If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Newt Gingrich: It's the unemployed who cause unemployment   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 768
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

8275 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Dec 2010 at 12:08 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



768 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-12-23 07:12:48 PM  
And the root cause of poverty is not having money!
 
2010-12-23 07:13:58 PM  
Yeah, they need to go out and hire themselves into a job.
 
2010-12-23 07:18:14 PM  
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: And the root cause of poverty is not having money!

Studies have shown that 100% of the homeless aren't paying any property taxes.
 
2010-12-23 07:29:55 PM  
Hender: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: And the root cause of poverty is not having money!

Studies have shown that 100% of the homeless aren't paying any property taxes.


And worst of all, state-funded nursing homes have a huge percentage of their customers DIE!
 
2010-12-23 07:33:07 PM  
More Gingrich relevant: Adultery is caused by the wives that are cheated on.
 
2010-12-23 07:35:53 PM  
And it's the gays who caused DADT.
 
2010-12-23 09:41:04 PM  
So it has come to this; An open campaign against the poor.
 
2010-12-23 09:45:34 PM  
Speaking of the unemployed, has anyone heard from Newt Gingrich lately? I heard he's holed up in his overleveraged McMansion fretting about staying more relevant than George Will.

A sad case, really.

Maybe he'll get a visit from the ghost of Christmas Future.
 
2010-12-23 09:56:08 PM  
"I'm opposed to giving people money for doing nothing," Gingrich said

So he's going to return all the money FOX News has ever paid him then?

I did not know he was a communist.
 
2010-12-23 10:03:22 PM  
Kirk's_Toupee: So it has come to this; An open campaign against the poor.

So it's a standard year for the Republicans then?
 
2010-12-23 10:07:30 PM  
Marcus Aurelius: Speaking of the unemployed, has anyone heard from Newt Gingrich lately? I heard he's holed up in his overleveraged McMansion fretting about staying more relevant than George Will.

A sad case, really


I heard a witch turned him into a Newt, and he didn't get better.
 
2010-12-23 10:10:57 PM  
You know, I like Newt, I generally do. He's a historian and normally a fantastic orator, however I think here he's missing the mark. Some of his Rhetoric does come off as the opposite end of the Democrats class war, they attack the rich, and he's attacking the poor. Class warfare is bad regardless of who is doing it.

He should focus his message on the second part, the one where he stresses mandatory re-training while unemployed and looking. Currently it's far too easy to draw unemployment. You don't even have to make the walk of shame to the Unemployment office anymore to get your money. You hit a website answer 10 questions and the money is direct deposited into an account that you can use a debit\credit card to access. Way too easy.

There's also the side effect of the damage to self-esteem being unemployed causes. Give someone something to do that is productive while they are drawing unemployment, you know, like going to classes, organized job fairs etc... all stuff that could be done by through unemployment. Just because we extend benifits doesn't mean there isn't some good reform that can occur.

A safetey net is a good thing and in a free market economy that is prone to bubbles and bursts, I would say it's a necessitiy. I just think we could do it far more intelligently and efeciently and I wish Newt would focus on that angle instead of fighting the Democrat's class war by choosing the other side.
 
2010-12-23 10:15:18 PM  
Marcus Aurelius: Speaking of the unemployed, has anyone heard from Newt Gingrich lately? I heard he's holed up in his overleveraged McMansion fretting about staying more relevant than George Will.

A sad case, really.

Maybe he'll get a visit from the ghost of Christmas Future.


You're a mean one, Mr Gingrich
You really are a heel
 
2010-12-23 10:18:04 PM  
CanisNoir: You don't even have to make the walk of shame to the Unemployment office anymore

Yes, because the proper thing to do is to hurt people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. You know what we really need? A nice little path to force them to walk down, while they can be pelted with rotten tomatoes from by the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. You know, really get the point across that you are an inferior person because you weren't born rich.
 
