Uncategorized

Boehner Hoax? Sites Claim Boehner Stated American Kids Too “Poor and Lazy” To Protest

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:

Source: Examiner

Jonathan Turley

69 thoughts on “Boehner Hoax? Sites Claim Boehner Stated American Kids Too “Poor and Lazy” To Protest”

  1. Back in the early ’70s the National Lampoon put out an album (and yes I have a copy, in vinyl) called “The White House Basement Tapes”. It had a disclaimer on it “Electronically channeled to simulate the truth” (if that reference is unclear you didn’t live through the early days of stereo records – but I digress).

    I would suggest that this disclaimer would be perfect for Congressman Boner’s comment. If he didn’t say it he wanted to! SOrt of like how Republicans always played off the lies they had been telling about Clinton with “Well maybe he didn’t do that but it is something I believe he could have done.”

  2. Cute picture of the can-do kids. I think it is pertinent that they are brown-skinned.

  3. Mike Spindell
    I agree that a lot of people cannot afford health care and that most affordable policies are crap, monopolizing the industry is not the answer. Permitting competition across state lines and allowing people to form associations to pool policies is a good start. Getting individuals to pay for their own policies, instead of employers, will also drive down the prices of policies as well as the option to choose what coverage you want — no mandates.
    I had to pay out of pocket when my 3 year old fell down some stairs, she wasn’t insured at the time. The bill was high, I worked a payment plan with the hospital and asked my church to help out. Eventually the bills got paid by me and others who volunteered to help. And after the church helped me with my monthly budget and advise on how to prepare for such accidents.
    As for helping my fellow man I am huge believer in that concept I just prefer to freely choose whom to help and how to go about helping that individual.

  4. Bdaman:

    haircut with a guillotine. that is what it means. If you are rich bend over baby. You make more than $80k someone is coming for it.

  6. Here’s the funny part.

    RNC Video 668,080 views

    Obama real ad 200,694 views

  7. Bdaman:

    how can you post such a horrible add? Have you no shame or scruples?

  9. A risk pool whether it’s Kaiser, Blue Cross or Medicare means that you pay for other people’s health care and they pay for yours. Arguing with libertarian trolls is a winsock, but it does help to point out the obvious once in awhile.

  10. Swarthmore,

    “http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/04/paul-ryan-slams-medicaids-middle-class-beneficiaries-as-the-new-welfare-queens/”

    Well, he’s right! What’s wrong with these “elderly” and “disabled” folks that won’t get off their lazy rears and get jobs! Blind? Who cares, that’s what Braille’s for; 95 years-old and bedridden? Pshaw! They can stuff envelopes! And, don’t get me started on these “poor kids.” We need to rescind all child labor laws, pull these good-for-nothings out of school and have them work in the factories! They need to do the work their lazy, welfare loving parents refuse to do!

    I’d make a great Republican, wouldn’t I??

  13. Gyges,

    All I can reply to you is Iaian M. Banks, who I discovered only last summer. His series of books on the galactic society called the culture are incredibly good reads and to me he is probably among the greatest of SF writers today, or of ever for that matter.
    Great characterization, narration, plots and most of all the philosophical matters of socio/political existence. What gets me is he has been writing for more than two decades and I only discovered him during a day of library browsing.

    “indefinite detention is the way to go.”

    If I can have books, PC and the company of my wife, that would be acceptable, except that my progeny must be able to visit.

  14. Mike,

    Nah, crucifixion makes martyrs, indefinite detention is the way to go.

    Off topic: I Just read a Hal Duncan short story (who if I remember, you recommended), definitely going to have to get some more of his stuff.

  15. “Mike,
    So you’re saying the role of the government is to enact policies that benefit society as a whole?”

    Gyges,

    Yes, I guess I am. I’m just a delusional kind of guy, who believes crazy things about loving one’s neighbor. If I don’t shut my mouth soon, who knows I might just get crucified.

  17. Mike,

    So you’re saying the role of the government is to enact policies that benefit society as a whole?

  18. “I am of the opinion that the federal government has no business using my labor to pay for other people’s health care.”

    Another way of restating your premise smallguvguy is that only those who can afford to pay for it should get health care. The problem is that most people, even in the upper middle-class are unable to pay for their health care, despite what insurance they may have, simply because Health Insurance companies have lowered the level of benefits, while raising prices to increase profits. The raises in rates by these companies, far outstrips the costs they’ve incurred in medical fees. The end result of your thinking is that those with far above average wealth would get the care and the rest of us wouldn’t, or would become bankrupt paying for it. About 50% of today’s bankruptcies are due to inability to cover health care costs.

    If you were someone, such as I who would be dead today were it not for Medicare, or if you suffered from an illness and couldn’t afford treatment, you might reconsider your position.
    However, if you are healthy and so is your family, I would imagine it quite easy to be so cavalier with your short sighted opinions.

  19. Swarthmore,

    I thought you’d be interested in this:

    Paul Ryan’s Tax Plan Based On Discredited Heritage Foundation Analysis That Forecast Bush BoomOne particular laugh line from Paul Ryan’s budget proposal is his citation of the Heritage Foundation as the analytic basis for his claim that it will boost growth:

    A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage’s analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year.

    I wonder if the Heritage Foundation has ever looked at the myriad benefits of tax cuts for the rich before. It turns out they have! Specifically, they promised us that George W Bush’s tax policies would lead the country into a brave new era of prosperity:

    In fact by the end of 2009, payroll employment in the United States was back down to 2001 levels despite population growth.

    Heritage also claimed Bush’s tax cuts would boost tax revenue (“the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010″) when in fact it led to record deficits, and they promised a surge in personal income when in fact we got the worst income performance ever:

    So keep in mind that this is the metric by which Paul Ryan wants you to judge him. If you believe George W Bush unleashed an unprecedented economic boom with great jobs performance, rising incomes, and the paying off of the national debt then you’ll find a lot to like about Rep Ryan’s plan.

    http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/04/paul-ryans-tax-plan-based-on-discredited-heritage-foundation-analysis-that-forecast-bush-boom/

    The two graphs didn’t make it to this post but they can be found at the above link.

  20. rc

    “The Patients’ Protect Act requires everyone to have their OWN health care coverage so that you, nor anyone else, has to pay for the full blown health care of 50 million uninsured.”

    This is called rent seeking, when a company uses the government’s police powers to compel people to purchase their goods or services. I find this just as deplorable as the feds forcing us to bailout banks and car companies. True health insurance reform, IMO, would remove the anti-trust exemptions the insurance companies now enjoy and allowing more competition between them for my insurance dollars, driving prices down and quality up. Obamacare just forces us to pay for an insurance policy that meets the needs of the insurance companies wants, no our needs.
    I agree that 3rd party insurance leads people to stay in crappy jobs, been there done that.
    Not forcing my kids to pay for someone’s medical is a better plan along with reducing their over-all tax burden. The less the federales take the freer they will be.

Comments are closed.