posted
Here's a brief snippet from a recent Bush speech that I stumbled across when a piece of it was mentioned on another forum. I think it sums up nicely why it's very difficult for me to like the guy.
quote:
THE PRESIDENT: That's right. You know, one of the interesting things, by the way, again, on personal accounts -- admittedly, new concept; hard for some to understand; and it's just going to take a while for people to hear the debate and get used to the cconcept. The principles are easy to understand: your money, you own it, you can pass it on to whoever you want, you get a better rate of return. But it's been done before. In other words, this isn't the first time the thought of a thrift savings plan has been advanced. As a matter of fact, federal employees can now take some of their own money and put it into five different conservative portfolios of stocks and bonds as a part of their retirement package. It's an easy statement to say, but something I believe is, if it's good enough for federal employees, it ought to be good enough for younger workers. (Applause.) Mary is with us. Mary Mornin. How are you, Mary?
MS. MORNIN: I'm fine.
THE PRESIDENT: Good. Okay, Mary, tell us about yourself.
MS. MORNIN: Okay, I'm a divorced, single mother with three grown, adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.
THE PRESIDENT: Fantastic. First of all, you've got the hardest job in America, being a single mom.
MS. MORNIN: Thank you. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: You and I are baby boomers.
MS. MORNIN: Yes, and I am concerned about -- that the system stays the same for me.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
MS. MORNIN: But I do want to see change and reform for my children because I realize that we will be in trouble down the road.
THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting point, and I hear this a lot -- will the system be the same for me? And the answer is, absolutely. One of the things we have to continue to clarify to people who have retired or near retirement -- you fall in the near retirement.
MS. MORNIN: Yes, unfortunately, yes. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know. I'm not going to tell your age, but you're one year younger than me, and I'm just getting started. (Laughter.)
MS. MORNIN: Okay, okay.
THE PRESIDENT: I feel great, don't you?
MS. MORNIN: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: I remember when I turned 50, I used to think 50 was really old. Now I think it's young, and getting ready to turn 60 here in a couple of years, and I still feel young. I mean, we are living longer, and people are working longer, and the truth of the matter is, elderly baby boomers have got a lot to offer to our society, and we shouldn't think about giving up our responsibilities in society. (Applause.) Isn't that right?
MS. MORNIN: That's right.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but nevertheless, there's a certain comfort to know that the promises made will be kept by the government.
MS. MORNIN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And so thank you for asking that. You don't have to worry.
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.)
MS. MORNIN: Not much. Not much.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, hopefully, this will help you get you sleep to know that when we talk about Social Security, nothing changes.
MS. MORNIN: Okay, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: That's great. Jerry Rempe is with us. Jerry, tell them what you gave me.
MR. REMPE: I came today because I'm married and have three children -- THE PRESIDENT: No, tell them what you gave me as -- to make me look good at the household.
MR. REMPE: I work for Omaha Steaks, so we presented the President with Omaha steaks today. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: They know something about beef in this state, isn't that right?
MR. REMPE: We know a little bit here.
THE PRESIDENT: About beef. That's good thing about Johanns. He knows something about beef, too. And he'll -- (Laughter.) He'll make sure the cattlemen, as well as the -- as well as the grain growers and soybean growers all across the country are well represented in the Ag Department. Anyway, sorry to interrupt you, but I was just trying to get you kind of a subtle plug. (Laughter.)
posted
I feel the same way... He is just so out of touch. But I'm burning out from too much indignation. It just wears me out that a guy like that is our president!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the folksy bit I can cope with. If you don't see the trouble in the quote I provided, I'm not sure I can adequately articulate it for you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Okay, clearly I'm going to need to try to articulate this. Honestly, I'm intrigued; that the Bush supporters on the board don't see the same disturbing elements in this snippet that I do suggests quite strongly to me that there really is a major personality component to political affiliation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing I see in this snippett that bugs me is something that I think is common to all politicians (not just Bush) - glossing over or talking past people's concerns to focus instead on inane babble that means absolutely nothing. I mean, he doesn't really want to answer Ms. Mornin's concerns but instead focuses on "gee aren't you great" and age, and "we don't want to hear what Jerry has to say other than that he gave me steaks".
quote:the truth of the matter is, elderly baby boomers have got a lot to offer to our society, and we shouldn't think about giving up our responsibilities in society.
quote:THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but nevertheless, there's a certain comfort to know that the promises made will be kept by the government.
quote:MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes. THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that.
quote:Well, hopefully, this will help you get you sleep to know that when we talk about Social Security, nothing changes.
for so many reasons...
