• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jeb Bush: People Need to Work Longer Hours [W: 64]

Its not about those companies, its about the smaller companies that CANT grow due to taxes and regulations. The conglomerates PREFER that taxes and regulations stay high...it doesnt affect them one bit, they can afford the lawyers and lobbyists anyway.

Smaller businesses do get tax breaks. Your argument is a red herring.
 
To put her in perspective of your time, she was governor of Texas and was Karl Rove's first big test to beat as GW Bush's attack dog and that's when GW Bush became governor of Texas just before becoming president. That woman was sooooooo funny. She had an incredible speaking style that had the right amount of comedic pause and delivery. Worked well for her in politics. Below is a link to 7 minute story she told about the TSA back in 2004. Funny to see if you got the time.



rl]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LA1dfHqLTc[/url]

Greetings, PoweRob. :2wave:

That was one of the funniest things I have listened to in a long time! :lamo: She was great, wasn't she? Thanks for posting it! :thumbs: (I'm still laughing.....)
 
Greetings, PoweRob. :2wave:

That was one of the funniest things I have listened to in a long time! :lamo: She was great, wasn't she? Thanks for posting it! :thumbs: (I'm still laughing.....)

I think some of the greatest comedians are Texans and they tend to be politically active. Her, Jim Hightower and especially Kinky Friedman.
 
Liberals taking things out of context, imagine that.

The Obama economy is a part-time, low wage economy. We need good paying, full time jobs. Electing Democrats will not get you work.
We need good paying, full time jobs! That's why Republicans (and Obama) are pushing trade deals to ship more jobs overseas!
 
I think some of the greatest comedians are Texans and they tend to be politically active. Her, Jim Hightower and especially Kinky Friedman.

Ah, Kinky Friedman - the poor man's Donald Trump - shows up occasionally, says outrageous things and disappears again! :lamo: I like him!
 
Last edited:
Ah, Kinky Friedman - the poor man's Donald Trump - shows up occasionally, says outrageous things and disappears again! :lamo: I like him!

If he does a show near you .... go see it. It'll hurt you from laughing so much.
 
If he does a show near you .... go see it. It'll hurt you from laughing so much.

I have seen him - my offspring live in Texas! They really like him!
 
Please tell me how the GOP cares about workers.

Well, they care about exploiting them. They care about denying equal pay for women, robbing pensioners and those with 401Ks, they care about not allowing for unions to organize or health care benefits for those fully employed.

Say what you want but it takes a lot to maintain that.
 
Well, they care about exploiting them. They care about denying equal pay for women, robbing pensioners and those with 401Ks, they care about not allowing for unions to organize or health care benefits for those fully employed.

Say what you want but it takes a lot to maintain that.

What? How exactly do I deny women equal pay by not mandating employers provide women equal pay? Is this like one of those tricks where if I give people the freedom to decide what they will pay people that somehow I'm forcing employers to not pay women equally?
 
What? How exactly do I deny women equal pay by not mandating employers provide women equal pay? Is this like one of those tricks where if I give people the freedom to decide what they will pay people that somehow I'm forcing employers to not pay women equally?

Are you denying that women don't get equal pay? Or do you think they are paid less because they deserve less? Equal pay for equal work means just what it says.
 
The central problem is that Jeb's comment belies a childish understanding of the economy.

First it shows a complete disconnect from the realities of the modern w. The most productive people are already maxxed out. We may only be paid for 40hrs a week, but 60 is a better average and 80 isn't uncommon. We also don't take much vacation even though we're entitled to it, mostly because it's impossible to take more time off and finish what we need to do.

Second, it shows a complete inability to do simple math. If your "plan" expects to generate 4% growth as far as the eye can see, would you not also have to put in longer and longer hours... also as far as the eye can see? Increasing the number of hours everyone works would presumably only get you a one time increase in productivity. Hours worked does not compound like interest.

Third, it ignores history. When has any country ever brute forced itself into economic growth? Countries grow in productivity because either its workforce grows or its workforce becomes more efficient.

Fourth, it completely misses the roadblocks for growth. Companies are sitting on some absurd number of trillions of dollars in unused capital. The reason they don't grow is the same reason that small businesses don't hire themselves into success. Produce as much as you like, but you only make money on the things you actually sell. The current limit to economic growth isn't a lack productivity, it's demand.

Fifth, it's completely tone deaf. The problem with our country is that we don't work hard enough? Please. Live in the real world for a little Mr Bush and then let us know what you think.

Seriously.... Jeb's comment is dumber than Romney's 47%. At least you understood where Romney was coming from.

^ i really liked this, it is a great explanation of why Jeb's comments are unbecoming of one we would elect to direct our country.
 
And this from the party that relied on the Supreme Court to tell the nation what the Democrats meant when they said the ACA wasn't really a tax and the federal subsidies didn't apply only to state exchanges.

What?

I don't pay any ACA tax.

The law obviously intended for federal subsidies to apply to states that refused to set up their own exchanges. Please read the SCOTUS decision before you use it as a talking point.
 
