Skip to main content

Jeb Bush doesn't seem to know what out of context means...

I hear this excuse used by Republican politicians all the time: "I was taken out of context." However, I'd say approximately 9 out of 10 times, that's not the case at all. The latest such example is with regard to GOP presidential hopeful Jeb Bush.

In an interview with the New Hampshire Union  Leader editorial board yesterday, Bush said the following:

"My aspiration for the country, and I believe we can achieve it, is four percent growth as far as the eye could see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, work force participation has to rise from its all time modern lows, means that people need to work longer hours, and through their productivity gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in."

Naturally, the former Florida governor received some backlash for these comments, especially with regard to the bit about people needing to work longer hours. Due to this, they felt the need to follow-up on Jeb's commentary with this:

"Under President Obama, we have the lowest workforce participation rate since 1977, and too many Americans are falling behind. Only Washington Democrats could be out-of-touch enough to criticize giving more Americans the ability to work, earn a paycheck, and make ends meet."

Bush himself added this:

"If we're going to grow the economy people need to stop being part-time workers, they need to be having access to greater opportunities to work. You can take it out of context all you want, but high-sustained growth means that people work 40 hours rather than 30 hours and that by our success, they have money, disposable income for their families to decide how they want to spend it rather than getting in line and being dependent on government."

Granted, if the Bush camp started with one of these follow-up statements, they'd have a point about being taken out of context. However, that's not what happened. Bush initially said this:

"My aspiration for the country, and I believe we can achieve it, is four percent growth as far as the eye could see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, work force participation has to rise from its all time modern lows, means that people need to work longer hours, and through their productivity gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in."

So when he received criticism for saying he thinks people need to work longer hours, that wouldn't be taking him out of context, as that's exactly what he said, and the surrounding context wouldn't alter that any.

It should also be noted that according to a Gallup poll which was conducted last year, full-time employees in this country are working an average of 47 hours per week. In light of that, expect Jeb Bush to campaign on the following slogan:

"Work hours - 55 is the new 47! Vote Jeb!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/jeb-bush-longer-hours_n_7758294.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...