BUSH: HOLDING THREE JOBS 'UNIQUELY AMERICAN'

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
We dont know the full story on why she works three jobs...for a while my dad worked three jobs when I was growing up...times were tough and he did what it took so that we could have a decent life...we still lived "in poverty" but it could have been worse.

True. But it sure seems, on the surface, to be a case of a single mother having to work herself to the bone just to keep a roof over her head and food on the table.

This is where my opinion on a hand-up type of welfare comes into play. People like this should be given a livable sum each month in order for them to attend school (and cover costs of childcare) to better themselves by getting learning and acquiring a skill or being able to get a better-paying job.

Once they've become self-sufficient (which should be within 3 years - 2 years of schooling and 1 year of building a buffer should hard times fall upon them in the future), all welfare benefits are ended. If they're still not self-sufficient after 3 years, then it's time to fall back on family, friends, private charity, etc. not the government.

This woman also is in her late 50s so odds are all of her children are grown.

Even if that is true, it's absolutely appalling she has to work 3 jobs to survive in the U.S. of A....

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashss.htm

Last Friday when promoting social security reform with 'regular' citizens in Omaha, Nebraska, President Bush walked into an awkward unscripted moment in which he stated that carrying three jobs at a time is 'uniquely American.'

While talking with audience participants, the president met Mary Mornin, a woman in her late fifties who told the president she was a divorced mother of three, including a 'mentally challenged' son.

The President comforted Mornin on the security of social security stating that 'the promises made will be kept by the government.'

But without prompting Mornin began to elaborate on her life circumstances.

Begin transcript:

MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.

THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)

Such a "compassionate conservative".




:| :| :|



Fvck Bush!

I don't get whats wrong with what bush said?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Even when properly used, all birth control has an inherent failure rate.

The failure rates associated with each respective type of birth control is minimal to the point of statistically insignificant...utilize two forms of birth control, say the pill matched with condoms, and you have a nearly zero percent chance of having a birth control failure...the majority of birth control failures occur because of inproper use.

All Americans are materialistic. Conservatives are the most by far. I don't understand what your point is Starbuck?

American culture promotes materialism, and that statement is independent of political leaning...examine any blue state urban area, and you will find plenty of selfish, materialistic and greedy liberals who have bleeding hearts but not generous wallets when it comes to charity...or as I like to call them, "not in my back yard" liberals.

Are you suggesting we adopt Eastern values and become socialist

What I am saying is there is no such thing as a victimless society...the very nature of society matched with the natural dynamics of survival is such that some will end up at the top of the heap and others at the bottom...socialism, while nice in theory, is simply not practical or compatible with American culture.

Your chosen leader, George W. Bush, bankrupted the system. He was handed a surplus and turned it into a deficit. IIRC, to the tune of $7 TRILLION. Wake up.

Bush was handed a surplus and balanced budget built on selling our debt off to foreign investors, which weakened the dollar and set the stage for the economic recession we are currently stuck in.

The economy is cyclical in nature, and operates quite independent of anything an acting President does...sure a President can initiate policies that perhaps stagnate recovery or fail to capitalize on ecnomic opportunities, but there are far more dynamics at play then George Bush.
Look at the economic boom of the mid to late 90s, riding the wave of the dot.com industry...a wave that came crashing down once investors started figuring out that the whole internet revolution consisted of a lot of empty ideas that did not translate well into viable economic models.

Attempting to blame the entire economy on George Bush is a simplified and quite narrow minded interpretation of how economies work...perhaps you should wake up.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Perhaps there were reasons she couldn't attend college (such as caring for three kids and a household while her husband worked.) Then, once she's divorced, her standard of living drops through the floor.

Who told her to have three kids before her and the father of her children had the financial means to provide for a family?

Everyone knows life always works out exactly as planned, right? For some people it always does.

While there are many obstacles in our society that prevent the working poor from bettering their situation, a lot of them are stuck in an endless cycle of poverty due to their own poor decisions.

It is not the role or responsibility of the government to provide handouts that perpetuate this cycle...the money is better invested in programs that target the disease and not the symptoms.

This is quite a contrast with those Americans who don't face any obstacles, waste most of their lives, and still manage to wind up on top despite their "poor decisions".

They suffer an endless cycle of wealth. Undeserved wealth.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1992/09/bushboys.html
<b">The Bush clan's family business
">Bush Family Value$</a>

How does anyone support these criminals?

That woman working three jobs is more of a man than George Bush. He obviously didn't know how to respond to her work ethic because he never had or needed one. And, unlike her, he never had to face the music for his "poor decisions" either.

You got to be joking! He faces the music for every decision every day - good or bad, and most of his critics wouldn't know the difference! Your post is proof enough.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: drewshin
it seems the original message of the topic has been lost, it was a damn mean and insensitive thing for the president to say. when you see someone in their fifties is having to work three jobs to take care of her, your heart immediately goes out to them, however bush decided it would be a good time for a joke.

