Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[ford family]

The UK goverment are taking eighty days (80) days holiday even with the threat of terrorist in our country.

No, they are not.
Parliament is closed but the Government continues to run the country. Individual M.P.s will take their holidays but most of the time will be working in their constituencies.

ford family

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

I think he should go to Disney World instead.

*snort*

 

[DisneyCowgirl]

I think he should go to Disney World instead.

OMG! Can you imagine what would happen if the president did try to go to Disney World?

 

[Island_Lauri]

"WACO, TX (AP)—Prisoners of Camp Crawford complain of small cells, poor meals, constant surveillance, and disrespectful—even disdainful—treatment from Presidential staff.

“Thirty-three days in this hell-hole feels like thirty-three years,” said a bitter long-time White House correspondent. “You’re away from your family. We’re all billeted into these crappy Waco motels—you know, the kind they hose down with antiseptic every day and you’ve got one lousy blanket which is made of recycled Coke bottles or something. There are huge fights for the cells with fast Internet connections but not many have them. The networks always get those. We didn’t mind the facilities in Santa Barbara or Martha’s Vineyard. Even Kennebunkport was more endurable than this.”

A Fox News camera man agreed. “Basically you sit around in baking heat, bored out of your mind. How many times can you visit the ‘Texas Sports Hall of Fame’ or beat Nora O’Donnell at Scrabble? Nothing happens, except maybe when one of the staff summons you to watch the President pulling brush. After a few minutes, they pile you back into the buses, and that’s it. It’s torture.”


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/featuredposts.html#a005136

 

[bsnyder]

It was Luskin that raised that



This is an issue that I have debated with Krugman bashers often

As to home ownership, sure Bush owns a ranch.

Two things. He had family money, plus made $400 million plus by being a politician and getting the eminent domain Texas Stadium issue. Clinton had no family money, and never had a sweetheart deal like that, although he's making some serious money now - good for him.

The other thing - he bought that "ranch" just before decalaring to run in 98. Great for photo ops and the Cincinnatus myth

I realize Luskin raised it. But you said "Krugman "attack the job growth and unemployment numbers here". He didn't. Not in the French choice column. Why you threw in that nonsensical point is anyone's guess.

As to the homeownership thing, I'm well aware of Clinton's background. He could have rented a house for his vacations. And my guess is Bush just likes hanging out on the ranch, not the photo ops.

 

[sodaseller]

I realize Luskin raised it. But you said "Krugman "attack the job growth and unemployment numbers here". He didn't. Not in the French choice column. Why you threw in that nonsensical point is anyone's guess.

As to the homeownership thing, I'm well aware of Clinton's background. He could have rented a house for his vacations. And my guess is Bush just likes hanging out on the ranch, not the photo ops.

Kruugman and Luskin have gone back and forth on it plenty. Actually just Luskin - he never takes on Krugman directly, because he's not capable. I wasn't the one that posted the piece, therenby embracing it. I will embrace Krugman's column, which was perfectly logical.

In any event, it was one of two substantive points on the whole screed - the other being the idiotic GDP issues and the nonsensical unemployment issue.

And you are supposed to believe Bush loves the ranch - that's part of the persona created

 

[Island_Lauri]

And my guess is Bush just likes hanging out on the ranch, not the photo ops.

Hard at work during his "vacation".​

 

[HOGFAN]

give me a break. do you really think that a president is really ever "on vacation"?

 

[bsnyder]

Kruugman and Luskin have gone back and forth on it plenty. Actually just Luskin - he never takes on Krugman directly, because he's not capable. I wasn't the one that posted the piece, therenby embracing it. I will embrace Krugman's column, which was perfectly logical.

In any event, it was one of two substantive points on the whole screed - the other being the idiotic GDP issues and the nonsensical unemployment issue.

And you are supposed to believe Bush loves the ranch - that's part of the persona created

You posted the Krugman column. And brought up the tax issue.

Nonsensical unemployment issue? When are you planning to move to France?

Krugman says it's all about French choice, but they couldn't work longer hours even if they wanted to.

 

[toto2]

French Choice







.





Let's talk about that "lower income." Krugman Truth Squad member Bruce Bartlett points to a report by the European consulting firm Timbro that found that total private consumption per capita in France is about half that of the U.S. The average French family has a lower standard of living than Americans living below the poverty level. Impoverished Americans have 16% more dwelling space per capita than the average French; the American poor are more likely to have a car, a dishwasher, a microwave oven, a personal computer, and a clothes drier.

TOTO: These thing are essential to an american falilly , but most french citizen can pretty well do witout ! The public transport in france ( when not on strike) is efficient and affordable, they dont microwave because they stop at the marché ( market) everyday to buy fresh food and hang there clothes to dry ( electricity is expensive in France). An , as far as I know , a microwave doesnot make a poor person happy !

So now we know what French families are doing with all that extra time together — they're crouching in cramped living quarters doing household labor.

toto: Most cities and villages where built when North-america was still run by the indians. Paris and the villages are dense because this is how things were built hundreds of year ago. French people are not going to rase Paris in order to have a 200 sq feet kitchen ! They live very well with this space. And living in New-york is pretty crampted !

Are the French as happy with their "choice" as Krugman thinks they are? New Krugman Truth Squad member Tino Sanandaji on the Truck and Barter blog points to a Harris Poll that says they're not. When asked if you are "very satisfied...with the life you lead" only 18% of Frenchmen said yes, compared to 58% of Americans. It turns out that the French aren't even all that wild about the families they spend so much time with instead of working. Sanandaji points to a Pew Foundation survey showing that only 43% of Frenchmen are "very satisfied" with their family life, compared to 67% of Americans.

