|
|
Thought this was interesting. Comes from a new CBO report / CNBC article.
![[image loading]](http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/43xxx/43373-land-figure5.png)
Source
![[image loading]](http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/__Story_Inserts/graphics/__CHARTS_SPECIAL/HIGH_NET_WORTH/change-in-after-income-tax.gif)
Source
Past 2009 the rich have had their income bounce back so don't feel too bad for them 
|
On July 21 2012 14:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 13:59 aksfjh wrote:On July 21 2012 13:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:35 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 13:26 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:23 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 11:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?
cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that." Well, the concept of taxes is, for some reason, so un-American on the right that now Obama has to basically re-explain and justify the concept of taxes to people and explain what they pay for. You're actually not disagreeing with him, and in a strange way he's trying to make your point. The Romney adminstration wants to give a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, possibly at the expense of all the social and infrastructure programs your taxes would normally pay for, and that everyone, including the wealthiest people, benefit from. No, Obama doesn't have to re-explain the concept of taxation. However, he does need to justify why additional taxation is necessary in a bad economy such as this when government waste and largesse is rampant, along with out-of-control entitlement spending. No dude. He literally has to re-explain it. Not to you. There are literally people in the Tea Party that are that fucking dumb. So what? It's no different than some politician having to explain to the retards on the left that money doesn't grow on trees and that "Obama's stash" has its limits. I'm starting to get tired of the myth that "the left"/Democrats/Progressives are as stupid and effective as the extreme right in this country. We have a party in this country who has the sole purpose to play political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare to enact policies that have been PROVEN to benefit a very small minority of people at the expense of everybody else. However, because the intellectuals, academics, and journalists all have a sense of responsibility to be "fair" to the process, they entertain the notion that the GOP platform isn't completely bonkers and the primary reason we're in this huge mess in the first place. We also have a party in this country that plays political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare (by stealing from their coffers, and promising more than we can ever hope to afford in the name of fairness). No, the extreme left is just as bonkers if not more bonkers. xDaunt already harkened back to the ecstatic woman that said Obama would pay off her mortage from his stash. His stash is gonna pay her mortgage. People were saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine all up to the point where they failed. That the rich are profiting off the backs of the poor, that the rich ARE the ones impoverishing them, that they price gouge, that they manipulate oil prices through speculation, that they aren't taxed enough, and that more taxes will not affect the rich in the least bit. I've been hearing nice notions of social justice and income equality being parroted about as the rationale behind every last doomed pork barrel spending program on the planet for so many years now. I don't retreat from the idea that a smaller government is key to future American prosperity, more than any welfare program will ever help it. The culpability for the financial mess is on the backs of Democrats in Congress and moderate Republicans that want a little pork for themselves. The sustaining feature is a voting public that likes the pork barrel projects, and will run the first politician, Republican or Democrat, that suggests spending cuts in their private interests out of office. Okay? Your myth that the extreme left are on the side of the angels compared to their counterparts is just that: a myth. Romney finally getting some good speeches out there, not swatting back everybody talking about Bain Capital. + Show Spoiler +www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM9sbQf9MQ4&feature=player_embedded Health Care reform, end of liberal policies on the economy, end of Obamacare, stimulus not working to combat unemployment thus far, increased regulations eg Dodd-Frank, government investment in private businesses. That's a platform I can vote for and pray he actually holds true to his word in the face of opposition.
Man that speech annoyed me. What did he want to do differently than Obamacare? He said he wanted to lower prices, but he didn't say how or anything more than that. What did he want to do differently with the stimulus? Then he rails against outsourcing with one one sentence and talks about bringing back the free market with the other. Doesn't work that way, Mitt.