Tom, were any of these some of the disturbing elements?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
The hand-picked example of Mary Mornin, a middle-aged woman supporting an adult child, was used in the following way: Mary, like many middle-aged people, wants to be reassured that Bush's SS plan won't change the benefits on which she's counting. She also wants to hear that her adult children will be able to count on Social Security in their own future (particularly, I'd imagine, the one she's already supporting.) She's a perfect example of a point Bush wants to make, which is why they let her in the room.
Here's how he goes about making that point. He notes that she's only a year younger than he is, and yet he feels fine, and she feels fine, and because people are living longer, elderly baby boomers "shouldn't think about giving up their responsibilities" just yet. But he graciously acknowledges that, yeah, there's a "certain comfort" in knowing that the safety net the government's promised you all your life, which consists of your own money, is going to actually be there in five years when you selfishly retire. So Mary -- and by extension the old people who vote a Social Security ticket -- can rest assured that it will. "Nothing changes."
We might expect that he would then bring the conversation around to her three adult children, and explain how despite "nothing changes" his plan will keep their savings intact. We would be wrong.
In the process of talking to Mary Mornin, Bush discovers that she's working three jobs to help support her disabled son. His response to that? "Uniquely American, isn't it?" and "Get much sleep?" She confirms that, no, she does not.
But he hopes, in a spectacularly awkward segue, that knowing her benefits will be there in five years under his plan will help her sleep better.
And with a "that's great," Bush now turns to Jerry Rempe, another hand-picked guest. Jerry wants to get right to the issue, and leaps into his prepared remarks. Bush, however, chooses to interrupt the guy to make a truly unctuous connection between a gift of Omaha steaks and his appointment of a cattleman to the head of the Agriculture Department.
quote: a middle-aged woman supporting an adult child,
Hmm... although she does say her son is mentally challenged -- it doesn't say she is supporting him -- although I guess that can be assumed or implied...
posted
I was assuming that it was implied by context and went some way towards explaining the need for three jobs. But I could be reading too much into the comment.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing I see in this snippett that bugs me is something that I think is common to all politicians (not just Bush) - glossing over or talking past people's concerns to focus instead on inane babble that means absolutely nothing
posted
So Bush trying to publicly thank the guy for the gift was bad? He did ask him what he gave first. The guy didn’t answer his question. And since he said that older people are living longer this is bad? That part of the reason why SSI is in trouble! When it was first created most people died before they got to benefit age. So if he points out that they’re feeling ok without saying anything about raising the age is bad? So what’s the big deal? What are you trying to say? Should we do something about social security? Is there really a problem or is it because Bush said it?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone ever admitted to attacking a straw man in the entire history of electronic communications?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: THE PRESIDENT: That's right. You know, one of the interesting things, by the way, again, on personal accounts -- admittedly, new concept; hard for some to understand; and it's just going to take a while for people to hear the debate and get used to the cconcept. The principles are easy to understand: your money, you own it, you can pass it on to whoever you want, you get a better rate of return. But it's been done before. In other words, this isn't the first time the thought of a thrift savings plan has been advanced. As a matter of fact, federal employees can now take some of their own money and put it into five different conservative portfolios of stocks and bonds as a part of their retirement package. It's an easy statement to say, but something I believe is, if it's good enough for federal employees, it ought to be good enough for younger workers. (Applause.)
quote:A Washington Post Article (BugMeNot or registration req'd.) said: What Bush did not detail is how contributions in the account would reduce workers' monthly Social Security checks. Under the system, described by an administration official, every dollar contributed to an account would be taken from the guaranteed Social Security benefit, with interest.
...
If investments earned less than 3 percent a year above inflation, a worker would do worse in total benefits than he would have done in the traditional system.
I don't like the way Bush talks about his plan. He uses simple language that doesn't carry enough of the meaning it needs to when talking about complex systems such as Social Security or Taxes.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well… according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Yes Tom, I know what the ol “Straw Man” argument thing is. I’m not sure if you’re accusing me or Bush of using this technique. Anyway…. I’m still not sure what the big deal was with Jerry Rempe. I still think it was because Bush was talking is the problem.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Under the system, described by an administration official, every dollar contributed to an account would be taken from the guaranteed Social Security benefit, with interest.
