Gingrich: Middle class unemployed are lazy!

[Oddball]

Again, point being?

 

[Bfgrn]

It seems to me that the person the original article discussed didn't belong to a "working" family. He seemed content on "not working" and taking what he felt he was "entitled" to.

You can lump me with the Republicans to your heart's desire. It's YOUR attitude that is driving Independents away from the Democratic party. Your "If you're not in lockstep with us, you are in lockstep with THEM" mantra will cost you this election season, and depending on whom the Republicans can come up with, likely the White House in two years. My fear is that because of your idiocy, someone like Palin or Gingrich WILL get elected. That's what happens when you try so hard to alienate everyone that doesn't idealize what you idealize. The Republicans have done it for years, and now the Democrats are the same way. Your attempts at trying to make me out to be a villain because I don't pity the most worthless scum in America won't work. I still think your ideals are fucked.

The most worthless scum in America??? Sorry, but that would be YOU. You fucking slime ball right wingers NEVER include a single penny of human capital in any of your solutions. For your solutions to work, human beings need to just evaporate...

It is what the Nazi's did...

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Your ideal society coddles the weak and the pitiful, and gives them free rides on the backs of entrepreneurs and hard-working Americas. It is set to fail in the long run. The day has come when the system is paying out more than it is taking in. It's all going to collapse in your face, and I'll cry tears of laughter for those that weren't ready for it. I, again, have no pity for stupid people.

I suggest you don't try to sleep, because for you, this life is as good as it gets. You will spend eternity burning in hell. You are a fucking scum bag...

Contemplate THIS you scurvy little pile of excrement: these people were NOT on unemployment before this economic disaster hit. They were working. If you were barely surviving on unemployment insurance, would YOU take a job that would pay you a little more than half the unemployment benefit? Would you forfeit your house and live in the street?

HERE is the guy Gingrich was talking about...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4955M5q5h4]YouTube - Countdown: Gingrich-rhetoric victim Mike Hatchell discusses unemployment[/ame]

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde

 

[boedicca]

What happened is a generation of "greed". Or as I like to say, "Republican values".

In the 50's and 60's, when CEOs were making 30 times the average salary, they stayed with a company 30 years and "grew" that company. They poured money back into their "workers" because those workers would buy "stuff". We had a healthy capitalistic society.

Then came today's CEOs. They moved jobs to China for those low wages. They bumped up their own pay from 30 times as much to 3 hundred to 4 hundred times as much.

They only stay with a company a few years for a quick kill.

Only they fucked up. People here can't afford to buy even "cheap" goods.

And look at what is going on in China. They just had a major strike at an Apple/Hewlett Packard electronics plant where the 300,000 person plant had to "double" the salaries to 273 dollars A MONTH. Now those companies are seeing a 36% DECLINE in profits.

Republicans will say, "Oh those GREEDY Chinese. Doubling their salary to 273 dollars a month. What will they want next? Weekends? Vacation pay? Health Care?" Republicans will say, "Fucking Chinese, worse than those lazy unemployed whose jobs we moved overseas".

This pretty much pins the meter for Economic Illiteracy.

The Poor in America benefit hugely from cheap Chinese Goods. Such goods enable The Poor on Welfare to live lives that are more comfortable and healthy than those of kings in the Dark Ages.

It would behoove you to look at the tax law changes that have made the gap between CEO and average worker pay greater. In order to ensure that Rich CEOs earned their pay, regulations and taxes were changed to encourage pay being heavily based in stock options. Much of this "income" is actually an accounting trick - most of it doesn't actually end up being paid to the CEO. It's GAAP expensing of options.

And now we have a monetary policy - DC Cronymism system on hyperdrive that creates huge market distortions making such options either incredibly valuable or virtually worthless.

If you are sincerely concerned about "fair pay", get government out of the business of picking winners and losers, and dramatically simplify the tax code.

 

[judyd]

What happened is a generation of "greed". Or as I like to say, "Republican values".

In the 50's and 60's, when CEOs were making 30 times the average salary, they stayed with a company 30 years and "grew" that company. They poured money back into their "workers" because those workers would buy "stuff". We had a healthy capitalistic society.

Then came today's CEOs. They moved jobs to China for those low wages. They bumped up their own pay from 30 times as much to 3 hundred to 4 hundred times as much.

They only stay with a company a few years for a quick kill.

Only they fucked up. People here can't afford to buy even "cheap" goods.

