Tell Me, this isn’t the same here and one reason why we have such an increase in “disability” and people just giving up looking.

And the new “dependent” voter.

The Sun (London UK): A SKIVING couple told last night how they claim £17,680 a year in benefits — and don’t even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off.

FYI: Skiving is British for lay about gold-bricking person, aka Lazy.

Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.

I looked it up, the average apparently for a 47″ flat screen is about £1900-2000 British pounds.

1.00 British Pound = 1.57 U.S. Dollars currently

Do the Math.

It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are “trapped”.

They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years.


pahe 10 graphic

The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they can’t go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.

1.00 British Pound = 1.57 U.S. Dollars currently

So that’s $2,312,61. Per month or $27,751.32 a year. That”s well above minimum wage in this country. Of course, they have a flat 17.5% VAT tax on everything and Inland Revenue (think IRS) but still I have had many jobs that paid less than that.

The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts.

Gina admits: “We could easily get a job but why would we want to work — we would be worse off.”

Tell Me, Liberals aren’t thinking the same thing!

Danny’s father, 46, even offered him a job with his bowling alley servicing company — but could not pay him enough.

Danny’s mum, 45, works as a carer, while Gina’s mum, 46, is a teacher and her dad, 53, is a manager with a security company.

Yet their parents’ work ethic has not rubbed off on Danny and Gina. Instead, they claim they are entitled to benefits because of their parents’ tax contributions — and even complain they should be given MORE.

Gina, flaunting fake tan and perfectly manicured nails, said: “I don’t see that we’re living off the taxpayers, we’re entitled to the money our parents paid all their lives.

“They’ve worked so hard since they left school and I’m sure they’d rather it went to us than see us struggle. They pay a lot of tax, and although they’d rather we weren’t in this situation and one of us had a job, they understand why we are where we are. We can’t help it, we’re stuck like it.”

Danny, who quit his job as a supermarket shelf-stacker after eight months, admitted: “I could easily go and work for my dad. He’s got a job for me, but could only afford to pay for my travel and accommodation because I’d be going around the country.

“After that he wouldn’t be able to afford to pay me a wage, so I’d be worse off.

“The same would happen if I was to work somewhere like a supermarket. If I was earning less than £26,000 a year, there wouldn’t be any point. I’d be no better off. Who in their right mind would do that?” The pair spoke after we revealed last Sunday that Lithuanian Natalija Belova, 33, branded Britain “a soft touch” for giving her £14,408 annual benefits. Mum-of-one Belova told how she lives a life of luxury in Watford, Herts, thanks to our “strange system”, adding: “I am not going to work like a dog on minimum wage.”

British Minimum wage : £6.08 to £6.19 an hour on October 1 2012

And yesterday Gina agreed. She said: “The only way we’d ever be better off is by both working. But then childcare would probably be one of our wages gone, and put us back in a more difficult position.

“We don’t feel ashamed for being on benefits. Neither of us have the slightest bit of guilt towards the taxpayers as both of our parents have been paying into the tax system for the last 30 years.

“So we are just getting back our parents’ huge contributions. My dad earns £65,000 a year so he’s paid more than his fair share of tax, so I don’t see what the problem is. The fault lies with the system, not us. There’s just no incentive to find work when we’ve got a better lifestyle than if we were to go out and work for 35-40 hours every week. Why would we give this up?”

The couple, who live in Hants (Southern England), receive £340 a week, made up of £150 housing benefit, £60 child tax credit, £20 child benefit and £110 in Job Seeker’s Allowance. They pay just £25 towards their spacious £625-a-month home.

Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV and a leather sofa. A laptop and Tullulah-Rose’s toys are scattered around the room.

The couple’s monthly outgoings are £240 on food, £40 phone bill for their shared Nokia and an £80 payment towards their TV. They spend the same on tobacco as they do on their daughter’s milk and nappies.

The pair, who want another child, say they would need to earn at least £2,200 a month before tax to make working worth their while.

Danny said: “We’ve thought about a lot of things we wouldn’t normally have considered. Gina looked up escorting and saw you can make £110 an hour, but we decided we wouldn’t go down that route.

“We simply want the best for our daughter, which means even shoplifting becomes a temptation. We’d never do it, but being in this situation and feeling trapped changes you.