What?

I don't pay any ACA tax.

The law obviously intended for federal subsidies to apply to states that refused to set up their own exchanges. Please read the SCOTUS decision before you use it as a talking point.

The Supreme Court, in its first ruling on the ACA, declared it was constitutional because the mandate was a tax. Chief Justice Roberts parked his integrity and twisted himself into a pretzel in order to make that ruling to save the ACA.

I suggest you take your own advice to avoid looking foolish.
 
The central problem is that Jeb's comment belies a childish understanding of the economy.

First it shows a complete disconnect from the realities of the modern w. The most productive people are already maxxed out. We may only be paid for 40hrs a week, but 60 is a better average and 80 isn't uncommon. We also don't take much vacation even though we're entitled to it, mostly because it's impossible to take more time off and finish what we need to do.

Second, it shows a complete inability to do simple math. If your "plan" expects to generate 4% growth as far as the eye can see, would you not also have to put in longer and longer hours... also as far as the eye can see? Increasing the number of hours everyone works would presumably only get you a one time increase in productivity. Hours worked does not compound like interest.

Third, it ignores history. When has any country ever brute forced itself into economic growth? Countries grow in productivity because either its workforce grows or its workforce becomes more efficient.

Fourth, it completely misses the roadblocks for growth. Companies are sitting on some absurd number of trillions of dollars in unused capital. The reason they don't grow is the same reason that small businesses don't hire themselves into success. Produce as much as you like, but you only make money on the things you actually sell. The current limit to economic growth isn't a lack productivity, it's demand.

Fifth, it's completely tone deaf. The problem with our country is that we don't work hard enough? Please. Live in the real world for a little Mr Bush and then let us know what you think.

Seriously.... Jeb's comment is dumber than Romney's 47%. At least you understood where Romney was coming from.

I can't see where Jeb was targeting as you seem to believe, "the most productive people" in his statement. I do agree that a large portion of those who are the most productive are likely be working longer hours than most, and some or many, may feel maxed out, but that doesn't have anything to do with Jeb's remark. With the number of people that have dropped out of the labor and the number of people looking for more hours, there clearly are workers who are willing to provide the hours necessary for the 4% growth rate, if somebody could find something for them to do. Where I clearly agree with you, and further reinforced by the amount of cash sitting idle in corporate coffers, is the lack of demand for increased investment and increased hours from the workforce.
 
Of course, many part-time jobs are combined with other part-time jobs to support a family. Sometimes up to three or four. Which Jeb's brother said was uniquely American.

Saudi oil money can certainly give you a divorced perspective from the American experience.

Saudi oil money?
 
What? How exactly do I deny women equal pay by not mandating employers provide women equal pay? Is this like one of those tricks where if I give people the freedom to decide what they will pay people that somehow I'm forcing employers to not pay women equally?

Ah, more of your Libertardian dream world rhetoric.
 
Your position? Are you a employer, Henrin?

How is that relevant? If I support doing nothing to resolve the apparent problem of equal pay for women is that the same thing as denying women equal pay?
 
Half the time Henrin, you're either so damn contradictory, confusing, or vague in your statements I haven't the slightest idea how to respond to you.
 
The Supreme Court, in its first ruling on the ACA, declared it was constitutional because the mandate was a tax. Chief Justice Roberts parked his integrity and twisted himself into a pretzel in order to make that ruling to save the ACA.

I suggest you take your own advice to avoid looking foolish.

You only pay a tax if you don't have health care.

I suggest you take your own advice to avoid looking foolish.
 
Half the time Henrin, you're either so damn contradictory, confusing, or vague in your statements I haven't the slightest idea how to respond to you.

To be fair, there are lots of compelling contextual reasons that seek to explain the statistical wage gap between male and female employees. Linda Nochlin wrote a wonderful paper entitled (something like) "Why have there been no great women artists?" I highly recommend it.

I am quite confident that many employers pay as little as possible. Sometimes that may mean offering a woman a smaller starting salary with the presumption that she will be more likely to accept it anyway.

I think that, for this case, both sides have sufficiently compelling reasoning to justify toning down the rhetoric a bit. We suspect male employees do tend to have slightly higher job competitive drive, similarly we expect males generally have more upper body strength. Statistically, the difference in pay is certainly significant, but it is not supermassive so-as-to make pure gender discrimination the unquestionably dominant explanation for the overwhelming gap.

I think that, with the situation as it is, the best solution is not necessarily from legislation, but from individuals. It is illegal for a company to discriminate against employees salaries on the basis of gender, so sites like glassceiling can help employees keep employers honest. Employees should make use of these tools and make employers accountable. Unfortunately, i'm not fond of this solution because, if there are many potential applicants for a given position, you would have no leverage (they would just hire another woman who would accept the reduced pay), i just can't think of a better one. Forcing employers to pay the same, it's the system we're supposed to already have, but it gets increasingly complicated when tasks, bonuses and raises are always individualized.
 
Back
Top Bottom