John Boehner Says the Obama Economy Has Eliminated Involuntary Unemployment! Seriously; that’s what he said. The Dems should use this in campaign ads.
John Boehner says that unemployed Americans are pretty clearly malingerers, bums on welfare who have decided that they don’t feel like working:
“This idea that has been born, maybe out of the economy over the last couple years, that you know, I really don’t have to work. I don’t really want to do this. I think I’d rather just sit around. This is a very sick idea for our country,” he said.
“If you wanted something you worked for it,” Boehner said, adding, “Trust me, I did it all.”
— John Boehner’s Theory of the Leisure Class, Paul Krugman, NYTimes.com, today
Okay, Krugman goes on to point out that overwhelming economic evidence refutes Boehner’s believe that the actual unemployment rate among people who want a job is zero. And he adds:
[W]hat really gets me here is the fact that people like Boehner are so obviously disconnected from the lived experience of ordinary workers. I mean, I live a pretty rarefied existence, with job security and a nice income and a generally upscale social set — but even so I know a fair number of people who have spent months or years in desperate search of jobs that still aren’t there. How cut off (or oblivious) can someone be who thinks that it’s just because they don’t want to work?
When I see stuff like this, I always think of the opening of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre:
“Anyone who is willing to work and is serious about it will certainly find a job. Only you must not go to the man who tells you this, for he has no job to offer and doesn’t know anyone who knows of a vacancy. This is exactly the reason why he gives you such generous advice, out of brotherly love, and to demonstrate how little he knows the world.”
It certainly is true that this idea that you know, I really don’t have to work–I don’t really want to do this; I think I’d rather just sit around–is a very sick idea for our country.
Which is why Boehner should have used a contraceptive rather than conceiving and giving birth to it.
But now that he has, the Dems should take this baby, remove it from the bath water, dry it off, and feature it in ads letting people know that John Boehner attests to the wild success of Obama economic policy.
The baby, by the way, has been christened Son of the 47%. His birth father, who wants to work and therefore has a job, loves him very much, can afford to support him, and will fight the Dems for custody.
Bev:
A good post. Do you remember Pace from The Fray?
Thanks. Yeah, vaguely.
He’s an embarrassment.
I’m all for the Keystone Pipeline, but as for drilling on federal lands and on the continental shelf, I’d much rather use oil from the Middle East. Sounds crazy, right? Well, the way I see it, the sooner we use us their oil, the sooner we won’t have to bother with that area of the world anymore.
Jobs? ADULTS are delivering papers now. So few people get home delivery now that you need a car to deliver the papers. And the Minimum Wage has been rightly called “The Black Teen Unemployment Act.” Yes, my son had a “job” at age twelve, but he was a “volunteer” to whom the organization gave a “gift” (it was a non-profit) at the end of the season. Those “jobs” are few and far between, even in the white suburbs. Never mind trying to get something like that as an inner-city Black kid.
Back when Boehner was a kid, his dad (and other business owners), could just pay him here and their for little tasks. That’s essentially illegal now. You have to fill out a ton of paperwork — and don’t forget to pay payroll taxes!
And education? When the DC public schools are a model for the nation, I’ll consider taking their advise on how my kids schools should be run. Yes, school choice is a Good Thing. But who jumps through the hoops to get their kids there? The parents who care. It’s not that the charter schools are so great, it’s that the parents that put their kids there are the parents who are going to put the most effort into their kids’ education.
Of of the best students I had was a young Black man (and I mean BLACK) about 6’2″ tall, 260lbs, with a high-top fade. First day assembly, teachers were muttering to each other, “I hope I don’t get him.” Well, I did. And he was great. Why? Because his 5’2″ mama would whup his @$$ if he didn’t do his work, and she taught him manners.
Those are the kids whose parents stand in line and go through the paperwork to get their kids in charter schools.
Sorry for the rant — I’m a conservative (obviously), which makes me even more pee-Oh’d by the like of Boehner.
Back to employment. (When I’m on a rant, and there is so much to rant about, I tend to jump around.) I’ve got a college degree, in an high-demand field. I’ve been unemployed TWICE in this recession, and was out of work for months at a stretch. I did mange to pick up some part-time work here and there, for half my usual hourly and no benefits. One employer stiffed me completely — to the tune of about $5000 — but it’s not worth the hassle to sue. It is hard for someone like me to find a job. Heck, it’s a full-time job just looking for a job. And when you are looking, you feel guilty for not doing all that deferred maintenance you now have time to do (but no money for the materials). And when you are doing that maintenance, you feel guilty that you’re not looking for work. It sucks.