I heard that for every dollar that gets taken out of Social Security, the person who opted for the different system gets a dollar less. Let's say instead of getting $10,000/year froim SS, I only get $9,000, BUT I take the other 1,000 and invest it.
Nobody else in the system misses the money because it would of gone to me anyway. This is what I heard, and it makes sense to me. I am open to further insight.
quote: If investments earned less than 3 percent a year above inflation, a worker would do worse in total benefits than he would have done in the traditional system.
That is true, but I would be willing to take that risk. I am sure I could find very low risk investments that earn 3-5% interest. And I get the peace of mind that some of it is reserved for me and not going to have to be paid for by my kid.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
what i don't understand here is why republicans flat out support bush regardless of what he does, even when he doesn't really behave as a conservative.
the current social security setup is doomed, but i don't believe that bush's new plan is going to make anything better. i sure hope he gets his facts straight before making the final changes.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:what i don't understand here is why republicans flat out support bush regardless of what he does,
I hate to say this, as a libertarian who supports the republican party much more the the democratic party, but I believe it is because of Rush and Hannity.
If you ever listen to either one of them, it seems Bush can do no wrong. They reach out to so many people, and I often here what sounds like people parrotting them in arguements, newspaper articles, and interviews.
I hope I am wrong...but I have had these thoughts before.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I heard that for every dollar that gets taken out of Social Security, the person who opted for the different system gets a dollar less. Let's say instead of getting $10,000/year froim SS, I only get $9,000, BUT I take the other 1,000 and invest it.
Yes, except instead of a 1 for 1 trade, I think this meanst that they'll take ($1 + inflation + 3% interest).
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that really bothers me about this is the jovial way he glosses over Ms. Mornin's three jobs and her lack of sleep. Ha, ha, aren't you a typical American. Nothing along the lines of why she should be able to have just one job id addition to caring for disabled son. Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
But in our current system, we are not setting the money aside for infaltion or interest to affect it. Doesn't the money get spent on either SS or other government programs immediately? It wouldn't be $1 + inflation + 3% interest anyway, it would be inflation + 3% interest. The dollar is already being accounted for.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing that really bothers me about this is the jovial way he glosses over Ms. Mornin's three jobs and her lack of sleep. Ha, ha, aren't you a typical American. Nothing along the lines of why she should be able to have just one job id addition to caring for disabled son. [Mad]
I agree. That completely bothered me.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:what i don't understand here is why republicans flat out support bush regardless of what he does, even when he doesn't really behave as a conservative.
Umm, this thread was opened with a presumption that any intelligent person should be able to see what is wrong with the comments. And didn't bush bring up the no sleep thing? It's not like she said "I'm sleep deprived" and bush said "ha ha ha. so are 42% of Americans. That makes you a great American." also, this is a transcription of non-scripted discussion, right? I mean, we don't have any of the non-textual elements.
I just puzzled over what was so obviously cringe worthy about it.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just puzzled over what was so obviously cringe worthy about it.
Even after reading Tom's explaination of what upset him? (I'm genuinely asking, because if the answer is yes, then more discussion is needed, obviously.)
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It made me cringe. Think about his "isn't America great" response when she mentioned three jobs, like she was so fortunate. Now, if she's a person who really enjoys working, and likes having three jobs, or if they are three jobs that altogether give her 40 hrs/week, his response would be appropriate. But the impression she gives is that she's working 3 jobs because she has to, and she's tired so she's probably working a lot of hours. Maybe I'm reading to much into it, but his humor comes off as callous.
Honestly, for me that is what makes Bush so cringe-inducing-- his responses are often so jarringly inappropriate.
Posts: 239 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine another cringe-worthy element was that Bush brought up the sleep topic to a woman working three jobs.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't understand why if Tom's cringeing is likely based solely on it being Bush who said it, but then conservatives are accused of defending it only because Bush said it.
In explaining how it becringed him, Tom gave a fair enough synopses of the segment. Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cringed today when GWB introduced his friend, the Prime Minister of Poland. "Oh, that's President?' Ouch.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People live longer. This woman is pushing 60 and has a disabled son. She works three jobs.
It seems to me that some people have this idyllic notion of work. Most of these people are people like the ones that post here often. They have desk jobs that don't require much physical exertion, beyond dragging your butt out of bed and sitting at a desk. I'd be willing to bet that at the very minimum, this woman works at least on job which requires she stand on a concrete floor for hours on end. I'd be surprised if at least one of them didn't require her to be cleaning toilets on her knees.