“We would work, but it’s just not worth our while because without qualifications we’ll only earn about £14,000 a year. That’s a lot less than what we get now. We need more money so we can maintain the way we live now but have a few extras, like holidays.

“People don’t understand — we’re actually stuck on benefits. In fact, we feel trapped.” Danny and Gina thought about going to college, but could not decide which course to take.

Gina said: “We have discussed getting more qualifications but just thought there’s no point when we don’t know what we want to do in the future. We wouldn’t know where to start.”

The couple are adamant that whatever they do in future, they want to enjoy the same luxuries as now. Gina said: “We spend £40 a month on clothes for Tullulah-Rose. It’s important she looks nice.

“We like a takeaway (Take out) too, Why shouldn’t we? It isn’t like I’m some scrounging single mum trying to cash in. It’s silly to think I’d actually be better off financially if Danny walked out on me and my daughter than if one of us got a job.

“Anyone else would do exactly the same if they were in our shoes. It’s actually really hard for us. We’re in a lose-lose situation here.”

And with reports out that the Birth rate in the US has been falling just as the largest population is retiring is going to make this kind of “trapped” dependence very, very, very costly to everyone.

But, he it’s better than working hard.🙂

Every job in the last 25+ years I’ve had prior to my current one has paid me less than this a year. And I’m still not “rich”.

Makes you wonder I even bother…But at least I’m not “trapped”…Yet…🙂


Super Failure

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley


So the Super Committee Failed?

Who’s surprised by this?

Not me. I predicted it. It wasn’t hard.

But I find it humorous the Democrats are the one saying that it was all the Republicans fault for being intransigent. But the fact that they were intransigent is not an issue to them.

But the ideological Grand Canyon IS THE PROBLEM! And neither side willing to compromise IS THE PROBLEM! Party Ideology is more important than the country. Their political ideology is more important than you and me.

$1.5 Trillion over 10 years is too tough for them. How do you solve $1.3 Trillion deficits PER YEAR!?

By the way, the automatic cuts start in 2013 AFTER THE ELECTION. How cowardly is that?

Democrats were coming to believe that Republicans were only interested in using the debt panel to cut taxes, not deficits.

Republicans, meanwhile, say they were becoming exasperated with Democratic refusal to consider any meaningful cuts to welfare programs including Medicare, Medicaid – which provides health insurance to the poor – and Social Security, the government pension system.

Between them, the three programs are set to devour 100 percent of federal tax income by 2047.

“Our Democratic friends were never willing to do the entitlement reforms,” Republican John Kyl told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

There were deals and talks and at every turn someone “leaked” the secret negotiations to their favorite media types to crush it.

What was meant to be a secretive debt panel was now being undone by leaks. By then, aides say, trust had evaporated, and the work of the super committee was essentially over.

At an early breakfast meeting of the panel, Democrat James Clyburn, a veteran of the Civil Rights movement, rebuked his fellow committee members when they kept saying how hard it would be to strike a deal.

“Do you want to know what’s hard?” Clyburn asked. “Desegregating South Carolina in the 1960s. I met my wife in jail.” (Reuters)

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

But don’t worry, you’re just too lazy to care.

Congratulations, average American! It’s your turn to be blamed for President Obama’s — and America’s — problems.

This is the biggest honor you’ve won since Time magazine named “you” the Person of the Year.
Being the root cause of our dire national predicament puts you in some very august company indeed. You are joining the ranks of George W. Bush, the Japanese tsunami, the Arab Spring, Wall Street fat cats, and other luminaries, both living and merely anthropomorphized.

Last week at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, Obama explained, “We’ve been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted — ‘Well, people would want to come here’ — and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America.”

The White House and its proxies insist that Obama wasn’t talking about Americans per se. He just meant we’ve been lazy about attracting foreign investment.

We’ll come back to that in a minute. For now, let’s take him at his word.

Still, you can understand the confusion. In September, the president reflected in an interview that America is “a great, great country that has gotten a little soft, and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades.”

Shortly after that, he told rich donors at a fundraiser that “we have lost our ambition, our imagination and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam.”

So, Obama thinks Americans lack ambition and are soft, but don’t you dare suggest that he also thinks they’re lazy.

