“If you don’t have a job, and you’re not rich, blame yourself!”
Recalling for the moment that unemployment’s at around 9%, is insulting that demographic, with tough-but-useless “love,” actually the best strategy to take? The breadth of the economic crisis, which Cain assumes (baselessly) is somehow causally distinct from the crisis that began in 2008, means tens of thousands of Americans are out of work for reasons that are, literally, not their fault. Companies fold, or lay-off acknowledged talent as they scale back growth plans, and somehow we assume that’s the workers’ fault? What about the 1,100 laid off from Solyndra, which just went bankrupt due (we assume) to some fault of senior management? Do the line workers share their blame, because they should’ve “known better” than to take a job there?
In an attempt to look more “libertarian” and cater to their traditional supporters — the wealthy and elite — Republicans have carefully cultivated this kind of offhand callousness, valuing the “productive” (wealthy) classes while denigrating the un- and under-employed, along with anyone who presumes to work for the public interest, rather than pursuing wealth for its own end. God willing this upwards pandering, a true example of “class warfare,” will start to backfire now that the party’s choosing to take potshots at Americans down on their luck.
People lose their jobs for lots of reasons. The Republicans will tell you it’s your fault — but that’s not the way it is. Oh, don’t you believe them.
I think that a large group of people feel that they are entitled to constant hand-outs from the government. We have gotten so used to gimmie-gimmie-gimmie, that we don’t think we need to get off our backsides and do something for ourselves for a change. Work is hard and not always fair, and I’m always surprised to hear people I know that run businesses that can’t find employees to work for them!! Yes wages may be low and the hours aren’t always great, but, it is a job and it does put food on your table and opens so many other opportunities.
Posted by globosphere99 | October 9, 2011, 10:58 am9% unemployment wouldn’t exist if there were 9% fewer people, right?
I’m just saying…
Posted by Steve | October 9, 2011, 12:52 pmIt probably would, because then there’d also be 9% fewer people to buy stuff. The economy would shrink, which creates even more unemployment.
Posted by AKjeldsen | October 10, 2011, 3:55 am