Gingrich On Jobless: 'We Shouldn't Give People 99 Weeks To Do Nothing'
04:25 pm
January 23, 2012
Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich today made the case that those who have been collecting jobless benefits for extended periods of time should be required to enroll in job-training programs, saying that "we shouldn't give people 99 weeks to do nothing," our colleagues at WUSF in Tampa report.
The former House Speaker made his comment during an interview on WFLA radio in Tampa.
"We should change unemployment compensation so if you need unemployment compensation, you also sign up for a training program run by a business," Gingrich said, according to WUSF. "I mean, we shouldn't give people 99 weeks to do nothing. And then we say, we can't get people to work, well, no, you've given them 99 weeks of money, with no requirement for any effort."[JEEEZUS, does Newt even know anyone on UI?....I doubt it.....he's too busy whoring himself out to the 1%]
Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) are competing in the Jan. 31 Florida Republican presidential primary. After his decisive win Saturday in South Carolina's primary, Gingrich has upended the race. Heading into that contest, it looked as if Romney might wrap up the nomination soon. Now, it appears the Republican battle could continue for weeks if not months.
Fresh polls from Florida, according to Real Clear Politics, show Gingrich edging ahead of Romney in that state.
Tonight, the four contenders debate in Tampa. The event is being broadcast and webcast by one of the sponsors, NBC News. And we'll be helping our friends on the NPR elections desk by live blogging, over at It's All Politics. The debate starts at 9 p.m. ET.
The Associated Press says the pre-debate charges and countercharges have already been heated: "Romney began running an ad that said Gingrich 'cashed in' with home-loan giant Freddie Mac while Floridians were being crushed in the housing crisis. Gingrich mocked Romney as someone campaigning on openness 'who has released none of his business records.' "[WGAF? they're both the same rancid flavour of puke!]
With unemployment at still near 10% and greater in California, this boob believes that the long-term unemployed sit around and do nothing? Many people are struggling to find jobs that pay much less than they're used to, let alone match their previous salary. More proof that this SOB is more out of touch with everyday Americans than even I thought possible.
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
Romney needs to publish his tax returns, admit he's always been rich & privileged, and start painting himself as bound by noblesse oblige a la Roosevelts and Kennedys. He should probably get a dog (or two) to bring on the campaign trail, riding IN the car and subject to lots of spoiling.
I just read a Vanity Fair piece on Romney and as much as I found distasteful, I gotta say if you believe the widespread accounts of how he has always treated his wife - well, he's got 10x the character of the salamander.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
While it is easy to heap criticism on Newt for these statements (made in several different forums in recent days), there is a germ of sanity in them.
In past recessions, the Feds authorized extended unemployment benefits, and the evidence is fairly convincing that many people don't get serious about finding new employment until this particular umbilicus is severed. I personally have friends who have, for example, started driving "Access" vehicles at slightly over MW, and taken jobs in retail, since their benefits have run out. Let us not forget, after all, that unemployment compensation is an insurance policy: a premium is paid, and a benefit is due when certain events occur. In the current situation, we have said, in effect, that we are going to quadruple the benefit that was promised because...well...you're all such nice people.
Yet another case of politicians throwing around OPM, and to hell with the consequences.
I have experienced the unemployment thing from a number of different viewpoints over the years. I have been unemployed but not eligible to collect (not on previous job long enough), unemployed and collecting, and WORKING FULL TIME AND MAKING LESS THAN MY ACQUAINTANCES WERE COLLECTING ON UNEMPLOYMENT.
This last perspective is one that is invariably forgotten. In "our" desire to be compassionate with those who have lost their jobs - presumably through no fault of their own - we create a class of people who are not working, yet are "worth" more than those who are working in menial jobs.
What kind of "fairness" is this? Compassion? To whom? And why?
I'm sure it not surprising to any of you that I pretty much agree with Newt's point.
Similarly, in Massachusetts max is about $500/week, gross. And based on your prior years income - so if you make less than the max (not sure what that is) you get a percentage of the max.
On a 40/hour week that works out to $12.50/hour. Better than McD's but not exactly wages for riotous living.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Yes, it is true. At the time I was working for just a bit over minimum wage as a night watchman (full time) while attending college. And it was quite irritating to have drinking buddies who were seasonal construction workers and laid off factory workers who were getting more to sit on their asses than I was getting to work 40 hours/wk. (Not that the work was strenuous).
Whether unemployment compensation is sufficient to support an individual or a family is irrelevant. It is an insurance policy, with a stipulate benefit in case you lose your job.
Is it unfair that when you total your old jalopy the insurance company only pays you what it's worth, and not enough to buy a new one?
Many (if not most) people who have lost their jobs must confront a new reality. Their market value is often much less than they were making with their previous employer, because their skills and abilities were either company-specific or industry-specific, and have no value to other potential employers. Extending unemployment - in many cases - simply facilitates delaying the recipient's acceptance of reality, but doesn't change anything. It's either face reality now, or face reality a year from now.
And there is really no rational justification for government to continue spending money it does not have, paying extended benefits that were not earned.
The Democrats' rationale for this policy is that it pours money into the economy to stimulate economic activity (and it allows them to pretend to be "compassionate" with those who have suffered at the hands of the "Evil Rich"), but there are other ways of accomplishing the same thing, without supporting a large population of government dependents.
26 weeks and out. It's what has been paid for, and it is the best policy. If training is appropriate and the person is diligently pursuing it, then continue benefits for an extra six months while the training continues, but that's it.
And we're back to the "punishment is the only way to run a society" theory.
Earth to Dave: Searching for a job does not create jobs even if you are starving. We tried that once and now call it "The Great Depression". People died of starvation while working the fields and orchards of California back then.