Even with in-demand skills, it’s hard to find a job. Theoretically, it’s easier when you’re unskilled labor, because there are more jobs that don’t required skilled labor. But of course there are still more people looking for those jobs. (That’s why we have job fairs at our church, too.)
OK — rant over. Thanks for indulging me.
Jack:
Sometimes just being you goes a long way.
“Back to employment. (When I’m on a rant, and there is so much to rant about, I tend to jump around.) I’ve got a college degree, in an high-demand field. I’ve been unemployed TWICE in this recession, and was out of work for months at a stretch. I did mange to pick up some part-time work here and there, for half my usual hourly and no benefits. One employer stiffed me completely — to the tune of about $5000 — but it’s not worth the hassle to sue.”
Been there too with 3 degrees leading up to a Masters. Whether we are conservatives or liberals we are in the same boat. AB is not a bad place and we are pretty tolerant of different views. You have been pushin the limits; but, you appear to be human. Think you can write some good stuff so we can all talk?
Sound like Boehner is striking out after the ACA claim that people don’t have to work at a hated job or full-time to get health insurance now.
Jack, like you’re theory on Middle East oil. But the pipe line will encourage fracking which has so many negatives. The worse of which is pollution of ground water supplies. With a populations of 40+ million living in poverty it will be hard not to approve the good paying jobs this type of work produces.
Run,
Just because he has had trouble getting a job does not mean he is human.
“The Black Teen Unemployment Act.”
AH
The sadder part of Boehner’s comment is that it is also a recurring theme in the “mainstream” part of the GOP. Lest we forget, Paul “Hammock” Ryan.
And talking at these people is like talking to Jack. You are far better off talking to a kitchen table. In my case, when faced with the option of talking to these rwdws or a kitchen table, I have switched to talking to the printer next to my computer.
They follow the inanities of the Catos of the world. The Laffers and the Moores; who have never been right about anything; frequently are caught in outright lies in their work; yet still have jobs and still have neanderthals believing in their lies.
Example:
“The gravamen (yes, I’m still in law school) of the Cato report in question is that welfare “pays” more in most states than a minimum wage job. From the report:
Far from condemning welfare recipients to a life of poverty, welfare actually exceeds the FPL [Federal Poverty Level] in 42 states and the District of Columbia (as show [sic] in Table 5). In fact, in the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts, welfare pays more than twice the poverty level.
………….
So let’s break down where things really stand if we take a more realistic – but still generous to Cato – view. This is made easy by a table that Cato buried at the bottom of the report, where they calculate the total based on the benefits that are received by an actual majority of “typical welfare families” (in other words, what Cato’s actually typical “typical welfare family” would receive). We’ll compare this to what a minimum wage employee would receive based on a 40*52*minimum wage salary, less 7.65% withholding ($14,887 in states that use the federal minimum wage), plus the medicaid value for the state as calculated by Cato. (If the same family qualified while on TANF, they’d still qualify at the $14,887 income, which is far below the federal poverty line for a family of 3.) To this, we will add another $5,000 in refundable tax credits. Most of the Cato “typical” one-parent, two-child families will actually get more than that, but we’ll cut the figure for ease of calculation and to account for state taxes. This gives us a total of $19,887 in pre-medicaid income for those families.
Hawai‘i, according to Cato, has the most generous benefits. Cato’s up front calculation says Hawai‘i “typical welfare recipients” receive $49,175 in welfare benefits. Their “typical typical” calculation drops that to $23,235. Cato’s Medicaid calculation for Hawai‘i is $6,776. The minimum wage family is several thousand dollars better off than the “typical welfare family.”
In Mississippi, which Cato ranks dead last in welfare generosity, the up front calculation gives welfare families $16,984. Mississippi provides housing assistance to less than 10% of TANF families, so Cato’s “typical typical” calculation isn’t much different ($15,261). Cato’s Medicaid calculation for Mississippi is $6,909, putting the minimum wage family at nearly $26,000 – more than $10,000 better off than most welfare families.
New York often gets labeled as a welfare state. The “typical typical” benefit there is about $24,000, but almost half of that ($10,464) is Medicaid. The minimum wage + Medicaid family will be more than $6,000 better off than the welfare family. You’re about that much better off in California, too, before taking the higher minimum wage into account.
