Gingrich: Middle class unemployed are lazy!

[uscitizen]

You know I have never seen a right winger turn down money when offered to them.
And tend to pursue the money very actively.

I however waited over 3 years to go on SS disability because I did not need the money.


All my Palin supporter farmer friends and their various farm subsidies...

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

All-of-a-sudden, that's a negative??!!!!!

How's that president working out for you? Qualified for nothing that earns a profit. Just good for shooting it's mouth off, hoops and wasting money.

Hell, what was his last EXECUTIVE position he held?

 

[Big Fitz]

You know I have never seen a right winger turn down money when offered to them.
And tend to pursue the money very actively.

I however waited over 3 years to go on SS disability because I did not need the money.


All my Palin supporter farmer friends and their various farm subsidies...

How about you give them back the money stolen by FICA first. Plus the interest if they would have put i in a nice safe treasury bond.

If we're going to play what ifs like this, let's not forget the other half of the equation.

 

[Bfgrn]

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?

You didn't answer my question...

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?

If in the case of Mike Hatchell, he had a good paying job for years. His unemployment benefits were $450 per week and it still fell short of covering expenses. He turned down a job that would have paid him $275 per week.

Would YOU take the job???

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

Hitler used Evolutionary Theory to Justify the Holocaust

Darwin's idea that evolution means "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life" eventually led to Nazism and the Jewish holocaust - even though Darwin himself would have been appalled at the thought.

Sir Arthur Keith wrote: "The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the 'national front' of Europe is also the 'evolutionary front;' he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing "lower human types."

 

[Howard Roark]

Some can. It depends on the state and how much you were putting into your unemployment insurance before Republicans moved your job to China.


But the average nationwide is 293 dollars a week.

Well, 8 pages of bickering, and neither Olbermann, nor anyone on this board seems to realize that employees do not contribute to unemployment insurance.


This is a fund that's mandated by the feds, and administered by the states.

No self employeds here? It's called the State Insurance Fund.


You employees don't notice that deduction on your paystubs, do you?



Gingrich is an ass.

 

[judyd]

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.

Every state has run out of money to fund unemployment. That is why they are being more proactive than ever to weed out the riffraff. They don't have the money to help those that are deserving of the benefits. And if you think that the UI workers wouldn't like to expose a cheat, you're sadly mistaken.

Also, it doesn't hurt to call or send resumes to companies that don't have a current opening. Sometimes it works--the next day they might have an opening. That is still considered actively looking for a job. Some companies don't advertise openings immediately.

 

[code1211]

has gingrich ever worked?hasn't he made his money as a career politician ?

and what about those other conservatives who keep claiming that liberals don't work...

likel imbaugh
and coulter
and savage

have THEY ever worked?

don't they just get riching validating the fears and hatreds of moronicons?

btw...I have a new book coming out...

it's all about how liberals hate America and god and want to destroy our constitution...

it's only $29.95 at your local book store

buy it!
and make me RICH regurgitating the same vile hatreds and fears that you have in all your OTHER books....

Thanks

Gingrich has been a teacher and a college professor and then entered politics. He hold a PhD. He's not a very likable guy, in my personnal opinion, but he is brilliant.

 

[judyd]

Some can. It depends on the state and how much you were putting into your unemployment insurance before Republicans moved your job to China.


But the average nationwide is 293 dollars a week.

Well, 8 pages of bickering, and neither Olbermann, nor anyone on this board seems to realize that employees do not contribute to unemployment insurance.


This is a fund that's mandated by the feds, and administered by the states.

No self employeds here? It's called the State Insurance Fund.


You employees don't notice that deduction on your paystubs, do you?



Gingrich is an ass.

You're right about that. It is paid for by the employer. And their rates go up for every employee that goes on UI. That's why employers fight the claims if they have a legitimate case. They try to keep their rates as low as possible.

 

[Howard Roark]

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.

Every state has run out of money to fund unemployment. That is why they are being more proactive than ever to weed out the riffraff. They don't have the money to help those that are deserving of the benefits. And if you think that the UI workers wouldn't like to expose a cheat, you're sadly mistaken.

Also, it doesn't hurt to call or send resumes to companies that don't have a current opening. Sometimes it works--the next day they might have an opening. That is still considered actively looking for a job. Some companies don't advertise openings immediately.

It's been decades since I collected unemployment. In fact, top pay was $135.00/wk when I spent a few months on it.

I don't believe for one minute that a thief was able to collect unemployment either. Likewise, an employee that was fired for a valid reason.


Employers pay for this insurance, and the more claims your ex employees make, the more you have to pay in rates...as with any insurance.


It isn't easy to get unemployment unless your employer doesn't challenge your request. Perhaps some of the parameters re. seeking employment have been relaxed during this extension period, but typically, your description of UI is accurate.

 

[judyd]

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.