And look at what is going on in China. They just had a major strike at an Apple/Hewlett Packard electronics plant where the 300,000 person plant had to "double" the salaries to 273 dollars A MONTH. Now those companies are seeing a 36% DECLINE in profits.

Republicans will say, "Oh those GREEDY Chinese. Doubling their salary to 273 dollars a month. What will they want next? Weekends? Vacation pay? Health Care?" Republicans will say, "Fucking Chinese, worse than those lazy unemployed whose jobs we moved overseas".

Yes, the Chinese people have become more demanding. They are starting to ask for benefits, and now many companies are moving on to Vietnam. These Communist countries are great havens for them to exploit the populace.

Have you noticed that?

Republicans cry and whine about he "evils" of socialism and then move jobs to "socialist" countries. They "use" a system they hate and insist they want to end that system while at the same time, using that system and those people for "profit". I guess it's just an example of their "values".

Isn't that odd?

Yes, it's very similar to the way the bush administration decried the evils of Iraq, while at the same time convinced the ignorant that we had to invade them, and then immediately started building oil facilities over there. Sadam Hussein wouldn't allow this previously, so they had to get rid of him.

Also similar to the idea that Iran is so evil, and yet Halliburton has had operations for years there.

I'm from the "Vietnam generation" and lost a couple of friends over there in the fight against communism, and my ex-husband (now deceased) suffered terribly from PTSD. Isn't it interesting that communism is not a problem when we can make a profit from it? I'm sure the guys who fought and died and those who were crippled and maimed for their "freedom" would be proud.

 

[Liberty]

dude, its not that the unemployed are lazy (although some of them love the taxpayer money), its that a lot of them are unemployable, meaning, they aren't qualified to do ANYTHING that would benefit society.

Hey right wing scum bag...there is currently ONE job available for every 5 people unemployed.

Translation for pea brains like you...there are NO jobs that would benefit society. Your beloved 'captains of industry', wealthy CEO's and corporate cartels you lick the asshole of have NO desire to employ Americans, when they can hire 3rd world slave labor.

youre a fuckin dumbass. if you have talent, you can get a job, and if you cant, youre not trying hard enough.

 

[Oddball]

What happened is a generation of "greed". Or as I like to say, "Republican values".

In the 50's and 60's, when CEOs were making 30 times the average salary, they stayed with a company 30 years and "grew" that company. They poured money back into their "workers" because those workers would buy "stuff". We had a healthy capitalistic society.

Then came today's CEOs. They moved jobs to China for those low wages. They bumped up their own pay from 30 times as much to 3 hundred to 4 hundred times as much.

They only stay with a company a few years for a quick kill.

Only they fucked up. People here can't afford to buy even "cheap" goods.

And look at what is going on in China. They just had a major strike at an Apple/Hewlett Packard electronics plant where the 300,000 person plant had to "double" the salaries to 273 dollars A MONTH. Now those companies are seeing a 36% DECLINE in profits.

Republicans will say, "Oh those GREEDY Chinese. Doubling their salary to 273 dollars a month. What will they want next? Weekends? Vacation pay? Health Care?" Republicans will say, "Fucking Chinese, worse than those lazy unemployed whose jobs we moved overseas".

This pretty much pins the meter for Economic Illiteracy.

The Poor in America benefit hugely from cheap Chinese Goods. Such goods enable The Poor on Welfare to live lives that are more comfortable and healthy than those of kings in the Dark Ages.

It would behoove you to look at the tax law changes that have made the gap between CEO and average worker pay greater. In order to ensure that Rich CEOs earned their pay, regulations and taxes were changed to encourage pay being heavily based in stock options. Much of this "income" is actually an accounting trick - most of it does actually end up being paid to the CEO. It's GAAP expensing of options.

And now we have a monetary policy - DC Cronymism system on hyperdrive that creates huge market distortions making such options either incredibly valuable or virtually worthless.

If you are sincerely concerned about "fair pay", get government out of the business of picking winners and losers, and dramatically simplify the tax code.

And bonuses...Can't forget that Bubba made that change to the tax code, making it more advantageous for CEOs to get the bulk of their pay in the bonuses that leftist ignoramus wackaloons screech about.

 

[judyd]

You realize there are people who draw unemployment because they were fired for poor performance or misbehavior on the job, right? The system was not designed for that, but it certainly allows it. I know a girl now who has been on unemployment throughout this entire debacle, all because she was fired for stealing money at a bank.