Alaska tops the Cato “typical typical” list at $26,560, but even there the minimum wage plus Medicaid family will be ~$2,000 better off annually.
In short – too late – there appears to be NO state where a family in the same situation as the family Cato used for their welfare calculations will be worse off if employed at a minimum wage job. Zero. None. Nada.
To put it another way, Cato’s statement that, “The current welfare system provides such a
high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work,” is not just a lie in general, it’s a lie in all 50 states, and in the District of Columbia.”
http://scientopia.org/blogs/authority/2013/08/21/no-cato-welfare-doesnt-pay-more-than-minimum-wage/
Beene — my understanding is the oil going into the Keystone Pipeline would not from fracking, but from the Alberta tar sands.
EMichael — at least the table and printer are at your intellectual level.
I disagree also with the treatment of Social Security taxes. It may be that that money is lost, since only the highest 35 years (or 140 quarters — I don’t recall) of one’s income are used in the benefits calculation. Still, for the chronically unemployed, which is closer to the welfare dependent than not, a full year worked at Minimum Wage might just be one of those years. So, even though he will take a loss on that money, both because the total dollar returned in benefits for the average lifespan is less than the total dollar payments, but also because the poor have shorter lifespans, that cannot be said to be a total loss, as it is in the calculations.
Y’know, Jack?
I don’t think you hijack topics intentionally, I just think you are not quite bright enough to concentrate.
Your first post in here:
Jack
September 19, 2014 10:52 pm
He’s an embarrassment.
I’m all for the Keystone Pipeline, but as for drilling on federal lands and on the continental shelf, I’d much rather use oil from the Middle East. Sounds crazy, right?”
You lasted three words before you forgot the topic.
Here is your next two posst:
Jack
September 20, 2014 12:35 pm
Beene — my understanding is the oil going into the Keystone Pipeline would not from fracking, but from the Alberta tar sands.
Jack
September 20, 2014 12:41 pm
EMichael — at least the table and printer are at your intellectual level.
I disagree also with the treatment of Social Security taxes.”
I mean, seriously, WTF????
Perhaps if you could concentrate enough to read ALL of the comments, not just mine, you might be able to keep up with the conversation.
“Beene — my understanding is the oil going into the Keystone Pipeline would not from fracking, but from the Alberta tar sands.” Jack
We are in agreement on understanding. But their are fracking wells started along routes east and south, which may end if pipeline is stopped.
More likely the oil would just go by truck, which is even worse from an environmental standpoint.
Jack, moving on and back to subject.
Perception is often the difference in how we perceive something. A long time ago was in grocery store with a friend. Someone in front of us was using food stamps. I said to my friend that I wish I could get those food stamps. My friend said you have no idea of how embarrassing it is to have to use them. My thought was how much further my money would go. Never occurred to me that it would be an embarrassment.
Jack,
Read “all of the comments” in this topic before you hijacked the topic.
If I only thought this comment would get Boehner unemployed. Which may be kind of the point. He will be re-elected easily. Sad.
Jack
you had me convinced you were a human being there. but you haven’t convinced me that you can think.
you are willing to take any combination of words that ends with the conclusion you wanted to reach in the first place and call that “reason.”
it isn’t.
The 35 year basis of the SS benefit calculation is an accounting convenience and it does tend to adjust for periods of low or no pay… especially those occurring toward the end of a career. to decide whether this is “fair” or not, you’d have to know something about the total taxes paid and when (time value of money) as compared to the “benefit.”
i lost track, but i think you were saying that counting only the best 35 years leads to a loss of benefits. it actually leads to an increase in benefits… but note also that the higher the “average” wage the lower the percent “return on investment.” so the picture is just complicated enough to be beyond a simple minded “analysis.”
the same thing is true about the lower life expectancy of the poor leading them to be cheated… in fact those poor get a higher percent rate of return on their taxes than the longer-lived “rich” on a monthly basis, their dependents are more likely to collect survivors benefits, and they themselves are more likely to collect disability benefits… and there is SSI (which is NOT social security) which helps to make up the difference between what the very poor can get even from Social Security and what it takes for them to live.
you can’t talk about this stuff when you don’t know about it without making a fool of yourself. but that puts you in good company.
and Jack,
i don’t care so much about “hijacking the thread” (because i have seen the meme used illigitimately)
but i do get tired of listening to you. it’s like having someone’s eight year old kid show up at a party for grownups and dominating the conversation. cute for a minute. an unutterable bore after five… and if it goes on for hours it is insufferable.