrats have NO Morals

newt was spearheading the "get clinton for cheating on his wife" campaign WHILE he (newt) was cheating on HIS wife (disgustingly hypocritical)

btw..
(R) robert livingston was also on the committee to "nail clinton for cheating on his wife"
and, ha ha ha, turns out that HE was cheating onHIS wife, too!

repubs, such hypocritical perverts and scumbags

 

[code1211]

Clinton shouldn't have been getting BJ's from someone NOT his wife. Especially while President. But, while wrong, he was lying to his wife. It was Republicans who made it a "national cause".

But did he serve his cancer stricken wife with divorce papers while she was getting surgery? Has he been married time and again while publicly saying his gay sister shouldn't have the same rights as him because he's protecting the "sanctity" of marriage?

Ah, Republican values. So few, so predictable, so awful.

Oh, so Newt is worse because his wife was sick. I get it: it's not okay to cheat, but it's less okay to cheat on a sick person.

Democrats values: as long as you ain't Republican, it's okay!

aside from the fact that one of main tenets of modern conservatives is;
republicans are morally superior to democrats, democrats have NO Morals

newt was spearheading the "get clinton for cheating on his wife" campaign WHILE he (newt) was cheating on HIS wife (disgustingly hypocritical)

btw..
(R) robert livingston was also on the committee to "nail clinton for cheating on his wife"
and, ha ha ha, turns out that HE was cheating onHIS wife, too!

repubs, such hypocritical perverts and scumbags

Who was the Republican in the Minneapolis Airport tapping out Gay Morse Code with his toe in the bathroom stall and which party was it that went after him like hyenas after a baby in the bush?

Pot, kettle, Republican, Democrat.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have no idea what you're talking about and, I suspect, you don't either.

By definition, a Conservative spends less than he collects. Bush did not. Bush, then, by definition was not a Conservative.

The "family values" platform that has attached itself to the Republican Party has nothing to do at all with National Conservatism just as Gay Rights has nothing to do with National Liberalism. All of the issues in any of these considerations are not reserved to the Feds in the Constitution and are therefore States Rights issues.

The constant drive by both parties to centralize power assures that neither party is in truth Conservative.

Your hazy hatred of a laundry list of philosophies and beliefs does more to define your myopia than it does to define any political party. By ascribing to a group that you hate all of the ideas that you hate, you reinforce your bias and your prejudice.

In truth, this is the common action that unifies the standard operating proceedures of all bigots and hate mongers. This hate mongering and bigotry may prove problematic in conducting your negotiations and consensus building which you claim to be an important part of your belief system.

Wow, for someone who claims they have no idea what I'm talking about, you sure go on about "hate, bigotry, prejudice and fear".

When are the Democrats trying to "centralize" power? Where is the "evidence"?

Gay rights has nothing to do with "national liberalism"? When did civil rights become something we "vote" on?

Bush was and is a conservative. It's not the man who failed, it's the ideology. By definition, conservatism is a failure. No one can keep things from changing. We either change them for the good or for the worse, but change them we will. It's the nature of "living". Nothing stays the same. Ever. It's not possible.

If you think Bush was a Conservative then you don't understand what a Conservative is.

Are you kidding rdean doesn't even know what he is much less something he isn't connected with.

 

[Political Junky]

Wonder how many middle class people who have been unemployed will vote for a Con after the nasty comments that GOP leaders have made about them. How many Hispanics?

 

[Howard Roark]

Wonder how many middle class people who have been unemployed will vote for a Con after the nasty comments that GOP leaders have made about them. How many Hispanics?

With the democrats allowing the party of NO! to clog up the senate, the problem will be that independants won't bother to vote at all.

Seeing nothing coming out of Washington that will change the employment picture, those you ask about will just go back to avoiding the rigged game altogether.

 

[Bfgrn]

Would YOU take the job???

If it were my only prospect, yes. If I had to sell my house, I would. I don't think "living in the streets" is a logical result of having to sell a house, though. Renting is a viable option on that kind of money.

I see you call yourself a Darwinist...I hit the nail on the head...

Hitler used Evolutionary Theory to Justify the Holocaust

And, clearly, my train of thought is the same, right?

Wrong.

Hitler wanted to rid the world of a certain race.

I simply want to get rid of those that take more than they put into the system. If that means creating opportunities for people to pull themselves up, so be it. But the current system doesn't do that. It makes not working almost as lucrative as working. Having a disability allows one to live a pretty comfortable lifestyle without ever lifting a finger. What defines "disabled"? In the case of my half-brother, it's frying your brain on meth and qualifying as "schizophrenic" as a result, thus making you "unemployable." Here's your check, enjoy your decent sized apartment, food stamps, and SSI check. Don't worry about working for it, we'll simply take it from someone else's pocket!

This thread and the linked article are proof of the system's failure. Given, this case isn't as drastic as the usual fault I find in social systems, it's a decent example. Here's a guy who worked for 35 years and paid for UI. Now he feels like he's entitled to more than his fair share. How do I define fair? It's what the system allows you to take out, whatever that may be. For every guy like him that has a job he won't accept, there's someone else who can't find a job at all. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy that doesn't think the opportunity is good enough for him? No thanks.

SO...you would walk away from $450 per week that would probably allow you to keep a house you have equity in, and accept a job at $275 per week and loose your house. You are either a liar or a moron.