2010-12-23 10:28:33 PM  
fusillade762: You're a mean one, Mr Gingrich
You really are a heel


I wouldn't touch you with a
Heavily biased Rasmussen pol-l-l-l-l-l-l-l!
 
2010-12-23 10:42:00 PM  
You know what your life is when you are out of work; and when you do have a job, how the fear of losing it hangs over you. You are also aware what a danger the standing army of unemployed is to you when you are out on strike for better conditions. You know that strikebreakers are enlisted from the unemployed whom capitalism always keeps on hand, to help break your strike.

'How does capitalism keep the unemployed on hand?' you ask.

Simply by compelling you to work long hours and as hard as possible, so as to produce the greatest amount. All the modern schemes of 'efficiency', the Taylor and other systems of 'economy' and 'rationalization' serve only to squeeze greater profits out of the worker. It is economy in the interest of the employer only. But as concerns you, the worker, this 'economy' spells the greatest expenditure of your effort and energy, a fatal waste of your vitality.

It pays the employer to use up and exploit your strength and ability at the highest tension. True, it ruins your health and breaks down your nervous system, makes you a prey to illness and disease (there are even special proletarian diseases), cripples you and brings you to an early grave - but what does your boss care? Are there not thousands of unemployed waiting for your job and ready to take it the moment you are disabled or dead?

That is why it is to the profit of the capitalist to keep an army of unemployed ready at hand. It is part and parcel of the wage system, a necessary and inevitable characteristic of it.

It is in the interest of the people that there should be no unemployed, that all should have an opportunity to work and earn their living; that all should help, each according to his ability and strength, to increase the wealth of the country, so that each should be able to have a greater share of it.

But capitalism is not interested in the welfare of the people. Capitalism, as I have shown before, is interested only in profits. By employing less people and working them long hours larger profits can be made than by giving work to more people at shorter hours. That is why it is to the interest of your employer, for instance, to have 100 people work 10 hours daily rather than to employ 200 at 5 hours. He would need more room for 200 than for 100 persons - a larger factory, more tools and machinery, and so on. That is, he would require a greater investment of capital. The employment of a larger force at less hours would bring less profits, and that is why your boss will not run his factory or shop on such a plan. Which means that a system of profit-making is not compatible with considerations of humanity and the well-being of the workers. On the contrary, the harder and more 'efficiently' you work and the longer hours you stay at it, the better for your employer and the greater his profits.

You can therefore see that capitalism is not interested in employing all those who want and are able to work. On the contrary: a minimum of 'hands' and a maximum of effort is the principle and the profit of the capitalist system. This is the whole secret of all 'rationalization' schemes. And that is why you will find thousands of people in every capitalist country willing and anxious to work, yet unable to get employment. This army of unemployed is a constant threat to your standard of living. They are ready to take your place at lower pay, because necessity compels them to it. That is, of course, very advantageous to the boss: it is a whip in his hands constantly held over you, so you will slave hard for him and 'behave' yourself.

You can see for yourself how dangerous and degrading such a situation is for the worker, not to speak of the other evils of the system.

'Then why not do away with unemployment?' you demand.

Yes, it would be fine to do away with it. But it could be accomplished only by doing away with the capitalist system and its wage slavery. As long as you have capitalism - or any other system of labor exploitation and profit- making - you will have unemployment. Capitalism can't exist without it: it is inherent in the wage system. It is the fundamental condition of successful capitalist production

'Why?'

Because the capitalist industrial system does not produce for the needs of the people; it produces for profit. Manufacturers do not produce commodities because the people want them and as much of them as is required. They produce what they expect to sell, and sell at a profit.

If we had a sensible system, we would produce the things which the people want and the quantity they need. Suppose the inhabitants of a certain locality needed 1,000 pairs of shoes; and suppose we'd have 50 shoemakers for the job. Then in 20 hours work those shoemakers would produce the shoes our community needs.

But the shoemaker of to-day does not know and does not care how many pairs of shoes are needed. Thousands of people may need new shoes in your city, but they cannot afford to buy them. So what good is it to the manufacturer to know who needs shoes? What he wants to know is who can buy the shoes he makes: how many pairs he can sell at a profit.

