John McCain, who is the presumptive GOP nominee for president, hung out with some poor folks this past week.
The PA primary was the major press story--sadly for John McCain, we did not fixate upon his own White House bid, since he isn't in a life-or-death struggle, anymore. Therefore, he gets to bum around on, first,a biographical tour, where we realized he went to better schools than we all did, and did worse in them: and now we get to see his response to our vast economic suffering, as a country maybe, possibly, having a little recession-type-thing. (Which he said, like, a whole week before, but, it's still so relevant, right?)
So he gave a speech in front of a factory about to be shuttered. About how free trade was okay with him, and would still make things better--later. Maybe.
But in the midst of this little tour of a compassionate conservative (a term which I guess we could resurrect to describe a Maverick who decides to "listen" to the poor people, while he also, incidently, polishes up his rhetoric as to why the tax cuts for the rich should be made permanent, or why Reagan's spending-slashing, low-tax way, would fix our budget--if McCain was doing it, although under Reagan, it didn't work, so much), he revealed things about his economic grasp. Bad things.
He does seem a little confused. Perhaps because, as he always has said, he didn't understand economics.
But I want to bring the tight focus in on a bill he did not vote on (no suprise, there are more than a few he hasn't voted on) concerning equal pay for women. The bill, specifically, was about suing for wage discrimination and the time when this should be sued for. It was McCain's contention that this bill was bad because it would lead to more lawsuits. Yes. That was what he said. Because people who discriminate against a certain class of worker should be otherwise corrected by means of....
I hear...Crickets. I don't think McCain believes there should be any incentive for an employer to treat women economically fairly. (our stalwart Dems--Clinton and Obama, both did the right thing--they voted, and were in favor of this bill, recognizing that if a bill is to be effective--it should offer a repercussion for people who do a thing that is not appropriate. Odd, how that is how laws work.) He does, however, have a soluton for those poor, lower-paid women:
Ready?
I don't think you're ready?
Oh, you're savvy? You've heard this before?
Okay, I'll go: These women, who aren't being paid the same as men in the same job with the same qualifications, which is kind of what they'd need to allege to wage a lawsuit against an employer?--well, they should get more training.
Yeah. Even though he kind of gets that women are often enough the head of their household, and maybe have mouths to feed--well, they should learn something. Get themselves an education. Stop being so feminine and not workplace-ready--despite, you know, having equal education and skills, and experience. Hmm. That was great.Does he get that training often means you pay to be trained? It takes time? They already have jobs that just aren't paying enough? And that they postphone complaints because they need those jobs, and do not want to jeopardize their current situation--even if it's poor?
No. That would be a lot to swallow. He doesn't get all that.
See that picture--there at the top? That is McCain at the Fabart factory in Youngstown, OH. There, he spoke about how NAFTA and free trade have many discrepancies, but they've been basically good. Sure, people talk about factories moving overseas and taking the jobs with them. Some people lose their jobs, but there's growth...
You know, just like the war in Iraq is still good. Some people lose their lives, but still....
No comments:
Post a Comment