US Mike Johnson Says Men Need to Stop 'Playing Video Games All Day' and Get to Work: 'They're Draining Resources' - lol. LMFAOYFNFFAFO even.


"Return the dignity of work to young men who need to be at work instead of playing video games all day."​

Morgan Music / Published Apr 11 2025, 1:28 PM EDT

House Speaker Mike Johnson defended cuts to Medicaid, insisting it would "return the dignity of work to young men who need to be at work instead of playing video games all day.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson defended Republican efforts to attach work requirements to Medicaid, suggesting that young American men are wasting their lives "playing video games all day" instead of working.

Johnson's remarks came as House Republicans pushed forward a budget framework that would help finance President Donald Trump's tax cuts, with plans to slash federal spending by trillions. GOP leaders are eyeing $880 billion in reductions to Medicaid, a move critics warn could gut health coverage for millions of low-income Americans.

Johnson attempted to sidestep claims of direct benefit cuts, instead blaming "able-bodied young men" for taking advantage of a program he said was meant for single mothers, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

"They're draining resources from people who actually do [need it]," Johnson said. "So if you clean that up... you save a lot of money and you return the dignity of work to young men who need to be at work instead of playing video games all day."

Despite Johnson's insistence that, "No one has talked about cutting one benefit in Medicaid," the work requirement would threaten health care access for millions, including Americans that are temporarily unemployed after being laid off.

A report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that as many as 36 million of the 72 million enrolled in Medicaid could be stripped of coverage under work requirements.

Trump has been promised a quick turn around on the bill, putting the pressure on Johnson and House Republicans to make significant cuts that can be rationalized to voters who stand to lose access to services, or—in Johnson's view—video game time.
 
Oh that’s hilarious!!!! If I say this on KF I get called a libtard and asshole; but if Mike says it then it must be true.

It’s worth noting he didn’t mention women as they are actually outdoing men in employment growth and education stats.

Oh the poor young men!!
Men contribute more than women in taxes
1744454919832.png

In fact white men are likely the only ones who are net contributors
1744454980413.png
1744455077158.png

The danger is that white men will lose the will to contribute with all the parasites in society
 
Good luck getting any white guy not wearing programming socks past HR.
In my experience, most places only want a few trannies here and there to spice things up and get diversity points. I think the issue overall is that most workplaces can't afford to run. They take benefits and governments handouts and wage drive-downs from cheap thirdies clogging up the pipelines. We have a load of people on benefits, but we have so many more companies on benefits; and until both are dealt with, the job market is fucked.

Can't get a good job from not trying and not getting a good job from trying are two different scenarios. The guy who tries is eventually going to find something better, leaving the guy who didn't try with the crappy job. This is how it should be.
I'm not making an argument for congress or mega corps. Just the idea that people who put in effort will eventually get rewarded.
The guy who keeps trying is not going to get better. That's a fairytale. The guy who keeps trying can in fact just end up fucked. I don't think that effort innately ends in reward. I'm unsure where your optimism comes from. It's entirely possible I'm a bit blackpilled about this though, I was recently on a hiring board for 100 new technical roles, and we had around 12 candidates per role available. We're the only ones in within a hundred miles hiring for these roles, the people that don't get them are competing with even more fresh graduates with up to date training the next time we go for hiring.

We ended up just picking people essentially at random based on 'feeling'. The bar for entry for these roles is high, and we still had so many people pass that bar and get through into second stage selection. All these people worked their assess off, all were technically competent, all of them could do the role; but they still only had around a 10% chance of actually getting this role. There are maybe three other places that do what we do. One of them requires you to be in the military, and the other two aren't hiring and had to let people go recently. I don't think people who look at odds like that and go 'what's the fucking point?' are lazy, I think they're realistic.

If you went to a McDonalds and tried buying a Big Mac for 99c, they would say no, and no one would call them lazy and unwilling to put in the effort to get customers, but when most businesses in the country do the exact same thing and try to buy peoples time, skills and labour for insultingly low amounts, the people get blamed and called lazy. It's absurd.
 
Can't get a good job from not trying and not getting a good job from trying are two different scenarios. The guy who tries is eventually going to find something better, leaving the guy who didn't try with the crappy job. This is how it should be.
And this is how it is.
The issue is that there are not enough good jobs for everyone and too many good ones are literally spoonfed to people who do not deserve them, leaving the ones that do at mom's house playing video games, because you can only will yourself to keep beating a dying horse for so long before giving up.
I'm not making an argument for congress or mega corps. Just the idea that people who put in effort will eventually get rewarded.
There's a saying that you can do everything right and still fail. In this case of abandoned youth is just that, the average whiteboi can do everything right and still lose to some negro migrant because of inclusivity. All the while congress and the big corp don't care squat as long as they get a huge payout out the pocket of those who did not fail.
It's not even that the system is so rigged, it's that nobody cares. Especially not a flabby wimp like Johnson who probably never had to struggle in his life for a paycheck, but will gladly blame lower society because high society is an epic fail.
 
The guy who keeps trying is not going to get better. That's a fairytale. The guy who keeps trying can in fact just end up fucked. I don't think that effort innately ends in reward. I'm unsure where your optimism comes from. It's entirely possible I'm a bit blackpilled about this though, I was recently on a hiring board for 100 new technical roles, and we had around 12 candidates per role available. We're the only ones in within a hundred miles hiring for these roles, the people that don't get them are competing with even more fresh graduates with up to date training the next time we go for hiring.

We ended up just picking people essentially at random based on 'feeling'. The bar for entry for these roles is high, and we still had so many people pass that bar and get through into second stage selection. All these people worked their assess off, all were technically competent, all of them could do the role; but they still only had around a 10% chance of actually getting this role. There are maybe three other places that do what we do. One of them requires you to be in the military, and the other two aren't hiring and had to let people go recently. I don't think people who look at odds like that and go 'what's the fucking point?' are lazy, I think they're realistic.
While they may not have gotten the job there, I doubt they just gave up. Maybe they got something a little "worse" out of their field but they could have also found something way better somewhere else.
It's not like if they failed to land that position they automatically get assigned Wal mart greeter.

If you do look at the odds and think "what's the point?" you're going to increase the odds for the other person.
 
While they may not have gotten the job there, I doubt they just gave up. Maybe they got something a little "worse" out of their field but they could have also found something way better somewhere else.
It's not like if they failed to land that position they automatically get assigned Wal mart greeter.

If you do look at the odds and think "what's the point?" you're going to increase the odds for the other person.
Optimism detached from reality is not a virtue but a delusion
 
Back