What happens? Well, he will manufacture about as many pairs of shoes as he thinks he will be able to sell. He will try his best to produce them as cheaply and sell them as dearly as he can, so as to make a good profit. He will therefore employ as few workers as possible to manufacture the quantity of shoes he wants, and he will have them work as 'efficiently' and hard as he can compel them to.

You see that production for profit means longer hours and fewer persons employed than would be the case if production were for use.

Capitalism is the system of production for profit, and that is why capitalism always must have unemployed.

But look further into this system of production for profit and you will see how its basic evil works a hundred other evils.

Let us follow the shoe manufacturer of your city. He has no way of knowing, as I have already pointed out, who will or will not be able to buy his shoes. He makes a rough guess, he 'estimates', and he decides to manufacture, let us say, 50,000 pairs. Then he puts his product on the market. That is, the wholesaler, the jobber, and the storekeeper put them up for sale.

Suppose only 30,000 pairs were sold; 20,000 pairs remain on hand. Our manufacturer, unable to sell the balance in his own city, will try to dispose of it, in some other part of the country. But the shoe manufacturers there have also had the same experience. They also can't sell all they have produced. The supply of shoes is greater than the demand for them, they tell you. They have to cut down production. That means the discharge of some of their employees, thus increasing the army of the unemployed.

'Over-production' this is called. But in truth it is not over-production at all. It is under-consumption, because there are many people who need new shoes, but they can't afford to buy them.

The result? The warehouses are stocked with the shoes the people want but cannot buy, shops and factories close because of the 'oversupply'. The same things happen in other industries. You are told that there is a 'crisis' and your wages must be reduced.

Your wages are cut; you are put on part time or you lose your work altogether Thousands of men and women are thrown out of employment in that manner. Their wages stop and they cannot buy the food and other things they need. Are those things not to be had? No, on the contrary; the warehouses and stores are filled with them, there is too much of them there's 'over-production'.

So the capitalist system of production for profit results in this crazy situation:

(1) people have to starve - not because there is not enough food but
because there is too much of it; they have to do without the things they need, because there is too much of those things on hand;
(2) because there is too much, manufacture is cut down, throwing
thousands out of work;
(3) being out of work and therefore not earning, those thousands lose
their buying capacity. The grocer, the butcher, the tailor all s, as a result. That means increased unemployment all around, the crisis gets worse.

Under capitalism this happens in every industry.

Such crises are inevitable in a system of production for profit. 1 come from time to time; they return periodically, always getting worse. They deprive thousands and hundreds of thousands of employment causing poverty, distress, and untold misery. They result in bankruptcy and bank failures, which swallow up whatever little the worker have saved in time of 'prosperity'. They cause want and need, d people to despair and crime, to suicide and insanity.

Such are the results of production for profit; such the fruits of system of capitalism.
 
2010-12-23 10:45:57 PM  
GAT_00: You know, really get the point across that you are an inferior person because you weren't born rich.

Yea, that's exactly what I was saying...
 
2010-12-23 10:46:53 PM  
img.photobucket.com

It's the government's fault for putting government in our government.
 
2010-12-23 10:51:23 PM  
Hmm, German republicans calling people inferior...

Pastor John Hagee
Florida pastor Bill Keller
Charles and David Koch - Google 'Koch Buchenwald'
Pope Joseph Ratzinger
Dr. Laura Schlessinger
Newt Gingrich
Karl Rove
Charles Krauthammer
Glenn Beck
Ann Coulter
Rush Limbaugh
Michele Bachmann
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
 
2010-12-23 10:57:21 PM  
CanisNoir: GAT_00: You know, really get the point across that you are an inferior person because you weren't born rich.

Yea, that's exactly what I was saying...


I took your point to it's logical conclusion.jaylectricity: You know what your life is when you are out of work

Hmm. I ought to know that. *Googles* Ah, Berkman. I don't think that's actually on my 'should read' list, but it ought to be.
 
