2004-09-03 10:02:40 UTC
THE SPEECH: http://georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3422
> workers of our parents' generation typically had one job . . .
> often with one company that provided health care and a pension.
> And most of those workers were men.
Because family values were so high that those working men made a
living wage so that their children could receive the care, nurturing,
and guidance of their mothers who were at home to receive them when
they returned from their high-quality schools.
> Today, workers change jobs, even careers, many times during their
Because their jobs disappear either through advances in technology
(such as mine two years after I retired) or having them sent, for
economic reasons, to other countries.
> and in one of the most dramatic shifts our society has seen,
> two-thirds of all Moms also work outside the home.
Because, due to Republican anti-worker/family/union policies, their
spouses are paid too little to support them and their families.
> To create more jobs in America, America must be the best place in
> the world to do business.
What about being the best place in the world to live? And to earn a
living? Presently it's neither.
> To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by
> restraining federal spending,
Your administration has squandered a significant surplus and created
the greatest debt this country has ever known. Will this "restraint of
federal spending" be cutting funds for welfare? Education?
Preservation of wilderness? Care of National Parks?
> reducing regulation,
As was done in California?
> and making tax relief permanent.
What tax relief? My tax years 2002 and 2003 are directly comparable.
For 2002, I paid 8.67% of my gross income to the IRS. My 2003 gross
income was 11% lower than 2002's. I paid 9.55% of my gross income to
the IRS, a windfall of 1.32% of the year-to-year amount.
The so-called tax cuts have not generated increased spending because
the cuts were given to people who don't spend it because they don't
need at the expense of those who desperately need it and would spend
it if they had it.
> To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign
> sources of energy.
By building roads on some of the 10,600,000 acres Ronald Reagan added
to the National Wilderness Preservation System for us and our
descendants? Roads that will facilitate drilling and logging thus
creating even more jobs to clean up the resulting pollution and shore
the weakened top soil?
> To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to
> sell American goods and services across the globe.
How? By raising wages and improving working conditions in other
countries? Lowering wages and lessening working conditions at home?
> And we must protect small business owners and workers from the
> explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across America.
> I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal
> tax code.
Simplify? Great! But what about making it fair?
> Another priority in a new term will be to help workers take
> advantage of the expanding economy
What "expanding economy"? You have said that the unemployment rate is
low even though you know that those whose unemployment benefits have
been exhausted are no longer counted as unemployed. You know that,
were they counted, the situation would be recognized as being as grim
as it really is.
> I know that with the right skills, American workers can compete
> with anyone, anywhere in the world.
I know that, too. We already do that, in part because our wages are so
low and our working years so long; in part because we're the most
conscientious, most productive, and best workers the world has ever
> we will create American opportunity zones. In these areas, we'll
> provide tax relief and other incentives to attract new business,
> and improve housing and job training to bring hope and work
> throughout all of America.
Wasn't that done during Nixon's Republican Administration? Reference
is often made to "failed policies of the past". Isn't that one?
> We will offer a tax credit to encourage small businesses and their
> employees to set up health savings accounts, and provide direct
> help for low-income Americans to purchase them.
Why? Why should small businesses and their employees not receive
exactly the same health coverage, at the same cost, in the same way,
as you? What is there about your body (other than the abuse it
received through your excessive use of alcohol and cocaine) that
entitles it to care different from mine (and the absive things I've
done to it), the small business owner, and the employees thereof?
> I will ensure every poor county in America has a community or rural
> health center.
That's nice. Will you also ensure that it's staffed with qualified and
competent workers receiving a living wage and decent conditions?
> doctors . . . are being forced out of practice because of the high
> cost of lawsuits. To make health care more affordable and
> accessible, we must pass medical liability reform now.
Does that mean you want to penalize the victims of incompetence rather
than holding responsible those whose incompetence made them victims?
> government must take the side of working families.
Please, please, please!
> In a new term, we will change outdated labor laws
Such as the punitive and regressive overtime regulations recently
enacted? They do not say what they ought:
1.5 times the employee's normal rate of pay for the first ten such
six-minute increments in any pay period;
2.0 times the employee's normal rate of pay for the second ten such
six-minute increments plus five additional six-minute increments for a
mandatory thirty-minute break for the twenty-first through
twenty-fifth six-minute increments in any pay period;
3.0 times the employee's normal rate of pay, for the third ten such
six-minute such increments in any pay period;
4.0 times the employee's normal rate of pay, for the fourth ten such
six-minute increments in any pay period.
. . . Overtime shall be voluntary. No employer may ever compel any
employee to work overtime for any reason whatsoever except when
required for the public's safety.
[Do not comment on the above overtime comments unless you've read all
eight paragraphs at <http://geocities.com/iconoc/Articles/Overtime.html#t>]
> Our laws should never stand in the way of a more family-friendly
Right! Our laws should mandate that every full-time employee be paid a
living wage and every part-time employee compensated at a rate no
> a new goal: seven million more affordable homes in the next 10
Where are you going to put them? The Mojave Desert? A wheatfield in
Kansas? A vineyard in California? An orange grove in Florida? A forest
in Oregon? A cattle ranch in Nebraska? A rice field in Texas?
> We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to
> save some of their taxes in a personal account -- a nest egg you
> can call your own, and government can never take away.
What will you call those accounts? Investment Retirement Accounts?
> No matter what your circumstance, no matter where you live -- your
> school will be the path to the promise of America.
Hasn't that promise been made by every modern candidate for President?
You've had four years to fulfill it. Why didn't you?
> policies of tax and spend -- of expanding government rather than
> expanding opportunity -- are the policies of the past.
Yes, your past! You haven't reduced government spending. You haven't
made government smaller. You haven't made government's rôle in our
lives less intrusive.
> I support welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work.
The fact is that most families who have lost welfare benefits because
of getting jobs are less well off than they were when eligible for
welfare payments and benefits. Their income/benefit package is lesser
and their overall expenses are greater.
> Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in
> our society, I support the protection of marriage
Isn't that contrary to the Republican platform? Or do you plan to tell
me whom I may, or may not, marry.
> I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference
> between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.
Bravo! Especially when those judges uphold the Constitution and negate
laws that violate it.
> About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in
Meaning, of course, that for each country included above, more than
four are not.
> at least you know what I believe and where I stand.
Indeed I do!
> I have learned first-hand that ordering Americans into battle is
> the hardest decision
But you have no idea how much harder it would have been had you ever
been in the circumstances into which you've put them!
> said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved
I very much doubt that! They loved a child or a spouse or a sibling or
a friend or a relative. It is most likely that the person was also a
soldier because of dire economic circumstances.
> We see America's character in our military
Even when it tortures prisoners? Tsk, tsk.
Mr. President, I agree with almost nothing that you said nor that you
pretend to represent. I believe you'll be recorded as possibly the
second-worst President this nation has ever known.
I have the highest regard for the Presidency of the United States of
America. I despise your policies and deplore your record.