It doesn't sound at all like he wants to decrease the size of the government. It really sounded to me like he wants to do the same thing that Obama's doing but under his banner. And then he talks about how Obama has no new ideas?
|
On July 21 2012 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 14:31 Danglars wrote:On July 21 2012 13:59 aksfjh wrote:On July 21 2012 13:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:35 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 13:26 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:23 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 11:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?
cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that." Well, the concept of taxes is, for some reason, so un-American on the right that now Obama has to basically re-explain and justify the concept of taxes to people and explain what they pay for. You're actually not disagreeing with him, and in a strange way he's trying to make your point. The Romney adminstration wants to give a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, possibly at the expense of all the social and infrastructure programs your taxes would normally pay for, and that everyone, including the wealthiest people, benefit from. No, Obama doesn't have to re-explain the concept of taxation. However, he does need to justify why additional taxation is necessary in a bad economy such as this when government waste and largesse is rampant, along with out-of-control entitlement spending. No dude. He literally has to re-explain it. Not to you. There are literally people in the Tea Party that are that fucking dumb. So what? It's no different than some politician having to explain to the retards on the left that money doesn't grow on trees and that "Obama's stash" has its limits. I'm starting to get tired of the myth that "the left"/Democrats/Progressives are as stupid and effective as the extreme right in this country. We have a party in this country who has the sole purpose to play political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare to enact policies that have been PROVEN to benefit a very small minority of people at the expense of everybody else. However, because the intellectuals, academics, and journalists all have a sense of responsibility to be "fair" to the process, they entertain the notion that the GOP platform isn't completely bonkers and the primary reason we're in this huge mess in the first place. We also have a party in this country that plays political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare (by stealing from their coffers, and promising more than we can ever hope to afford in the name of fairness). No, the extreme left is just as bonkers if not more bonkers. xDaunt already harkened back to the ecstatic woman that said Obama would pay off her mortage from his stash. His stash is gonna pay her mortgage. People were saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine all up to the point where they failed. That the rich are profiting off the backs of the poor, that the rich ARE the ones impoverishing them, that they price gouge, that they manipulate oil prices through speculation, that they aren't taxed enough, and that more taxes will not affect the rich in the least bit. I've been hearing nice notions of social justice and income equality being parroted about as the rationale behind every last doomed pork barrel spending program on the planet for so many years now. I don't retreat from the idea that a smaller government is key to future American prosperity, more than any welfare program will ever help it. The culpability for the financial mess is on the backs of Democrats in Congress and moderate Republicans that want a little pork for themselves. The sustaining feature is a voting public that likes the pork barrel projects, and will run the first politician, Republican or Democrat, that suggests spending cuts in their private interests out of office. Okay? Your myth that the extreme left are on the side of the angels compared to their counterparts is just that: a myth. Romney finally getting some good speeches out there, not swatting back everybody talking about Bain Capital. + Show Spoiler +www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM9sbQf9MQ4&feature=player_embedded www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3rRe3KRO58&feature=player_embeddedHealth Care reform, end of liberal policies on the economy, end of Obamacare, stimulus not working to combat unemployment thus far, increased regulations eg Dodd-Frank, government investment in private businesses. That's a platform I can vote for and pray he actually holds true to his word in the face of opposition. Man that speech annoyed me. What did he want to do differently than Obamacare? He said he wanted to lower prices, but he didn't say how or anything more than that. What did he want to do differently with the stimulus? Then he rails against outsourcing with one one sentence and talks about bringing back the free market with the other. Doesn't work that way, Mitt.It doesn't sound at all like he wants to decrease the size of the government. It really sounded to me like he wants to do the same thing that Obama's doing but under his banner. And then he talks about how Obama has no new ideas?
I assume you mean the Fisker automotive comment? That wasn't a rail against outsourcing. If the government gives a business a subsidized loan then the government should get something above and beyond interest in return - namely jobs since that's the supposed point of making the loan with government money. Otherwise the government shouldn't be lending money if the first place.
|
On July 21 2012 14:18 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 13:59 aksfjh wrote:On July 21 2012 13:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:35 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 13:26 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:23 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 11:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?
cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that." Well, the concept of taxes is, for some reason, so un-American on the right that now Obama has to basically re-explain and justify the concept of taxes to people and explain what they pay for. You're actually not disagreeing with him, and in a strange way he's trying to make your point. The Romney adminstration wants to give a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, possibly at the expense of all the social and infrastructure programs your taxes would normally pay for, and that everyone, including the wealthiest people, benefit from. No, Obama doesn't have to re-explain the concept of taxation. However, he does need to justify why additional taxation is necessary in a bad economy such as this when government waste and largesse is rampant, along with out-of-control entitlement spending. No dude. He literally has to re-explain it. Not to you. There are literally people in the Tea Party that are that fucking dumb. So what? It's no different than some politician having to explain to the retards on the left that money doesn't grow on trees and that "Obama's stash" has its limits. I'm starting to get tired of the myth that "the left"/Democrats/Progressives are as stupid and effective as the extreme right in this country. We have a party in this country who has the sole purpose to play political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare to enact policies that have been PROVEN to benefit a very small minority of people at the expense of everybody else. However, because the intellectuals, academics, and journalists all have a sense of responsibility to be "fair" to the process, they entertain the notion that the GOP platform isn't completely bonkers and the primary reason we're in this huge mess in the first place. Oh give me a freaking break. I am deeply frustrated with the current state of Republican Party, but your assertions here are only lending credibility to xdaunt's statement. Academics, journalists and intellectuals don't act "fair" to conservatism because of some stupid sense of hindering responsibility, they act fair because...wait for it, half of them are actually conservatives! edit: maybe they're not Tea Pary Conservatives (thank god), but they certainly aren't Democrats.
You say that as if it were a bad thing! Let's be honest though: neither party has a monopoly on the idiot vote.
|
On July 22 2012 00:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:On July 21 2012 14:31 Danglars wrote:On July 21 2012 13:59 aksfjh wrote:On July 21 2012 13:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:35 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 13:26 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:23 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 11:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?
cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that." Well, the concept of taxes is, for some reason, so un-American on the right that now Obama has to basically re-explain and justify the concept of taxes to people and explain what they pay for. You're actually not disagreeing with him, and in a strange way he's trying to make your point. The Romney adminstration wants to give a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, possibly at the expense of all the social and infrastructure programs your taxes would normally pay for, and that everyone, including the wealthiest people, benefit from. No, Obama doesn't have to re-explain the concept of taxation. However, he does need to justify why additional taxation is necessary in a bad economy such as this when government waste and largesse is rampant, along with out-of-control entitlement spending. No dude. He literally has to re-explain it. Not to you. There are literally people in the Tea Party that are that fucking dumb. So what? It's no different than some politician having to explain to the retards on the left that money doesn't grow on trees and that "Obama's stash" has its limits. I'm starting to get tired of the myth that "the left"/Democrats/Progressives are as stupid and effective as the extreme right in this country. We have a party in this country who has the sole purpose to play political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare to enact policies that have been PROVEN to benefit a very small minority of people at the expense of everybody else. However, because the intellectuals, academics, and journalists all have a sense of responsibility to be "fair" to the process, they entertain the notion that the GOP platform isn't completely bonkers and the primary reason we're in this huge mess in the first place. We also have a party in this country that plays political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare (by stealing from their coffers, and promising more than we can ever hope to afford in the name of fairness). No, the extreme left is just as bonkers if not more bonkers. xDaunt already harkened back to the ecstatic woman that said Obama would pay off her mortage from his stash. His stash is gonna pay her mortgage. People were saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine all up to the point where they failed. That the rich are profiting off the backs of the poor, that the rich ARE the ones impoverishing them, that they price gouge, that they manipulate oil prices through speculation, that they aren't taxed enough, and that more taxes will not affect the rich in the least bit. I've been hearing nice notions of social justice and income equality being parroted about as the rationale behind every last doomed pork barrel spending program on the planet for so many years now. I don't retreat from the idea that a smaller government is key to future American prosperity, more than any welfare program will ever help it. The culpability for the financial mess is on the backs of Democrats in Congress and moderate Republicans that want a little pork for themselves. The sustaining feature is a voting public that likes the pork barrel projects, and will run the first politician, Republican or Democrat, that suggests spending cuts in their private interests out of office. Okay? Your myth that the extreme left are on the side of the angels compared to their counterparts is just that: a myth. Romney finally getting some good speeches out there, not swatting back everybody talking about Bain Capital. + Show Spoiler +www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM9sbQf9MQ4&feature=player_embedded www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3rRe3KRO58&feature=player_embeddedHealth Care reform, end of liberal policies on the economy, end of Obamacare, stimulus not working to combat unemployment thus far, increased regulations eg Dodd-Frank, government investment in private businesses. That's a platform I can vote for and pray he actually holds true to his word in the face of opposition. Man that speech annoyed me. What did he want to do differently than Obamacare? He said he wanted to lower prices, but he didn't say how or anything more than that. What did he want to do differently with the stimulus? Then he rails against outsourcing with one one sentence and talks about bringing back the free market with the other. Doesn't work that way, Mitt.It doesn't sound at all like he wants to decrease the size of the government. It really sounded to me like he wants to do the same thing that Obama's doing but under his banner. And then he talks about how Obama has no new ideas? I assume you mean the Fisker automotive comment? That wasn't a rail against outsourcing. If the government gives a business a subsidized loan then the government should get something above and beyond interest in return - namely jobs since that's the supposed point of making the loan with government money. Otherwise the government shouldn't be lending money if the first place.
