Gingrich: Middle class unemployed are lazy!

[bigrebnc1775]

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"?

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

It seems that you never have a problem with it,

 

[rdean]

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.

The Republicans base would have no idea what you are talking about.

In 20 years, they will believe it was Democrats who convinced the country to invade Iraq. Worse, they will have the majority of Americans believing it was Obama who put together TARP. Opps, that's right, they already have.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

The Republicans base would have no idea what you are talking about.

In 20 years, they will believe it was Democrats who convinced the country to invade Iraq. Worse, they will have the majority of Americans believing it was Obama who put together TARP. Opps, that's right, they already have.

Really? Republicans don't have that much spin in them.

 

[rdean]

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?

Those who pocket politicians so they can legally steal from the American People.

 

[Oddball]

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"?

Again, what is your point, other than to distract from the fact that lower employee pay rates are far from the only reason that American companies relocate some of their operations in other countries?

Oh, and you really don't have a clue.... as to anything.

 

[Jon]

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.

 

[Jon]

Those who pocket politicians so they can legally steal from the American People.

And you don't think the politicians aren't any greedier, right? And, of course, NONE of said politicians belong to your precious Democratic party, right?

You're so fucking daft.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Yes it is.

Let me ask you something PJ. What is your envy of conservatives who worked their ass off to earn their living and not get it by shaking down others or living off the government, ever done to improve your life? You hate the fact they succeed. How does their success hurt you? Have they stolen from you? Have they beat you?

Why is this hate towards them so functional?

Secondly, I would like to point out that most of those conservatives who do fall are smart enough to TAKE jobs away from your kids to keep paying their mortgage instead of running to the government and get bailed out by stealing from their neighbors through taxes. They at least have personal integrity, responsibility and honor.

What've you got that's worth a good goddamn?

 

[uscitizen]

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

I am not talking about opting out just that it is insurance not an investment.

 

[Howard Roark]

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.

No, he didn't. Best you accept that now, or you'll drive yourself crazy.

UI is an insurance policy that the employer is required to buy.

It guarantees anyone that works app. 1/2 of any year, the right to receive a pittance if they are laid off from their job.

They are required to seek employment during this layoff.

 

[Jon]

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.

No, he didn't. Best you accept that now, or you'll drive yourself crazy.

UI is an insurance policy that the employer is required to buy.

It guarantees anyone that works app. 1/2 of any year, the right to receive a pittance if they are laid off from their job.

They are required to seek employment during this layoff.

Yes, thank you for the correction. It was late. What I meant to say is that he worked for 35 years, and he felt entitled to unemployment beyond his defined benefits.

 

[Howard Roark]

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.

No, he didn't. Best you accept that now, or you'll drive yourself crazy.

UI is an insurance policy that the employer is required to buy.

It guarantees anyone that works app. 1/2 of any year, the right to receive a pittance if they are laid off from their job.

They are required to seek employment during this layoff.

Yes, thank you for the correction. It was late. What I meant to say is that he worked for 35 years, and he felt entitled to unemployment beyond his defined benefits.

Even the guy on t.v. thought he was paying in.

This is a complex issue. What we have, is a benefit being paid with taxpayer dollars now. It was never set up that way.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

If it helps those on the right here, think of it this way.

We took billions of taxpayer dollars for a bank bailout. How much of that went to corporate bonuses?

A shitload.

We're offering to extend a maximum of $400.00/week to people who are out of work. I'm quite sure that the majority would love to have their old jobs back, where they may have been making twice that much.



Gingrich is an ass. If common people got bonuses for running corporations into the ground, then we wouldn't have to extend their UI benefits.

 

[topspin]

Shit I'm about to retire after 36 years of working, How do you get some of this gov tit money. Do I need to get fired/layed off. That'd be a nice send off, milk unlcle Sam for 52wks before I start the party in ernest.

 

[VaYank5150]

Shit I'm about to retire after 36 years of working, How do you get some of this gov tit money. Do I need to get fired/layed off. That'd be a nice send off, milk unlcle Sam for 52wks before I start the party in ernest.

Please let us all know how that hefty $400.00/wk works out for your big send off...

 

[topspin]

Shit I'm about to retire after 36 years of working, How do you get some of this gov tit money. Do I need to get fired/layed off. That'd be a nice send off, milk unlcle Sam for 52wks before I start the party in ernest.

Please let us all know how that hefty $400.00/wk works out for your big send off...

I'll do that, I'm also trying for a layoff package that will net me 100K to quite. Guess I'd have to wait a year for the $400wk.

 

[Toro]

I read somewhere this morning that in 1995, Cobb county - Gingrich's old district - received more money from the Federal government than any county in America save two, Arlington and the county in Florida where NASA is located. So Gingrich's comments about lazy welfare people are pretty amusing.

But then again, Gingrich has long been a raging hypocrite when it comes to saying and doing - i.e. family values crusader while having affairs with other women besides his wife - so it shouldn't come as any surprise.

 

[code1211]

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

I have to agree with you. He would be like Mr. Spock in command. Unfeeling and unable to figure out why others do feel. That's a tad strong, but it leans in the right direction.

He'd make one terrific advisor, though.

 

[code1211]

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.

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

 

[code1211]

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?

He just hates that we can't go back to 1950. Big Cars with Big Unions and no foreign competition. Oh, and of course he hates anyone that doesn't agree with him.