2010-12-23 10:58:30 PM  
What's great about this piece of 'journalism' is that it gets it right out there in front (and right on cue): ABC is already going on the attack as an official organ of the state media apparatus.

What's hilarious about this is the fact that the sagging, fleshy dinosaurs of the old media still think they can sway a national election for the liberal elite. Sadly, it's just the same, warmed-over class warfare feces, covered in decades-old dust.


It didn't work in November 2010... and it won't work in 2012.


/go Newt!
 
2010-12-23 10:58:30 PM  
CanisNoir: He should focus his message on the second part, the one where he stresses mandatory re-training while unemployed

Retraining is good in certain conditions, mainly when you have gaps in employment for easily trained fields. For example, with the rising average age of the country, we'll probably need more nurse's aides, which is a skill that most people can, can be trained quickly, and will experience rising demand.

Right now though, we have way more people available for work than there are jobs. You can retrain people all you want, but it just means more people are competing for that same job. There are some fields we could probably use more people in, but those are things that usually require a four year degree or more, such as engineering. It simply does not make sense for the government to pay more money for the laid off construction worker to be "retrained" in something else when we're going to need those skills again soon. It does make perfect sense for the government to take that worker and hire him to repair bridges instead of paying him unemployment, but that's socialism, so we can't do that.
 
2010-12-23 11:06:28 PM  
"If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also"

-- Jesus

"Allowing citizens to seek redress through the legislature or the courts is, well, simply inefficient."

-- A guy who inherited millions of dollars, reflecting on the discomfort of giving Americans the rights of citizenship
 
2010-12-23 11:08:28 PM  
Sgt Otter: It's the government's fault for putting government in our government.

images1.memegenerator.net
 
2010-12-23 11:30:51 PM  
GAT_00: I took your point to it's logical conclusion.

As opposed to taking yours to it's logical conclusion where dollars fall from the sky and we can all get some right?
 
2010-12-23 11:34:44 PM  
Oh for the love of..
Greenlit with a hero tag?

I lack enough middle fingers to properly demonstrate my exasperation at this.
 
2010-12-23 11:36:13 PM  
Mandatory job retraining automatically assumes the person is unemployed because his or her job is obsolete or permanently overfilled. That's silly.

Not every unemployed person is a former autoworker. Some are actually accountants or computer programmers.

If he wants something in return for unemployment compensation, I suggest requiring a certain amount of useful community service (not picking up trash on the highway).
 
2010-12-23 11:36:33 PM  
Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: It does make perfect sense for the government to take that worker and hire him to repair bridges instead of paying him unemployment, but that's socialism, so we can't do that.

Repairing bridges is something one needs to be trained for as well. I don't see why you couldn't have re-training as well as contract bidding incentives for companies who hire out of those programs for work repairing bridges and other assorted infrastructure. Once you change the rhetoric to "Hey we're spending money on infrastructure by having private companies bid on the contract..." the whole OMG Socialism goes out the window.
 
2010-12-23 11:37:39 PM  
CanisNoir: GAT_00: I took your point to it's logical conclusion.

As opposed to taking yours to it's logical conclusion where dollars fall from the sky and we can all get some right?


Well, let's think this through. Take someone who makes a mil a year. Let's give him some more money. What's he going to do with it? Probably nothing new, save it. If you're not saving money making a mil a year, you're an idiot. So just increase that bubble. No jobs created, no further income created.

Toss money at the guy making minimum wage. He's going to pay off bills, buy more groceries, buy more goods, basically just buy. Because that person is already barely, if at all, making ends meet and cutting corners everywhere they can to keep going. More money is going to be spent, creating jobs across the board at multiple industries.

So yeah, throwing money at poor people creates jobs.
 
2010-12-23 11:39:29 PM  
CanisNoir: Repairing bridges is something one needs to be trained for as well.