The point of all this is pretty obvious. Obama has a long-standing habit of seeing failure to support his agenda as a failure of character. The Democratic voters of western Pennsylvania refused to vote for him, he explained, because they were “bitter.” He told black Democrats lacking sufficient enthusiasm for his reelection to “Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’.”

And in the context of the country’s economic doldrums, Obama sees a lack of ambition, softness, laziness, etc., in anyone who doesn’t support his agenda. He has spent several years now exhorting Americans about how we have to “win the future” by doing what he says. He has told us repeatedly that this is our “Sputnik moment” when all Americans must drop their selfish, cynical, or foolish objections to his program. People who disagree aren’t putting their “country first.”

He’s constantly stoking nationalistic and quasi-paranoid fears of China to goad Americans into supporting ever more “investments” in green energy and high-speed white elephants.(Jonah Goldberg)

Now some humor:

A sheriff’s deputy was dispatched last week to a Florida elementary school after a girl kissed a boy during a physical education class.


School brass actually reported the impromptu buss as a possible sex crime, according to the Lee County Sheriff’s Office.

The assistant principal of Orange River Elementary School called in the cops after a teacher spotted the smooch Wednesday at the Fort Myers school. In fact, Margaret Ann Haring, 56, initially called child welfare officials, who directed her to contact the sheriff.

The kiss apparently occurred after two girls debated over whom the boy liked more. That’s when one of the girls “went over and kissed” the boy. The redacted sheriff’s report notes that Haring “stated there were no new allegations of sexual abuse as far as she knew.”

Deputies do not appear to be further probing the preteen kiss.

Maybe they should just pepper spray them!!!🙂
Occupy Orange River Elementary!!🙂
It has to be a Republican plot!
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino
Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

 Political Cartoons by Dana Summers
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

We Can’t Wait

“The President’s plan is to simply say ‘no’ to new energy production,” House Natural Resources Committee chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash, said to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar during a hearing pertaining to hydraulic fracturing. “It’s a plan that is sending American jobs overseas, forfeiting new revenue, and denying access to American energy that would lessen our dependence on hostile Middle Eastern oil.”

But it make environmentalist wackos happy and brings us more Solyndras. That can’t be bad, can it?

President Obama’s United States Department of Agriculture has delayed shale gas drilling in Ohio for up to six months by cancelling a mineral lease auction for Wayne National Forest (WNF). The move was taken in deference to environmentalists, on the pretext of studying the effects of hydraulic fracturing.

“Conditions have changed since the 2006 Forest Plan was developed,” announced WNF Supervisor Anne Carey on Tuesday. “The technology used in the Utica & Marcellus Shale formations need to be studied to see if potential effects to the surface are significantly different than those identified in the Forest Plan.” The study will take up to six months to complete. The WNF study reportedly “will focus solely on how it could affect forest land,” despite the significance of hydraulic fracturing to united proponents of the delay, “and not how it could affect groundwater.” …

The Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP) recently estimated that drilling in the Utica shale, which is affected by the suspension of the mineral lease auctions, would produce up 204,500 jobs by 2015.

And what about the jobs and the energy from Canada that the President refused earlier in the month, The Keystone Pipeline?

Keystone XL also has been challenged by lawmakers and activists in Nebraska who say the pipeline might break and spill oil into the Ogallala aquifer, a major source of water for Nebraska ranchers. This is not impossible, but after the world’s many years of experience with operating oil pipelines, it’s a bit like refusing to allow airplanes to fly over Nebraska for fear they might crash. (Barrons)

But the most nakedly political part of it is, they just delayed it until after the 2012 election, like most decision today. Because no one wants to confront them during a campaign. And a campaign is all we have now.

On Nov. 12, the White House and the State Department decided to give the pipeline route more study, at least until after the election in November, 2012. “This was not a political decision,” said an assistant secretary of state who must have practiced in front of a mirror to keep a straight face.

Political or not, final or not, investors and consumers should hope that the Keystone XL non-decision will not much hamper the development of the Alberta oil resource. Petroleum can be shipped to the U.S. by truck or train, and the capacity of existing pipelines can be increased, all without a pass from the State Department or the president.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, offered another possibility. He said that his government will work with pipeline companies to ship more Alberta oil to the Pacific coast for export to Asia. Harper observed, however, that the Keystone XL pipeline or something like it will eventually go through “because it makes eminent sense.”