The guy worked for 35 years without being unemployed, so collecting for 26 weeks or even beyond that through extended benefits is taking more than his fair share?

 

[MarcATL]

I have no idea what you're talking about and, I suspect, you don't either.

By definition, a Conservative spends less than he collects. Bush did not. Bush, then, by definition was not a Conservative.

The "family values" platform that has attached itself to the Republican Party has nothing to do at all with National Conservatism just as Gay Rights has nothing to do with National Liberalism. All of the issues in any of these considerations are not reserved to the Feds in the Constitution and are therefore States Rights issues.

The constant drive by both parties to centralize power assures that neither party is in truth Conservative.

Your hazy hatred of a laundry list of philosophies and beliefs does more to define your myopia than it does to define any political party. By ascribing to a group that you hate all of the ideas that you hate, you reinforce your bias and your prejudice.

In truth, this is the common action that unifies the standard operating proceedures of all bigots and hate mongers. This hate mongering and bigotry may prove problematic in conducting your negotiations and consensus building which you claim to be an important part of your belief system.

Wow, for someone who claims they have no idea what I'm talking about, you sure go on about "hate, bigotry, prejudice and fear".

When are the Democrats trying to "centralize" power? Where is the "evidence"?

Gay rights has nothing to do with "national liberalism"? When did civil rights become something we "vote" on?

Bush was and is a conservative. It's not the man who failed, it's the ideology. By definition, conservatism is a failure. No one can keep things from changing. We either change them for the good or for the worse, but change them we will. It's the nature of "living". Nothing stays the same. Ever. It's not possible.

If you think Bush was a Conservative then you don't understand what a Conservative is.

Wow, for someone who claims they have no idea what I'm talking about, you sure go on about "hate, bigotry, prejudice and fear".

When are the Democrats trying to "centralize" power? Where is the "evidence"?

Gay rights has nothing to do with "national liberalism"? When did civil rights become something we "vote" on?

Bush was and is a conservative. It's not the man who failed, it's the ideology. By definition, conservatism is a failure. No one can keep things from changing. We either change them for the good or for the worse, but change them we will. It's the nature of "living". Nothing stays the same. Ever. It's not possible.

If you think Bush was a Conservative then you don't understand what a Conservative is.

Are you kidding rdean doesn't even know what he is much less something he isn't connected with.

So WHY do you people STILL continue to defend him AND his policies to the hilt? So much so that the Republican plan is to go BACK to "The Bush Taxcuts?" WTF.COM?!??

 

[MarcATL]

Wonder how many middle class people who have been unemployed will vote for a Con after the nasty comments that GOP leaders have made about them. How many Hispanics?

Not many.

The RepubliCON$ are really TOAST!!!

ROTFLMBAO!!!!

 

[MarcATL]

Would YOU take the job???

If it were my only prospect, yes. If I had to sell my house, I would. I don't think "living in the streets" is a logical result of having to sell a house, though. Renting is a viable option on that kind of money.

I see you call yourself a Darwinist...I hit the nail on the head...

Hitler used Evolutionary Theory to Justify the Holocaust

And, clearly, my train of thought is the same, right?

Wrong.

Hitler wanted to rid the world of a certain race.

I simply want to get rid of those that take more than they put into the system. If that means creating opportunities for people to pull themselves up, so be it. But the current system doesn't do that. It makes not working almost as lucrative as working. Having a disability allows one to live a pretty comfortable lifestyle without ever lifting a finger. What defines "disabled"? In the case of my half-brother, it's frying your brain on meth and qualifying as "schizophrenic" as a result, thus making you "unemployable." Here's your check, enjoy your decent sized apartment, food stamps, and SSI check. Don't worry about working for it, we'll simply take it from someone else's pocket!

This thread and the linked article are proof of the system's failure. Given, this case isn't as drastic as the usual fault I find in social systems, it's a decent example. Here's a guy who worked for 35 years and paid for UI. Now he feels like he's entitled to more than his fair share. How do I define fair? It's what the system allows you to take out, whatever that may be. For every guy like him that has a job he won't accept, there's someone else who can't find a job at all. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy that doesn't think the opportunity is good enough for him? No thanks.

SO...you would walk away from $450 per week that would probably allow you to keep a house you have equity in, and accept a job at $275 per week and loose your house. You are either a liar or a moron.

The guy worked for 35 years without being unemployed, so collecting for 26 weeks or even beyond that through extended benefits is taking more than his fair share?

This is because these people do no THINK...the simply REACT.

See the on-going Muslim Center in Manhattan debate.

 

[zzzz]

Reality check here.

Are you going to take a job making less you will get in unemployment? NO! I know many unemployed workers who worked 20 years or more in the same job and although they are looking for work they will not accept nothing less than what they get in unemployment. When it runs out then they will start to look seriously at less paying jobs. Some of them look at it like an extended vacation. They are not lazy, just being realistic here. now if they find a job that pays more than they get on unemployment most take it but realistically there are no that many high paying jobs available for middle aged or older workers. Employers look at older workers as someone who will only work there 10 years or so, not make a career out it. So it is not a question laziness…anyway where does Gingrich get off calling anyone lazy? Has he ever worked in a factory or done any manual labor as most Americans do.