Yes, I understand that specifically what he is talking about makes sense. But he was using it as a example. I assume he's trying to differentiate it from his own policy. Which is apparently free market, but without shipping our jobs overseas? Should we not have the government invest in private business? Again, I'm just not sure what Romney's actual position is. I'm not sure what he's advocating.
But I guess he's running on "I'm not Obama"?
|
On July 22 2012 01:44 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 21 2012 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:On July 21 2012 14:31 Danglars wrote:On July 21 2012 13:59 aksfjh wrote:On July 21 2012 13:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:35 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 13:26 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:23 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 11:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?
cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that." Well, the concept of taxes is, for some reason, so un-American on the right that now Obama has to basically re-explain and justify the concept of taxes to people and explain what they pay for. You're actually not disagreeing with him, and in a strange way he's trying to make your point. The Romney adminstration wants to give a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, possibly at the expense of all the social and infrastructure programs your taxes would normally pay for, and that everyone, including the wealthiest people, benefit from. No, Obama doesn't have to re-explain the concept of taxation. However, he does need to justify why additional taxation is necessary in a bad economy such as this when government waste and largesse is rampant, along with out-of-control entitlement spending. No dude. He literally has to re-explain it. Not to you. There are literally people in the Tea Party that are that fucking dumb. So what? It's no different than some politician having to explain to the retards on the left that money doesn't grow on trees and that "Obama's stash" has its limits. I'm starting to get tired of the myth that "the left"/Democrats/Progressives are as stupid and effective as the extreme right in this country. We have a party in this country who has the sole purpose to play political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare to enact policies that have been PROVEN to benefit a very small minority of people at the expense of everybody else. However, because the intellectuals, academics, and journalists all have a sense of responsibility to be "fair" to the process, they entertain the notion that the GOP platform isn't completely bonkers and the primary reason we're in this huge mess in the first place. We also have a party in this country that plays political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare (by stealing from their coffers, and promising more than we can ever hope to afford in the name of fairness). No, the extreme left is just as bonkers if not more bonkers. xDaunt already harkened back to the ecstatic woman that said Obama would pay off her mortage from his stash. His stash is gonna pay her mortgage. People were saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine all up to the point where they failed. That the rich are profiting off the backs of the poor, that the rich ARE the ones impoverishing them, that they price gouge, that they manipulate oil prices through speculation, that they aren't taxed enough, and that more taxes will not affect the rich in the least bit. I've been hearing nice notions of social justice and income equality being parroted about as the rationale behind every last doomed pork barrel spending program on the planet for so many years now. I don't retreat from the idea that a smaller government is key to future American prosperity, more than any welfare program will ever help it. The culpability for the financial mess is on the backs of Democrats in Congress and moderate Republicans that want a little pork for themselves. The sustaining feature is a voting public that likes the pork barrel projects, and will run the first politician, Republican or Democrat, that suggests spending cuts in their private interests out of office. Okay? Your myth that the extreme left are on the side of the angels compared to their counterparts is just that: a myth. Romney finally getting some good speeches out there, not swatting back everybody talking about Bain Capital. + Show Spoiler +www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM9sbQf9MQ4&feature=player_embedded www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3rRe3KRO58&feature=player_embeddedHealth Care reform, end of liberal policies on the economy, end of Obamacare, stimulus not working to combat unemployment thus far, increased regulations eg Dodd-Frank, government investment in private businesses. That's a platform I can vote for and pray he actually holds true to his word in the face of opposition. Man that speech annoyed me. What did he want to do differently than Obamacare? He said he wanted to lower prices, but he didn't say how or anything more than that. What did he want to do differently with the stimulus? Then he rails against outsourcing with one one sentence and talks about bringing back the free market with the other. