They don't get the reality because that's not part of their worldview.
In *their* worldview, not having a job is because you aren't trying hard enough (or have standards that are too high).
It's the same sort of thing that goes with the "welfare cheats" mindset (in spite of a few studies I recall that showed the measures to "prevent fraud" were costing more than the fraud they were intended to prevent (and let's not go into the corrosive effect of having to kowtow to petty bureaucrats)).
Their reality has always included privilege, including Daddy's network of good ol' boys who will always find a job for "junior."
"if you give people more weeks of unemployment they'll just hold out for better jobs
Whaaat? That makes no sense! Has this guy any idea at all about what happens in the real world?
I shouldn't comment, really, since I live across the Pond and it's not my business. (Though we don't lack for similar idiots in the UK). Posts like this, though, give me hope that the USA is still, somehow, trying to live up to earlier ideals. Caring for the poor (the 'huddled masses') and not being greedy at the expense of other people still seem good ideas to me - here as well as 'Over There.'
As far as most politicians go, however, I quote the Duchess of Avon: "Ah, bah!"
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative "think tank" (!), has been making that claim and the neocon elephants are trudging happily in the same track. It is, after all, their belief that no one would work if not in fear of starvation (other than CEOs with golden parachutes, who do it for the good of the country and are otherwise wholly unselfish.) The masses of citizens are lazy and selfish and have to be firmly managed (according to them) by them (according to them.) Thus providing unemployment benefits at all encourages people to laze around, luxuriating in their unearned wealth, and extending them, just because there are no jobs, is one more waste of money on mere human lives. Money should be spent to kill people, not support them.
The real world is something they avoid contact with, as it would shatter their illusions.
Tiny blessings: Caller ID and an answering machine. Anyone I don't recognize can leave a message. If I FEEL like it, I'll call back.
That doesn't address your main issue, though. I have no answers for that one.
Honest and politician don't belong in the same sentence. Doesn't matter which party, doesn't matter which topic. Oh and under hypocrite in the dictionary, it should have a picture of a politician.
Under "hypocrite" should be the picture of a televangelist.
Under "politician" should be a picture of a hand, with the familiar gesture that means "give me the money."
The problem with assuming they're all equally dishonest on all topics is that a) it's not true (some of them are honest about some topics) and b) it leads to thinking that nothing can be done about them. Something can--throwing them out at frequent intervals, so they have less reason to go bad just to seek re-election, would help.
Hmm, well I could concede the first point--televangelists are probably worse than politicians. I was too vague on my second sentence, I meant that you could find in a given party a dishonest politician on a particular topic not that all politicians are dishonest about all topics.
As much as I'm cynical about politics and politicians, I do vote though. I voted this last election on the state amendments. I do write a few times a year to my various representatives/senators and I've called (got a staffer), so despite my cynicism, I haven't divorced myself from the political process. Oh, and I've been a registered Republican, Libertarian, and Independent in my life (Independent now as I realized that no party represents me). I will be voting against my current Congresscritter and the current governor in the next elections.
Still in my heart of hearts, I don't feel very represented at the local, state, or federal level. About all I feel that I can do is try to vote them out like you say. It is sad though that I feel more like I'm voting against someone than for someone.
Is Chet your pre-redistricting critter? He's mine, and announced he'd be voting against. Feh.
I will say that between Blondie and Goodhair for governor, I'll take Blondie in a Dallas minute. I'll probably wind up voting for Kinky in November, though I can't say I'm real enthusiastic about him, either...
Well...yeah. Blondie is marginally smarter than Goodhair.
And yes, Chet was my critter before the Bushwhacking of Texas districts--now I've got Carter, who's an unadulterated bonehead. I'm quite annoyed with Chet for voting against and also for not having a valid "reply" email addy.