Toto: Maybe americans are deluding them selfs ?


And why did it happen? In part, because most French households are too poor to afford air conditioners.

TOTO:Only North-Americans are obsest with air conditioning ! French people never needed them before. Yes what happened in this heat wave , was a catastrophy , but France , and Europe had never dealt with this type of heat wavr. Now , asked those people in San-Francisco and Los-Angeles if they will be safer when tha BIG One will come because of there "standards of living , there air conditionning , ther big fridge and air conditioning. They know the big one is comming and they stay there ! The French never saw the heatwave coming !

 

[bsnyder]

Oh those Happy Frenchmen:

Suicide rates for men and women (from The World Health Organization)

France: 26.1 and 9.4
USA: 17.6 and 4.1

 

[ThAnswr]

I never had a problem with Clinton taking a vacation either.

One difference, though....at least Bush vacations in a house he actually owns. Clinton always mooched off of someone.

The Bush family didn't own the home they vacationed in on Boca Grande.

The Clintons never owned a home until President Clinton left the presidency. Ronald Reagan's friends bought him and Mrs. Reagan their home after Reagan left the presidency. Harry Truman never owned a home. The home he retired to was his wife's home she inherited.

Indeed.

 

[ThAnswr]

And my guess is Bush just likes hanging out on the ranch, not the photo ops.

Suuuure, that's why he bought the horse-less, one cow "ranch" right before he decided to run for president in 2000.

Btw, those photo ops of that semi-dilapidated home is NOT the Bush family home in Crawford. There real home is way away from that building and is very nice and fairly palatious. But, you don't see that because it doesn't fit in with the carefully cultivated image of the "old cowhand from the Rio Grande".

 

[ThAnswr]

Only North-Americans are obsest with air conditioning ! French people never needed them before. Yes what happened in this heat wave , was a catastrophy , but France , and Europe had never dealt with this type of heat wavr. Now , asked those people in San-Francisco and Los-Angeles if they will be safer when tha BIG One will come because of there "standards of living , there air conditionning , ther big fridge and air conditioning. They know the big one is comming and they stay there ! The French never saw the heatwave coming !

Actually, if you go toward the northern part of the US, you'll find many don't have air conditioning. Many people in NY don't have air conditioning. People in northern Canada don't have air conditioning.

Btw, Toto, the closest many of the people commenting on the French and their way of life ever came to France and the French was watching Julia Child cook on television.

 

[sodaseller]

Nonsensical unemployment issue? When are you planning to move to France?

They have as much choice as we do.

And his point that lower works weeks contributes to unemployment is nonsensical, assuming you understand economics in the least. And you invited the Krugman column by making the ignorant bash. But hey, you can cut and paste, even if you don't understand the causal relationships being argued

 

[bsnyder]

They have as much choice as we do.

And his point that lower works weeks contributes to unemployment is nonsensical, assuming you understand economics in the least. And you invited the Krugman column by making the ignorant bash. But hey, you can cut and paste, even if you don't understand the causal relationships being argued

Where did he say that lower work weeks contribute to unemployment?

 

[sodaseller]

Where did he say that lower work weeks contribute to unemployment?

see below

Until recently it was a matter of law. In 1998, powerful unions pressured France's socialist government into mandating a 35-hour work week, under the doctrine of "work less, work all." The first part of that has been a success — people are working "less." The second part has been a miserable failure — "all" are not working. It's gotten so bad that last March France's general assembly voted to, in effect, dismantle the law by allowing up to 13 hours of overtime. It remains to be seen if that will make any difference.

 

[bsnyder]

He's arguing that a causal relationship doesn't exist.

And how do you reconcile the law with the statement "They have as much choice as we do".

 

[sodaseller]

He's arguing that a causal relationship doesn't exist.

And how do you reconcile the law with the statement "They have as much choice as we do".

I have no idea what you are saying on two counts. First, Luskin is plainly linking the mandatory shorter work weeks to the high unemployment, when the common causal relation (there is a limited case for inverse, far smaller), is the opposite.

And neither is that linked to the second statement about choice - both cultures exert strong legal and cultural pressures towards certain "work ethics." We are culturally Protestant. Parenthetically, there is a movement afoot from the Right, far from fruition, to rescussitate Lochner and make things. And mind you, many of these trends are beyond the reach of policy. But they want to align the policy with those pulls like globalization pressure to lower wages

 

[bsnyder]

I have no idea what you are saying on two counts. First, Luskin is plainly linking the mandatory shorter work weeks to the high unemployment, when the common causal relation (there is a limited case for inverse, far smaller), is the opposite.

And neither is that linked to the second statement about choice - both cultures exert strong legal and cultural pressures towards certain "work ethics." We are culturally Protestant. Parenthetically, there is a movement afoot from the Right, far from fruition, to rescussitate Lochner and make things. And mind you, many of these trends are beyond the reach of policy. But they want to align the policy with those pulls like globalization pressure to lower wages

I disagree. He blames tax policy, not labor policy, for France's disasterous unemployment rate. Which I notice you haven't really commented on.

You can argue cultural and legal pressures all you want. That doesn't change the reality of the unemployment rates, and the lack of choice.

Never heard of Lochner. Care to enlighten me?