You don't really expect people to take that claim seriously do you? You obviously don't know anything about applying for UI. They contact your previous employer and let them know that you have applied, and give the employer an opportunity to contest the claim and ask that it be denied. Now you expect us to believe that an employer who fired someone for theft did NOT contest the payment of UI??? Or that UI overruled the employer and paid money out to the employee despite the proof from the employer of the theft?

Get real. The states have really tightened up in the last few years--even people who were fired for lesser infractions are being denied benefits.

Believe what you want. It's true.

You keep throwing nonsense out in your effort to convince others of the undeserving unemployed in the US. In this particular instance there is no way that someone was stealing from her employer, and UI, learning of this, paid the person anyway.

 

[Liberty]

dude, its not that the unemployed are lazy (although some of them love the taxpayer money), its that a lot of them are unemployable, meaning, they aren't qualified to do ANYTHING that would benefit society.

No. It's the fact that THERE ARE NO JOBS!!!!!

no, youre fucking lazy and arent employable. anyone who tries can get a job.

 

[Liberty]

It shouldn't exist to begin with.

Ah, but just like SS and Medicare, it does, and we have all paid into it. We deserve to be able to draw from a system we have paid into our entire working lives, should corporate America choose to hire cheap labor overseas.....

What happened is a generation of "greed". Or as I like to say, "Republican values".

In the 50's and 60's, when CEOs were making 30 times the average salary, they stayed with a company 30 years and "grew" that company. They poured money back into their "workers" because those workers would buy "stuff". We had a healthy capitalistic society.

Then came today's CEOs. They moved jobs to China for those low wages. They bumped up their own pay from 30 times as much to 3 hundred to 4 hundred times as much.

They only stay with a company a few years for a quick kill.

Only they fucked up. People here can't afford to buy even "cheap" goods.

And look at what is going on in China. They just had a major strike at an Apple/Hewlett Packard electronics plant where the 300,000 person plant had to "double" the salaries to 273 dollars A MONTH. Now those companies are seeing a 36% DECLINE in profits.

Republicans will say, "Oh those GREEDY Chinese. Doubling their salary to 273 dollars a month. What will they want next? Weekends? Vacation pay? Health Care?" Republicans will say, "Fucking Chinese, worse than those lazy unemployed whose jobs we moved overseas".

so who is greedier? Those who work hard and earn a living, or those who don't work and expect something for nothing?

 

[Jon]

You don't really expect people to take that claim seriously do you? You obviously don't know anything about applying for UI. They contact your previous employer and let them know that you have applied, and give the employer an opportunity to contest the claim and ask that it be denied. Now you expect us to believe that an employer who fired someone for theft did NOT contest the payment of UI??? Or that UI overruled the employer and paid money out to the employee despite the proof from the employer of the theft?

Get real. The states have really tightened up in the last few years--even people who were fired for lesser infractions are being denied benefits.

Believe what you want. It's true.

You keep throwing nonsense out in your effort to convince others of the undeserving unemployed in the US. In this particular instance there is no way that someone was stealing from her employer, and UI, learning of this, paid the person anyway.

I don't know (nor care) how she was able to get around the rules, but she was.

She's just an instance of someone receiving unemployment that never should have.

Should I start on the millions of cases of people receiving benefits who never looked for jobs during their unemployment period? Or the people who have received extended benefits because they turned down jobs that didn't suit their fancy? This system (and all government run systems) are far too easy to manipulate and cheat. Period.

 

[Jon]

I suggest you don't try to sleep, because for you, this life is as good as it gets. You will spend eternity burning in hell. You are a fucking scum bag...

Contemplate THIS you scurvy little pile of excrement: these people were NOT on unemployment before this economic disaster hit. They were working. If you were barely surviving on unemployment insurance, would YOU take a job that would pay you a little more than half the unemployment benefit? Would you forfeit your house and live in the street?

I wouldn't buy a house I couldn't afford, nor would I spend all of my wages and not save up for situations just like the one these people find themselves in. Again, no pity.

HERE is the guy Gingrich was talking about...

Waving him in front of my face doesn't change my opinion. It's unfortunate that some people can't find jobs at their old rate. Did you ever think their old rate was higher than they were actually worth?

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde

So, would that make all these people bitching about the lavish lifestyles of the corporate executives and claiming that they make too much and don't deserve it...selfish?

 

[uscitizen]

It seems to me that the person the original article discussed didn't belong to a "working" family. He seemed content on "not working" and taking what he felt he was "entitled" to.

