Pull your thumbs out!!

[Gob]

During a visit to New Hampshire on Wednesday, Jeb Bush was asked about his plans for tax reform.

Mixed in with talk about an ambitious goal of 4% US economic growth was a bit of advice that left the Republican presidential candidate scrambling to explain himself.

"We have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows," Mr Bush told the editors of the New Hampshire Union Leader in an interview that was broadcast online. "It 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."

It didn't take long for the rapid-response teams of Mr Bush's political adversaries - on the left and the right - to spring to action.

The Democratic Party released a statement calling Bush's "work longer hours" line "easily one of the most out-of-touch comments we've heard so far this cycle".

"Anyone who believes Americans aren't working hard enough hasn't met enough American workers," tweeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, along with a chart showing increases in worker productivity hasn't been matched by a rise in hourly compensation.

Rick Tyler, a spokesperson for Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz, was more direct, warning that Mr Bush's comments could brand the former Florida governor with the same "out of touch" label that dogged 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

"The problem is not that Americans aren't working hard enough," Tyler said. "It is that the Washington cartel of career politicians, special interests and lobbyists have rigged the game against them."

Jeb Bush's remarks also harken back to a controversial comment made by his brother, George W Bush, in January 2005.

"You work three jobs?" then-President Bush asked a divorced mother of three in Nebraska during a town hall forum. "Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. Get any sleep?"

Later on Wednesday Jeb Bush clarified his remarks, saying that he was referring to Americans who are looking for full-time work but are unable to find it.

"Only Washington Democrats could be out-of-touch enough to criticise giving more Americans the ability to work, earn a paycheque, and make ends meet," a Bush campaign aide said.

[Econoline]

Arbeit macht frei?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thumb-bite?

[BoSoxGal]

What a bald faced arrogant lie that clarifying statement was!

As for the original comment by Jeb! - not a bit surprised. Isn't his dad the guy who famously doesn't know what groceries cost? The Bush family doesn't work for a living and haven't a clue what it's like to do so.

[oldr_n_wsr]

The Bush family doesn't work for a living and haven't a clue what it's like to do so.

That statement applies to most politicians.

[BoSoxGal]

The Bush family doesn't work for a living and haven't a clue what it's like to do so.

That statement applies to most politicians.

Once they become politicians, sure.

But the Bush family has been wealthy since Prescott schemed with the Nazis, so Jeb! is somebody who has never had to be in touch with the reality of working people.

I'm sure there are other silver spooners in the Congresscritters club, but I think some of them have actually worked in their lives prior to public service.

eta: This one has!

v v v v v v v v v v

[Sue U]

"We have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows," Mr Bush told the editors of the New Hampshire Union Leader in an interview that was broadcast online. "It 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."

Bush's statement above is so wrong on so many levels that it sinks to Sarah Palin-level word salad. First, it conflates "productivity" and "workforce participation," which are two entirely separate things. Second, it suggests that worker productivity is at some kind of historic low, when exactly the opposite is true. Third, while workforce participation (the percentage of potential workers who are actually working or actively seeking work) is in fact at a low, that has nothing to do with workers themselves, but with businesses that are sitting on piles of cash while either offering only part-time low-wage employment, not hiring at all or actually cutting their workforces. The lack of real growth in the economy and the continuing decline of real-dollar wages are not the fault of workers, but the predictable product of capitalism and its concentration of wealth in the upper-most economic classes.

The Bush family doesn't work for a living and haven't a clue what it's like to do so.

That statement applies to most politicians.

Once they become politicians, sure.

But the Bush family has been wealthy since Prescott schemed with the Nazis, so Jeb! is somebody who has never had to be in touch with the reality of working people.

I'm sure there are other silver spooners in the Congresscritters club, but I think some of them have actually worked in their lives prior to public service.

My current Representative was an electrician who worked his way up through the union leadership to become head of the building trades council and the regional AFL-CIO council.

But there's nothing fundamentally wrong with being a politician and making a career out of public service. It's a job. But it's a job that can have a profound effect on shaping our country.

[Guinevere]

"We have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows," Mr Bush told the editors of the New Hampshire Union Leader in an interview that was broadcast online. "It 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."

Bush's statement above is so wrong on so many levels that it sinks to Sarah Palin-level word salad. First, it conflates "productivity" and "workforce participation," which are two entirely separate things. Second, it suggests that worker productivity is at some kind of historic low, when exactly the opposite is true. Third, while workforce participation (the percentage of potential workers who are actually working or actively seeking work) is in fact at a low, that has nothing to do with workers themselves, but with businesses that are sitting on piles of cash while either offering only part-time low-wage employment, not hiring at all or actually cutting their workforces. The lack of real growth in the economy and the continuing decline of real-dollar wages are not the fault of workers, but the predictable product of capitalism and its concentration of wealth in the upper-most economic classes.

THIS THIS THIS! Can I put it in blinking lights?

[Long Run]

First, politicians talk a lot and some things come out not the way they want. This is clearly one of those cases, as he clarified what he meant, which is pretty obvious -- if a country wants its growth rate to be higher, it needs more of its workforce employed at the level people want to work (especially since we are at historically low employment rates). This misspeak is similar to the Obama 57 states comment (talk a lot and something stupid is bound to come out). This is a different thing than The Donald's boorish comments that he keeps doubling down on. It is also different than the HRC statement that she had not been subpoenaed to turn over emails when in fact she had and she knew she had.

Second, why is "cash being sat on"? What is it about the economy and government policy that a company will simply sit on its cash, and what policies will encourage businesses to invest that money so they can make more money and put people to work?

Finally, where is the economic study that shows the economy grows slower when more dollars are concentrated in the upper tiers? Seems the 80's and 90's had plenty of growth even as dollars concentrated more and more in the upper class. Income inequality is a social and economic issue, but is there any study that shows it leads to lower overall growth rates? Presumably, the money-bags people spend their money which creates economic activity, and invest their money to maximize their return, which in turn, creates economic activity, and, as we know, they pay their huge amount of taxes which goes to others (either government employees, transfers to government program recipients, or to government contractors) which also creates economic activity.