Hey, you know what that sounds like? Retraining, that thing you were talking about. So we can retrain him, and have him work to create infrastructure. Why, what a marvelous idea! We're combining both halves of your ideas and getting a net benefit. Oh, wait, that's socialism.
 
2010-12-23 11:46:37 PM  
CanisNoir: Repairing bridges is something one needs to be trained for as well. I don't see why you couldn't have re-training as well as contract bidding incentives for companies who hire out of those programs for work repairing bridges and other assorted infrastructure. Once you change the rhetoric to "Hey we're spending money on infrastructure by having private companies bid on the contract..." the whole OMG Socialism goes out the window.

Most work like repairing bridges, at least in this state, is done by private companies who bid on the projects. Anyway, I think you're missing the big point here:

Yes, you definitely need to train someone to repair bridges, but we already have people that are trained and experienced. Retraining is only necessary when you have companies that say "man, I'd love to hire 15 additional welders because we're getting more work than we can handle, but I can't find guys to do it." Right now, if you put out an ad for a position, you get hundreds of applications. Retraining doesn't do anything to solve that problem.
 
2010-12-23 11:51:36 PM  
It also strikes me that when you say "well, people on unemployment need mandatory job retraining" you're essentially blaming the victim. There are a lot of highly qualified people I know that can't get jobs: engineers, IT security professionals, physicists, and so on. These aren't people that don't have jobs skills - they have them in spades. What they don't have is opportunities, and forcing to take classes in plumbing at a community college isn't going to fix that.
 
2010-12-23 11:53:01 PM  
SilentStrider: Oh for the love of..
Greenlit with a hero tag?

I lack enough middle fingers to properly demonstrate my exasperation at this.


Take your pick. (new window)
 
2010-12-23 11:54:10 PM  
Oh damn, I wonder which one got the ax.
 
2010-12-23 11:55:45 PM  
CanisNoir: Some of his Rhetoric does come off as the opposite end of the Democrats class war, they attack the rich, and he's attacking the poor. Class warfare is bad regardless of who is doing it.

Preventing the rich from taking everything is not an attack on them.
 
2010-12-23 11:57:04 PM  
Actually, maybe we need some class warfare.
 
2010-12-23 11:57:06 PM  
SilentStrider: Oh for the love of..
Greenlit with a hero tag?

I lack enough middle fingers to properly demonstrate my exasperation at this.


Some Admin be trolling.
 
2010-12-23 11:58:45 PM  
I wonder what the budget would be for this massive, government-mandated job training of every unemployed person? And how we would pay for it?

Polly by cutting taxes.

Do Republicans even listen to themselves anymore?
 
2010-12-23 11:59:18 PM  
SphericalTime: Some Admin be trolling.

i665.photobucket.com
 
2010-12-24 12:14:06 AM  
CanisNoir: He should focus his message on the second part, the one where he stresses mandatory re-training while unemployed and looking. Currently it's far too easy to draw unemployment. You don't even have to make the walk of shame to the Unemployment office anymore to get your money. You hit a website answer 10 questions and the money is direct deposited into an account that you can use a debit\credit card to access. Way too easy.

So there should be a punishment for any help received. Typical.

CanisNoir: There's also the side effect of the damage to self-esteem being unemployed causes. Give someone something to do that is productive while they are drawing unemployment, you know, like going to classes, organized job fairs etc... all stuff that could be done by through unemployment. Just because we extend benifits doesn't mean there isn't some good reform that can occur.

Forget what he just said. He is now concerned about self-esteem. Carry on.
 
2010-12-24 12:15:17 AM  
jaylectricity: But the shoemaker of to-day does not know and does not care how many pairs of shoes are needed.

lolwut

Your wall of text, it has a flaw.

Anyway, Newt Gingrich reminds me of one of those guys who like to dress up like a baby and get spanked.
 
2010-12-24 12:18:16 AM  
Those lazy unemployed bastards need to buy some bootstraps so they can pull themselves up by them.
 