But as the U.S. government has shown, making sense doesn’t have the same priority as political survival.

Charles Krauthammer: In 2008, the slogan was “Yes We Can.” For 2011-12, it’s “We Can’t Wait.” What happened in between? Candidate Obama, the vessel into which myriad dreams were poured, met the reality of governance.

His near-$1 trillion stimulus begat a stagnant economy with 9 percent unemployment. His attempt at Wall Street reform left in place a still too-big-to-fail financial system as vulnerable today as when he came into office. His green energy fantasies yielded Solyndra cronyism and a cap-and-trade regime not even a Democratic Congress would pass.

And now his signature achievement, Obamacare, is headed to the Supreme Court, where it could very well be struck down, just a week after its central element was overwhelmingly repudiated (2-1) by the good burghers of Ohio.

So what do you do when you say you can, but, it turns out, you can’t? Blame the other guy. Charge the Republicans with making governing impossible. Never mind that you had control of the Congress for two-thirds of your current tenure. It’s all the fault of Republican rejectionism.

Hence: “We Can’t Wait.” We can’t wait while they obstruct. We can’t wait while they dither with my jobs bill. Write Congress today! Vote Democratic tomorrow!

We can’t wait. Except for certain exceptions, such as the 1,700-mile trans-USA Keystone XL pipeline, carrying Alberta oil to Texas refineries, that would have created thousands of American jobs and increased our energy independence.

For that, we can wait, it seems. President Obama decreed that any decision must wait 12 to 18 months — postponed, by amazing coincidence, until after next year’s election.

Why? Because the pipeline angered Obama’s environmental constituency. But their complaints are risible. Global warming from the extraction of the Alberta tar sands? Canada will extract the oil anyway. If it doesn’t go to us, it will go to China. Net effect on the climate if we don’t take that oil? Zero.

Danger to a major aquifer, which the pipeline traverses? It is already crisscrossed by 25,000 miles of pipeline, enough to circle the Earth. Moreover, the State Department had subjected Keystone to three years of review — the most exhaustive study of any oil pipeline in U.S. history — and twice concluded in voluminous studies that there would be no significant environmental harm.

So what happened? “The administration,” reported The New York Times, “had in recent days been exploring ways to put off the decision until after the presidential election.” Exploring ways to improve the project? Hardly. Exploring ways to get past the election.

Obama’s decision was meant to appease his environmentalists. It’s already working. The president of the National Wildlife Federation told The Washington Post (online edition, Nov. 10) that thousands of environmentalists who were galvanized to protest the pipeline would now support Obama in 2012. Moreover, a source told the Post, Obama campaign officials had concluded that “they do not pick up one vote from approving this project.”

Sure, the pipeline would have produced thousands of truly shovel-ready jobs. Sure, delay could forfeit to China a supremely important strategic asset — a nearby, highly reliable source of energy. But approval was calculated to be a political loss for the president. Easy choice.

It’s hard to think of a more clear-cut case of putting politics over nation. This from a president whose central campaign theme is that Republicans put party over nation, sacrificing country to crass political ends.

Nor is this the first time Obama’s election calendar trumped the national interest:

• Obama’s decision to wind down the Afghan surge in September 2012 is militarily inexplicable. It comes during the fighting season. It was recommended by none of his own military commanders. It is explicable only as a talking point for the final days of his re-election campaign.

• At the height of the debt-ceiling debate last July, Obama pledged to veto any agreement that was not long term. Definition of long term? By another amazing coincidence, any deal large enough to get him past Election Day (and thus avoid another such crisis next year).

• Tuesday it was revealed that last year the administration pressured Solyndra, as it was failing, to delay its planned Oct. 28 announcement of layoffs until Nov. 3 — the day after the midterm election.

A contemporaneous email from a Solyndra investor noted: “Oddly they didn’t give a reason for that date.” The writer was clearly born yesterday. The American voter was not — and (s)he soon gets to decide who really puts party over nation and re-election above all.

We can’t wait.

Additionally: “Well, no one is asking him to go out there and asking him to be a jingoistic cheerleader. But when you call your own country ‘lazy’ when you are abroad and you call it unambitious and soft when you’re home, I think what you are showing is not tough love, but ill-concealed contempt,” Krauthammer said on FOX News’ “Special Report.”