You can lump me with the Republicans to your heart's desire. It's YOUR attitude that is driving Independents away from the Democratic party. Your "If you're not in lockstep with us, you are in lockstep with THEM" mantra will cost you this election season, and depending on whom the Republicans can come up with, likely the White House in two years. My fear is that because of your idiocy, someone like Palin or Gingrich WILL get elected. That's what happens when you try so hard to alienate everyone that doesn't idealize what you idealize. The Republicans have done it for years, and now the Democrats are the same way. Your attempts at trying to make me out to be a villain because I don't pity the most worthless scum in America won't work. I still think your ideals are fucked.

So....now the unemployed middle class are the "most worthless scum in America"? You should be Newt's running mate!!

People who milk the system and take out more than they have earned most certainly are scum. I have no pity on those people. Society is better off without them.

I'd never run with Newt. He's not financially responsible enough for my tastes, and I don't favor the religious aspects of the right.

Trust me, if I were running for office, I'd either be the most hated guy for being far too radical in financial responsibility ("You want to cut spending AND increase taxes, what?!"), or I'd be the most loved guy for making sense. Plus, if I were asked any questions on: homosexuality, religion, abortion, etc., I'd simply respond with, "I don't fucking care. Those are not political issues. Next question."

Yeah, I don't think I'd ever run for office.

Yepper lets do away with school taxes. If a parent can't pay school costs for their kids...well too bad.
If someone loses their job they should just starve and die.
Damned unemployment and food stamps.

Here is an idea for a US company to move offshore they must put salaries for all the laid off employees for 2 years into an escrow account for the employees laid off.
Othwerwise their imported products carry a 50% tariff for 5 years.

 

[Political Junky]

It'll be fun to see cons with a mortgage and family take a job flipping burgers.

 

[Jon]

Here is an idea for a US company to move offshore they must put salaries for all the laid off employees for 2 years into an escrow account for the employees laid off.

Not a bad idea. Or, maybe we should just remove incentives for companies to move offshore, and get rid of barriers that make employment in the US too goddamn expensive.

 

[Jon]

It'll be fun to see cons with a mortgage and family take a job flipping burgers.

It'd be funnier to see liberals do it, but they'd rather take their handouts and cry for more entitlement.

 

[judyd]

Believe what you want. It's true.

You keep throwing nonsense out in your effort to convince others of the undeserving unemployed in the US. In this particular instance there is no way that someone was stealing from her employer, and UI, learning of this, paid the person anyway.

I don't know (nor care) how she was able to get around the rules, but she was.

She's just an instance of someone receiving unemployment that never should have.

Should I start on the millions of cases of people receiving benefits who never looked for jobs during their unemployment period? Or the people who have received extended benefits because they turned down jobs that didn't suit their fancy? This system (and all government run systems) are far too easy to manipulate and cheat. Period.

You don't know what you're talking about and you keep getting yourself in deeper. You are NOT required to take a job which is LESS than your previous job. That has ALWAYS been the law. No, you don't have to take a burger flipping job if you were a computer programmer or graphic artist. You can't turn down a job which is comparable to what you did previously. You do have to keep good records of where you applied for a job, which these days I imagine is difficult, since there aren't that many jobs to apply for. But UI does check. If they call you in and tell you to bring your records, you better have them.

Again, your story about the thief is so ridiculous, you're making yourself look foolish. Anyone who has had the misfortune to have to deal with UI knows this.

Keep beating the dead horse!

 

[code1211]

Clearly something (many things) have to be done.

Don't count on it though.

The PLAN to bankrupt this nation is too mature now to stop it.

Yeah, that's right I believe this is being done on purpose.

Both party's leadership cannot be as dumb as they seem.

You cannot on spend money like fools, cut taxes, fight expensive wars, send off industry to the third world and STILL think that's a formula for a solvent national economy.

And the above describes what combined BOTH PARTIES have been doing for the last 40 years, folks.

A-fucking-men!

The day that America figures out that NEITHER political party has their best interest at heart, the day we can begin fixing the problems that we allowed to be created. Until then, I'll just sit back and watch partisan idiots bicker over who cares about whom. The reality is neither party cares about any of you. Get over it already.

I don't understand how anyone living in this country could compare the Republican and the Democratic parties. They are as different and "night and day".

In a previous link, I outlined the difference. No would could say where I was wrong, they only called me names.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...-poverty-of-political-debate.html#post2614482

But let's look a little farther into the differences.