2010-12-24 12:18:43 AM  
Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: It also strikes me that when you say "well, people on unemployment need mandatory job retraining" you're essentially blaming the victim. There are a lot of highly qualified people I know that can't get jobs: engineers, IT security professionals, physicists, and so on. These aren't people that don't have jobs skills - they have them in spades. What they don't have is opportunities, and forcing to take classes in plumbing at a community college isn't going to fix that.

2 words friend:

Boot. Straps.

We can't assume that current unemployment is derived from limited consumer demand, increased efficiency (conversely a decreased need for marginal workers when a machine can do more), and quarterly myopia that forces labor from the market to meet an arbitrary standard. No no no. We must assume that all workers are and/or outdated and this is simply the system correcting itself rather than the summation of 30+ years of anti-science education and self-serving grandeur. Anything besides laziness in the workforce is tantamount to admitting that MAYBE the business culture is horribly screwed up in the United States.

Besides, only commies care for their poor and sick. Go take two supply-side laffer curves and call me in the morning. We'll cure you yet.
 
2010-12-24 12:18:53 AM  
If those dirty cancer patients would give it a rest growing all those farking tumors, imagine how much money we could save on cancer research.
 
2010-12-24 12:19:05 AM  
I find it amazing that 10% of our population, most of whom worked their whole lives until the recession, have suddenly turned into lazy couch potatoes. Lazy shiats!

It's obvious that the unemployed, or the 1/3 of working families that are now near the poverty level, just aren't as deserving as the rich. Why can't they work hard for their money and tax cuts, like Newt or Paris Hilton?

/I love it that the rich continue to gather a larger percentage of the wealth, but it's "class warfare" to actually mention it.
 
2010-12-24 12:19:17 AM  
Kirk's_Toupee: So it has come to this; An open campaign against the poor.

They've been pretty open about it for at least 30 years.
 
2010-12-24 12:19:32 AM  
wow, he's, like, a total zen master and schnit.
 
2010-12-24 12:19:38 AM  
My brother in law:

Got in a fight with his boss 2 years ago, threatened to kick his ass and rape his old lady, got fired. Applied for unemployment and was denied. He got a job. About 6 weeks after he got that job, they reversed the decision on his unemployment, so he quit so he could sit home and collect a check. About 6 months ago, he got a job that paid cash (because he was living in my garage and I kicked him out), but he did not re-up his unemployment...then he got fired from that job (he's a real asshole). And now he's collecting unemployment again. 2 years and he is not the least bit interested in even looking for a job until his unemployment runs out (and he has someone to mooch off of...he's living with some girl now).

That's just one anecdote. But I have known 5 different people who were laid off, and without exception, not one of them would even look for a job until their unemployment was about to run out. I'm not arguing against NO unemployment, but I am against these constant extensions. I feel sorry for the people that have been out of a job for over 6 months (I am one of them), but I don't feel any more sorry for them than the person who lost their job 5 years ago and had their unemployment cut off after 6 months. The definition of fair would be that everyone is treated the same. 2 years of unemployment is not fair to those who were cut off after 6 months.

PS...I've been unemployed for 2 years too, but I haven't gotten one red cent from unemployment. No one ever told me that if your employer pays you with a 1099 you are ineligible for unemployment. Bastards.
 
2010-12-24 12:20:26 AM  
Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Yes, you definitely need to train someone to repair bridges, but we already have people that are trained and experienced. Retraining is only necessary when you have companies that say "man, I'd love to hire 15 additional welders because we're getting more work than we can handle, but I can't find guys to do it." Right now, if you put out an ad for a position, you get hundreds of applications. Retraining doesn't do anything to solve that problem.

Ayup!
 
2010-12-24 12:22:05 AM  
IStateTheObvious:
PS...I've been unemployed for 2 years too, but I haven't gotten one red cent from unemployment. No one ever told me that if your employer pays you with a 1099 you are ineligible for unemployment. Bastards.


You sound lazy.
 
Displayed 50 of 768 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report