IT'S FANTASTIC THAT YOU HAVE TO WORK THREE JOBS. FANTASTIC! GET ANY SLEEP? (LAUGHTER FROM THE AUDIENCE)

Did he mean it as a joke? I doubt that! There are a lot of P&Ners that surely do wish he had.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Condor
Meaning of course, that it is very American to work hard. Americans that hold one job, basically work on the house, the yard, the hobby, etc. when not in the office, factory, on the tractor, in the shop, etc. He meant that Americans are very productive as a society. Gotta know that the libs would try distortion to get to a point that just won't come any other way! Or they are just too stupid to understand a very clear statement?

Yeah, come on Conjur, that single mom with 3 jobs is a scrappy go-getter! She's a tenacious lil' American success story with a side o' grits and extra gravy!

I wasn't attacking the person, just trying to clarify the President's meaning.

Nice to know you have the inside skinny on Bush's though patterns. Are you the one running the controls behind his earpiece?

I have to admit that I worked three jobs before I got to be smart enough to be a Republican and move to a red state. It didn't take me too long to understand that manageing money was more important than earning it. Then I discovered that the more you earn, the easier it is to manage.

Naw, but the same (to libs) xray vision shows me your thought patterns too! If I just had the control!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Having kids is something that is extremely easy to plan or prevent.

Do you support abortion for those "unplanned" pregnancies?

You telling me that she was raped how many times?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: MikeO

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashss.htm

Last Friday when promoting social security reform with 'regular' citizens in Omaha, Nebraska, President Bush walked into an awkward unscripted moment in which he stated that carrying three jobs at a time is 'uniquely American.'

While talking with audience participants, the president met Mary Mornin, a woman in her late fifties who told the president she was a divorced mother of three, including a 'mentally challenged' son.

The President comforted Mornin on the security of social security stating that 'the promises made will be kept by the government.'

But without prompting Mornin began to elaborate on her life circumstances.

Begin transcript:

MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.

THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)

Such a "compassionate conservative".




:| :| :|



Fvck Bush!

Meaning of course, that it is very American to work hard.

Obviously, because nowhere else in the world do people work hard.

I was just watching something on TV about some little European country that only works 35 hours per week where everyone takes vacation in August. Wasn't that France? Isn't that when all the people died from heatstroke in which month? Ah, August!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: MikeO

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashss.htm

Last Friday when promoting social security reform with 'regular' citizens in Omaha, Nebraska, President Bush walked into an awkward unscripted moment in which he stated that carrying three jobs at a time is 'uniquely American.'

While talking with audience participants, the president met Mary Mornin, a woman in her late fifties who told the president she was a divorced mother of three, including a 'mentally challenged' son.

The President comforted Mornin on the security of social security stating that 'the promises made will be kept by the government.'

But without prompting Mornin began to elaborate on her life circumstances.

Begin transcript:

MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.

THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)

Such a "compassionate conservative".




:| :| :|



Fvck Bush!

Meaning of course, that it is very American to work hard.

Obviously, because nowhere else in the world do people work hard.

Well, hard work is incredibly hard. It's incredibly hard to keep working hard. But, I look forward to working hard.

I sort of figured that you looked forward to working hard someday. Nice to have dodged it all these years!

 

[Zebo]

Let her eat cake.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Engage in stretches of the imagination this often?

That many of our working poor have no one to blame but themselves is not a stretch at all.

No, but you claiming this woman was in a family that was working poor *is* a stretch. You don't know that they didn't live rather comfortably while married and raising their kids.

Divorce lowers the standard of living of all involved.

Here is a tragic story of a woman who went through divorce, lost her job, her home, and when threatened with losing her daughter took the girl's life.

Mother charged with killing sleeping daughter with hammer, shovel

For those too naive and/or too inexperienced to understand, sometimes life doesn't go according to plan.

I must say, for a political party that preaches Christian values, the chasm between what that religion teaches and what Republicans policies actually stand for is wider than the Grand Canyon.

...that's because people still don't get that religion involved in politics is a bad idea?. Decent Christian values would include not dealing them into a political situation if possible. Anything else is using the word "Christian" for PR, which is basically all that goes on.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Let her eat cake.

10/10

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Condor

I was just watching something on TV about some little European country that only works 35 hours per week where everyone takes vacation in August. Wasn't that France? Isn't that when all the people died from heatstroke in which month? Ah, August!

I believe they currently work 32 hours per week.

They are thinking about bumping up to 35 hrs per week.

Yes, many of the working populace was away on vacation (to cooler region no doubt) with no one to check on the elderly resulting in the massive deaths.

 

[yllus]

What are you people babbling about? He was very obviously complimenting her on her work ethic.

 

[Jadow]

I think it's a compliment what he said!

He's pointing out that Americans are hard working SOB's. And he's 100% right, we're the least lazy people in the world.

Go to Europe where they strike if there is a possibility of raising their 35 hour work week or touching their 8 weeks of paid vacation. We're #1 for a reason.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Boo hoo...life isn't fair...I despise the spoiled rich kids of the world, but they were fortunate enough to come into a world of privilege...not their fault, and more likely then not, someone in their family tree worked extremely hard such that their descendants could enjoy the fruits of their labor and not have to work nearly as hard.

