Speaker of the House John Boehner is being widely quoted as explaining that the United States does not have to fear protests by citizens for better government because many are too “poor and lazy” to act. This seems pretty unbelievable and a likely hoax. If so, it is a remarkably vicious act.
In the supposed interview with Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone, Boehner is quoted as saying about America’s youth:
“Can’t pay your student loan? Face it your parents were lazy and you couldn’t afford college. The world needs ditch diggers and you were born into a family of them. Can’t pay your mortgage? Your house was too expensive and you couldn’t afford it. “It’s not going to happen in the US. The kids here are too fat, too lazy, to addicted to TV, fast food, cheap credit, and facebook.” I have news for you- there are plenty of jobs out there- the unemployed don’t want them. Today’s college student feels entitled to make at least $24 right after college. I’m not worried for this country- there are a few of them who actually want to work, take Mark Zucker(sic). You don’t build a site like facebook out of thin air- it takes talent and hard work. I went to a community college and all I saw were people sitting in front of computers typing away, their eyes were fixed. Probably just facebooking away.”
Not only does this lacks credibility, but it lack any factual basis as the picture below demonstrates. As this picture found on Reddit demonstrates, we are still raising children with a can-do attitude:
69 thoughts on “Boehner Hoax? Sites Claim Boehner Stated American Kids Too “Poor and Lazy” To Protest”
I Did Not Interview John Boehner
From Matt Taibbi’s blog, 4/7/2011
There is a story flying around the internet that purports to contain an excerpt of an interview I did with John Boehner. This interview is a hoax and neither I nor Rolling Stone had anything to do with it. There are some seriously bored people out there… if people are going to make up a fantasy activity for me in the future, please, make it a foot massage from Jessica Gomes, not face time with John Boehner.
I’m confused. Why would any middle class (or lower class) American vote republican? With no pensions, the majority of people will live off of a 401k and social security. If they raise the age you’re either going to a) work full time while your half in the grave, or b) die before you receive a single check (which is really what they’re hoping happens).
The myth is that we can’t and currently are not funding social security, but the truth is that social security still brings in more than it puts out (tough the scales are slowly tilting). However, too many people have taken money out of this fund to pay for other programs etc. and that is why there isn’t enough in it.
The truth is if you’re not rich the Republicans hate your guts. It’s true. Laid off from your job? You’re lazy. Can’t pay medical bills because your child has cancer? You’re leaching off society. Work for 30 years and then need help for a year or two to get back on your feet? Scum.
I agree wholeheartedly that these social programs need to be looked at and reformed. But I’ll never vote for those who want to tear apart social security. Right now they want to raise the age; next it will be completely dismantling it.
re: Chan, April 7, 2011 at 5:41 pm
And you all think I am naive?
Actually, Chan, I do not think you are naive in any undesirable sense.
I supposedly can tell of, and write of, what I do not think, do not believe, do not know, and do not understand, and can supposedly do so almost forever and never mention anything having anything to do with me or my life.
That being, to me, a form of deception, I choose to mess up with words while making an effort to tell of or write of, what I do think, believe, understand or know.
It is my view that the methods of humanity’s past have become inadequate to manage the issues which now most seriously affect people and their life quality.
This is hardly the first time that has happened, at least as I understand or misunderstand history. Methinks we are being confronted with a paradigm change, which, like all paradigm changes, is partly of what was learned in the past and partly of what has yet to be learned because it is not yet feasible to learn it.
Something over a hundred years ago, some folks began to seriously question how people understand existence. Out of that questioning emerged the beginnings of “scientific psychology.”
For many thousands of years, the human tradition was to blame the messenger for the message, and that tradition may be encountering its coming demise, for, within scientific psychology, blaming the messenger for the message is a form of attributing to personal disposition that which is actually only situational (and, by definition, outside what is accurately understood to be personal disposition).
Yet old, deeply entrenched habits tend to persist, if only because of being deeply entrenched. It both saddens and sometimes astonishes me, the extent, even on this blawg, to which people apparently believe that treating someone with whom one disagrees with vile contempt is a useful way of resolving contrasting understandings.
To the extent that those who here comment do so by attempting to demean, denigrate, and disrespect those with whom they disagree, to that extent effort which might otherwise be put constructively toward increased understanding of the underlying issues and their possible resolution is as-though squandered on vain efforts of self-aggrandizing childish egotisticalismishness?
Scientific psychology is yet a very disconnected field of inquiry. I have two Social Psychology textbooks conveniently within reach. The older is Deaux, Dane, & Wrightsman, “Social Psychology in he ’90s, 6th Edition, 1993. The newer one is Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, “Social Psychology,” 6th Edition, 2007.
Neither social psychology textbook mentions Erik H. Erikson or his epigenetic chart or his work on psycho-social development and its relationship with the psychology of people as members of society.
While most of the people who comment here were, as best I can yet guess, doing socially useful work and building significant careers, I was frittering my life away doing trivial things of no socially significant importance as a mere nominally-worthless technician and engineering student.
The question which led me to foolishly live an utterly meaningless life is both simple and absurd. That question is, “Why do people strive to compete with each other and with the rest of existence?”
In summary, Chan, I find that you, in the same way as everyone else who comments on this blawg, bring with you your prior experiences as ways of interpreting new events, and you share your concerns as well as you are really able to share them.
Is competition ever other than a form of bullying? I have personal doubts about that.
Who one earth is not, in one or more ways, naive?
Is it better to be naive than otherwise?
Why do corporations and lobbyists write laws? Why does congress let them write laws? Why do we need the laws they write?
I honestly don’t think any of you understand what goes on in DC. It is driven by the politicians wanting to be reelected and needing money to do it. So the Association gives them a few thousand bucks for the campaign and tells the membership that Congressman Dickhead is a swell guy, send him money and vote for him if you can. He is protecting our turf.
Your Plutocrats would not be able to do jack shit without politicians with their hands stretched wide. If I knew it was legal to slip a guy $2,500 bucks and he could help with my business, I would do it.
In fact Bill Gates found out the hard way and paid almost nothing to Washington pols until they went after him, all of a sudden the money began to flow to lobbyists. Seems the government didn’t like ol Bill holding out on them. Spread that wealth Bill.
That is why most large savvy businesses give equally to democrats and republicans. Never know when you are going to need a friend.
I have a feeling business has better things to spend money on than satisfying avaricious politicians.
And you all think I am naive?
Chan 1, April 6, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Howdy. Long time no see. What happened to your post size?
Information sought varies post size.
Lol – He just shows how uninformed he is with each post he makes … I feel your pain!
SL & Buddha,
Thank you. Chan is such a bore to deal with, I feel like I’m arguing with a 19 year old. Oooh!…..maybe there’s the explanation of this pain in my ass.
The rights of citizens do not apply to corporations as corporations are legal fictions – i.e. they are not real people. Corporate speech is regulated all the time. Ask Big Tobacco about it. The only reason Citizens United was decided the way it was is the SCOTUS is stacked with fascist Bush appointees who think the Constitution only applies to their rich golfing and hunting buddies like Cheney and the Kochs. Fascist assholes who think the rich should get preferential treatment. You know. Your people, Chane Oligarchs who are all for equal rights and protection of laws as long as it’s for whom they say deserve it instead of everyone as promised by the plain language of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
Seriously, when are you going to get your head out of your ass?
You totally missed Mike Spindell’s point. Not only that, if you think Corporate America doesn’t write the rules or dictate to its minions in Congress what Congress should and should not do, you are far more naive than I initially gave you credit for.
Comments are closed.