There are those on the right who now think that Bush wasn't really "conservative" because of his many failures. The truth is, Bush "exemplified" what "conservatism" is all about. Bush was the first president raised into the "pure" Republican Conservative ideology.

If you cut taxes for the rich, the money will "trickle down" in the form of jobs and security.

Strong corporations mean a "strong" America (to achieve this you need to deregulate and cut corporate tax and lower wages).

Invade other countries before they become a "threat" (and of course, it's a great way to "spread democracy" and get oil).

If it's for "God", the ends justifies the means.

Pure and unvarnished "conservatism".

Bush was the first president their "conservative principles" were put fully into practice. And for conservatives, rather than see the terrible failure of that awful ideology, they look for "scapegoats". Democrats don't support America. The unemployed are lazy. Gays getting married. Hispanics are taking our jobs. WE WANT "OUR" COUNTRY BACK!

This is why you can't compare Democrats to the ideology driven Republicans. Because Democrats are made up of "everyone else". They can't run on "ideology". They have to run on "negotiation" and "consensus". It's all they have.

So go ahead, call me names. That's just the hard "truth".

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.

 

[uscitizen]

LOL yeah like one guy I know living off of workmans comp and is a hardcore rightie.
goes on and on about those on welfare and such...

LMAO, how they justify getting in bed with liberals on this kind of thing amazes me.
After workmans comp he will be on SS disability.
All for falling off of a truck he was not supposed to be on.

And another friend an extreme tea bagger just went on SS, Medicare and is still drawing unemployment.

 

[Jon]

You do have to keep good records of where you applied for a job, which these days I imagine is difficult, since there aren't that many jobs to apply for.

No, you don't. You simply make a call list for the places you "called" for jobs. If they didn't have openings, it doesn't matter. That is considered "actively seeking employment." Again, I've witnessed this with a couple of friends who were on UI. Or, you could just ask sealybobo (who doesn't seem to come around here much anymore). He openly admitted to faking his way through unemployment. He made it sound way easier than it should be.

You give way too much credit to the people running the system. WAY too much credit. They have no real accountability, because if they let someone receive benefits that shouldn't, it doesn't really affect them.

 

[code1211]

Hey right wing scum bag...there is currently ONE job available for every 5 people unemployed.

Translation for pea brains like you...there are NO jobs that would benefit society. Your beloved 'captains of industry', wealthy CEO's and corporate cartels you lick the asshole of have NO desire to employ Americans, when they can hire 3rd world slave labor.

The population is worried that there will be ever diminishing opportunity thanks to the absolutely wrong minded attempts of this administration to correct a situation that was never as bad as they said at the start.

They corrected that reality by their bad policies, messages of doom and theft.

Companies hire people to do work. The government hires people to fill chairs. When the government exhorts companies to hire people even when there is no work to do, they are only exposing their utter lack of understanding of how things actually work.

This administration thinks that if they say to hire people, profit driven organiations will do so because government, which can lose money and still exist, can do this.

Idiocy.

This administration doesn't know how business works. Doesn't know why it's not working well right now. Doesn't know how to make it better. Doesn't know what the effect of any policy will be.

This is a pretty bleak situation. The American people are understanding what's going on even if the Administration and the loving media do not.

Does anyone wonder why the media was reporting that the economy was bad in 2006 when we had 4.5% unemployment and they seem to think it's not so bad right now?

You stupid right wing fucks don't understand how humans work. The Bush tax cuts created ZERO private sector jobs in the decade they've been in place. ALL they created was wealth for the top 1% and a huge hole in revenues for We, the working class to PAY.

The 'situation that was never as bad as they said at the start' was WORSE than they said or predicted. The stimulus was too small and now states and local governments are being forced to cut off vital services.

Without a jobs initiative the size and scope of the New Deal we will soon see just how bad it REALLY is.

I see...

We had a crisis in the financial sector that was stablaized by the first half of the TARP.

The Big 0 spent a Trillion dollars on pet projects that did NOTHING to stimulate the economy. Ironically, he initiated and stopped a program that actually did help the economy, Cash for Clunkers, but stopped it as soon as he saw that it was helping.

He did not know the cause of the problem, the size of the problem, the solution to the problem or the need to involve the private sector in the solution of the problem.

Now, since the ideas, philosophies and programs of the Failed Stimulus have wasted a Trillion Dollars with no effect, you are saying that increasing the expense, the size and the scope of the Failed Stimulus will work.

On what do you base this wisdom?