“Obama is ready to blame everybody except himself for the lousy economy. And the lack of investment. Look, why are people reluctant to invest? We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, in the industrialized world. Obama has spoken about it. It’s the one issue on which the Republicans would have agreed on lowering that rate, eliminating loopholes. In three years in office, he’s done nothing. He has an NLRB trying to shut down a $1 billion plant Boeing has constructed, as a favor to Obama’s union allies. People look abroad and say this isn’t a place I want to do business. Its his issues, his over-regulation over taxation and all the red tape he has added. And now he blames Americans’ laziness. I think it’s unseemly.”–part-2/?playlist_id=87937&intcmp=obinsite

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

 Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley



“assault on ‘bourgeois’ society result[ing] in an ‘anti-culture’ that took direct aim at holy and sacred things, condemning and repudiating them as oppressive and power-ridden.”

Meanwhile, they are oppressive and power-ridden. Just look at the expansion of government since the beginning of Political Correctness and especially the Left that is obsessed with government control of everyone and everything because you are too incompetent to do it yourself.

So they have to do it for you.

President Barack Obama said America has “been a bit lazy” over the past few decades at attracting international business (his anti-business attitude and the highest corporate taxes in the world have nothing to do with it!).

But we’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades,” he said at CEO summit at the APEC meeting in Hawaii. “We’ve kind of taken for granted — well, people will want to come here and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America.” -President Obama this weekend

It’s not the first time the president has accused Americans of being lazy.

– In October, he told donors in San Francisco that “we’ve lost our ambition, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam and unleashed all the potential in this country.” That story was reported by Bloomberg.

– In a September USA Today article, Obama said, “This is a great, great country that has gotten a little soft and we didn’t have the same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades.”

So his policies having failed is your fault! You Lazy SOB…

And if you don’t like it, you’re an angry white racist domestic terrorist and a crazy loon who just wants to coddle rich people!!🙂

What accounts for this madness? Charles Krauthammer notes a pattern:

Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

— Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

— Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

— Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

— Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become “ungovernable,” last year’s excuse for the Democrats’ failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Krauthammer portrays this as a cynical game: “Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. . . . What’s a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument.” (WSJ)

But who is greedier? The person who earns his wealth and protects it or the person who demands that YOU give them your wealth because THEY deserve it and you “don’t need it”?

And guess what, The Radical Muslims the Left coddles are back:

Preacher Anjem Choudary claimed the festival was the ‘pathway to hell’ and urged his followers to boycott it.

‘In the world today many Muslims, especially those residing in Western countries, are exposed to the evil celebration Christmas,’ he raged in a sermon broadcast on the internet.

‘Many take part in the festival celebrations by having Christmas turkey dinners.

‘Decorating the house, purchasing Christmas trees or having Christmas turkey meals are completely prohibited by Allah.

‘Many still practise this corrupt celebration as a remembrance of the birth of Jesus.

‘How can a Muslim possibly approve or participate in such a practice that bases itself on the notion Allah has an offspring?

‘The very concept of Christmas contradicts and conflicts with the foundation of Islam.

‘Every Muslim has a responsibility to protect his family from the misguidance of Christmas, because its observance will lead to hellfire.

‘Protect your Paradise from being taken away – protect yourself and your family from Christmas.’ Sounds pretty tolerant to me. (Katie Pavlich)


Object to his views: You evil bigot!🙂

“prepare them to better handle freedom,” would “practically enslave . . . the Negro, and make . . . the [Emancipation] Proclamation of 1863 a mockery and delusion. What is freedom? It is the right to choose one’s own employment. Certainly it means that, if it means anything; and when any[one] undertakes to decide for any man when he shall work, where he shall work, at what he shall work, and for what he shall work, he or they practically reduce him to slavery.”– Fredrick Douglass, 1865.

For the progressives (aka Liberals), in contrast, government’s obligation to promote the fullest possible growth of all trumps whatever right anyone might think he has to make decisions for himself — to exercise, that is, freedom in the Founders’ sense. (NRO)

So you’re lazy, have no right to decide anything for yourself, and are a racist if you disagree.