Every state has run out of money to fund unemployment. That is why they are being more proactive than ever to weed out the riffraff. They don't have the money to help those that are deserving of the benefits. And if you think that the UI workers wouldn't like to expose a cheat, you're sadly mistaken.

Also, it doesn't hurt to call or send resumes to companies that don't have a current opening. Sometimes it works--the next day they might have an opening. That is still considered actively looking for a job. Some companies don't advertise openings immediately.

It's been decades since I collected unemployment. In fact, top pay was $135.00/wk when I spent a few months on it.

I don't believe for one minute that a thief was able to collect unemployment either. Likewise, an employee that was fired for a valid reason.


Employers pay for this insurance, and the more claims your ex employees make, the more you have to pay in rates...as with any insurance.


It isn't easy to get unemployment unless your employer doesn't challenge your request. Perhaps some of the parameters re. seeking employment have been relaxed during this extension period, but typically, your description of UI is accurate.

UI used to lean towards the employee. Times and economic circumstances have changed that. They are not so ready to give money that they don't have in the first place. There is a lot more money given out now than they are taking in. So if an employer challenges the application they tend to want to side with the employer and deny the claim.

 

[code1211]

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".

Don't let reality cloud your illusions.

Just because you like the past does not make the past reality. When small companies were operating out of a single building in a small town, your little Norman Rockwell illusion may have existed. Unfortunately, multinationals overwhelmed them just like Sears overwhelmed Tom's Hardware in my hometown.

In Indiana, if I want to buy a car that is built locally, I am buying a Honda, a Toyota or a Suburu. Just because you don't understand it, don't mean it don't exist. Multinationals buy, sell and employ across national boundaries.

This is different than it used to be. It is not by definition bad. It is only different. The 1950's were different than the 1890's. The 2070's will be different than today. To bemoan change is to ignor possiblity. Yesterday's gone. If you look back in anger and forward in fear, you are going to fail.

Yesterday's solutions carried an expiration date. They are stale. If we will succeed as individuals or as a nation, we need to employ the solutions of tomorrow.

Where are you looking for your solutions?

 

[code1211]

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.

And quite soon there will be no American Companies either within our borders or abroad.

My God! You're brilliant!

 

[code1211]

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

This is a great example of a Liberal thinking.

As a Conservative, I am concerned about my life and my responsibilities and my income and expenses.

As a liberal, he is concerned about my life and my responsibilities and my income and expenses.

His own situation is unimportant as long as he can assure that I am less happy than he. Typical Liberal. There is no such thing as being happy. There is only better or worse, higher or lower, less or more. Nothing is defined in terms of unique existance. Everything exists only in terms of relative inequality.

 

[Old Rocks]

Gingrich has been a teacher and a college professor and then entered politics. He hold a PhD. He's not a very likable guy, in my personnal opinion, but he is brilliant.

Brilliant assholes are a pain in the ass. Gingrinch is hardly someone that I would want to trust to run this nation.

 

[rdean]

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.

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.

 

[cad]

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.

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.

so in your opinion a conservative wants to keep things exactly the same way they are. or were? they are not for any sort of change or evolution? in your opinion, what is the time us conservatives want to go back to ? 1950? 1850? 1776?

 

[uscitizen]

You know I have never seen a right winger turn down money when offered to them.
And tend to pursue the money very actively.

I however waited over 3 years to go on SS disability because I did not need the money.


All my Palin supporter farmer friends and their various farm subsidies...

How about you give them back the money stolen by FICA first. Plus the interest if they would have put i in a nice safe treasury bond.

If we're going to play what ifs like this, let's not forget the other half of the equation.

LOL, yeah like my auto insurance company will give me my premiums plus interest back if I don't make any claims?

SS is not a savings plan it is an insurance plan.

Otherwise lots of old folks would have ran out of checks from SS long ago.
What they put in plus the interest is long past gone for many on SS benefits.

 

[Big Fitz]

LOL, yeah like my auto insurance company will give me my premiums plus interest back if I don't make any claims?

No equivalency. You buy it from a private company. If you want the privilege of driving a car, you must have it to drive it off your property. You've no right to drive.

I cannot opt out of Social Security by not partaking in it's benefits.

So that argument's failed

 

[rdean]

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.

so in your opinion a conservative wants to keep things exactly the same way they are. or were? they are not for any sort of change or evolution? in your opinion, what is the time us conservatives want to go back to ? 1950? 1850? 1776?

I'm thinking that if you go back to before women could vote and when blacks were slaves, for most conservatives, it would be far enough. Am I right?

 

[rdean]

Again, point being?

How can you have an opinion on something when apparently don't have a clue?

Of course, those on the right say I don't have a clue. Which is why I put up so many links. They almost never do. And when they do, it's to Arab owned Fox news or some place similar. Seldom any place reputable.

So, I'm still curious. What does it mean to you when you say, "Someone skilled"?