This raises an important question. If financial success is not all the result of merit; if having good luck and the avoidance of bad luck plays such a large role, is progressive taxation therefore justified? What if there are other, unempoyed people in the market who are more qualified than a high-income person who would be more than willing and able to perform that exact same job function for 60% of the wages? Would that justify raising the taxes on undeserving wealthy and upper middle class people?

Having kids is something that is extremely easy to plan or prevent.

I actually agree with this sentiment. In fact, I myself do not have any children and do not plan on having any--who can afford to have them and who can take the risk in today's economy? I'd like to see the government put an end to the externality of child rearing by making parents pay the costs of public education for their kids. Tax breaks for singles I say!

Of course, if the primative religious mystic Republicans had their way, abortion would be illegal, which would lead to a large increase in the number of unwanted childbirths. Some even want birth control to be made illegal.

That many of our working poor have no one to blame but themselves is not a stretch at all.

I agree wholeheartedly.

However, none of that eliminates the daunting economic issues facing this country, such as the loss of solid middle class jobs to foreigners along with the loss of ladders of upward mobility and an increase in the percentage of wealth owned by the rich.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
And you prefer textbites where you come off reading like a Socialist sometime. So she has to work three part time jobs--and? I've done it, and I've known others who did as well. That doesn't mean I expect the government to go steal from someone who made better choices than I did in order to support me. What it means is that I do my best to get myself solvent and into a better paying single fulltime job.

When this type of discussion comes up, so many people assume that good, solid jobs are available everywhere. That may have been the case in the late '90's and at times in the past, but today we live in the 2000's, a time when the American economy generates new jobs--in India and China (and for foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas).

I urge everyone to remember that there are two sides to the employment equation--people willing and wanting to do good work and employers able to hire them. Today, many people have the willingness but few employers are able to hire and pay middle class wages. We need to be very concerned about that. In other words, that better paying full-time job just isn't available.

I expect the U.S. government to disallow the merger my labor market with the billions of impoverished masses overseas and not to allow the infliction of the poverty caused by socialism, communism, and irrationality elsewhere on me by proxy.

What happened to the time when capitalists would say that the economy in a free market would be so great that good, solid middle class jobs would abound for people ready and willing to do them? When I hear advocates of the free market talk about employment issues today, they almost make it sound as though we should accept a poor employment market as a given.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

All Americans are materialistic. Conservatives are the most by far. I don't understand what your point is Starbuck?

American culture promotes materialism, and that statement is independent of political leaning...examine any blue state urban area, and you will find plenty of selfish, materialistic and greedy liberals who have bleeding hearts but not generous wallets when it comes to charity...or as I like to call them, "not in my back yard" liberals.

You would seem to support both capitalism and altruism at the same time? You do realize that the proper moral basis for advocating capitalism is a morality of rational selfishness, right? I mean, when you condemn materialism, as you call it, you almost sound as though you might be a liberal.

You should read this novel, which is all about morality and which holds that the proper moral basis for supporting capitalism is a morality of rational self-interest. You might find it to be rather thought provoking.

Atlas Shrugged

Attempting to blame the entire economy on George Bush is a simplified and quite narrow minded interpretation of how economies work...perhaps you should wake up.

I agree. However, Bush still deserves a large amount of blame for allowing our budget deficit to balloon out of control and for failing to deal with the nation's daunting economic and employment market problems. We should be able to expect far more out of a president than just making excuses, ignoring problems, and blaming the other guy.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I agree. However, Bush still deserves a large amount of blame for allowing our budget deficit to balloon out of control and for failing to deal with the nation's daunting economic and employment market problems. We should be able to expect far more out of a president than just making excuses, ignoring problems, and blaming the other guy.

I absolutely agree on this point...there is no doubt that Bush has done little if anything to improve the situation, but to a point, I cannot think of any Adminstration in recent history that truly understoodthe dynamics of how markets work.

You would seem to support both capitalism and altruism at the same time? You do realize that the proper moral basis for advocating capitalism is a morality of rational selfishness, right? I mean, when you condemn materialism, as you call it, you almost sound as though you might be a liberal.

My frustration is based more in the hypocracy of criticizing corporations for outsourcing, abusing employees, resisting unionization and cutting jobs...yet continuing to buy the products sold by these corporations, enjoyed at the discount prices enabled when they employ such methods...the problem is that American consumers do not hold corporations accountable for their actions through the most powerful means available to them, their wallets...America, like many other developed nations, is adapting to the dynamics of globalization and how it effects competition...corporations need to remain profitable to compete while maintaining quality and service...yet the discrepancy between wages of the worker bees and the corporate executives is ridiculous...one would hope that capitalism should have an underlying moral compass where corporations, workers and consumers establish a system of checks and balances that maintains a mutually beneficial relationship...unfortunately, the current situation is a downward spiral of corporate greed matched with a society obsessed with the accumulation of stuff...socialism works in Canada, Europe and other places because they do not have that underlying consumer obsession with measuring the worth of your life based on what the other guy has.