While the idea of working past 65 or 67 is fine for a ton of jobs, the people really getting screwed by this whole notion of "we're living longer" are the poor. A, they have limited, if any, access to health-care. B, they have physically demanding jobs. C, by the time they reach 65 or 67, their bodies, especially their ankles and knees, are pretty worn out.
Bush thinks that working three jobs is uniquely American? I wonder why? Is it because most first world countries pay their workers enough that they can live on one job, and since we don't, most Americans have to have three jobs to survive? I think Bush thinks it's uniquely American because he's seen immigrants come to America and work their butts off just to survive, and create a future for their children. While that is a terrific thing, I don't think generations of Americans should have to work three jobs to get by.
And while Bush still "feels great" I'm sure there are many Americans who actually work for a living who don't. I can't imagine that my 40 year old husband will be able to keep his job for another 25 years, but it seems like Bush thinks he should do it for another 30 or 35 years. As it is, when he comes home at night and sits down, he has a lot of trouble walking when he stands back up. He works on a concrete floor all day. His ankle is shot.
I've seen old 50 year olds. Unless the government has some plan for transitioning these people into jobs that don't require so much physical stress, I don't see how they are going to be able to contribute. But under Bush, they will be "giving up their responsibilities." Shame on them.
Considering that the government hasn't figured out how to get people like me a job so we can contribute so society and "be responsible", I don't have much hope for the "hard" working poor.
Bush shows no understanding of how hard some poor, and even middle class, Americans work. Or how a physically demanding job that doesn't pay a lot of money is still a job that someone has to do and it is contributing to society.
He should suggest mandatory retirement age by occupation. If you work a desk job and you don't have Alzheimer's, sure, don't retire till your 75. If you work construction and your knees, ankles and back take a beating daily, you should have to retire at 60.
I just don't think Bush is in touch with "real" Americans. He's led too sheltered a life.
I wonder if he'd be comfortable with a Secret Service detail that was all over 60. We certainly don't want those Secret Service agents to be giving up their responsibility.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
And I still think that if these quotes were attributed to Clinton, folks would not find fault with them. They'd say "A president would know what it's like to not get much sleep."
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to see politicians adopt a workday program similar to what Sen. Bob Graham did every month when he was in office. He'd take a job and work it, all day, in the same conditions as the usual employees. In 408 workdays he was a civics teacher, several kinds of construction worker, a Hialeah Park stable boy, a fish cleaner, a phosphate miner, a busboy for several different restaurants, a chicken plucker, a film grip, a concrete cutter on a bridge job, a reporter, a garbage collector, an iron worker, a pea picker, a train conductor, a student loan processor, a park ranger, a hurricane relief worker, and many more. His last one was volunteer gift wrapper with the Girl Scouts for Christmas. While there was certainly an element of public relations to all of them, he didn't have to do them and he didn't have to do them so faithfully or consistently. He did, and I respect that.
I expect my representative to know enough about me to adequately represent my needs. My real needs, not the ones he tells me I have.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And I still think that if these quotes were attributed to Clinton, folks would not find fault with them.
I will never understand, until the day I die, why Bush fans use Clinton in situations like these as an example of someone who could do no wrong.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will never understand, until the day I die, why Bush fans use Clinton in situations like these as an example of someone who could do no wrong.
I don't get this either.
What the heck does Clinton have to do with the statements by Bush that Tom quoted? And it's not as if Clinton was never made fun of for anything he said or did.
Bringing Clinton into the discussion is really besides the point.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, in the context provided by Tom, Clinton can be relevant. He said, "I think it sums up nicely why it's very difficult for me to like [Bush]."
If Clinton said very similar things, and Tom liked Clinton, then it's a very good attack on Tom's basic premise, and support for MT's premise that the cringe is induced by party more than content.
I don't know if Tom liked Clinton, and I don't know if Tom ever heard Clinton say something like this, but the reasoning is sound based on Tom's initial framing of the issue.
posted
Clinton didn't say it. So you can't say whether or not Tom would've had a negative reaction if Clinton had said it.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Honestly, I'm intrigued; that the Bush supporters on the board don't see the same disturbing elements in this snippet that I do suggests quite strongly to me that there really is a major personality component to political affiliation.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
for so many reasons...![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
Owie.
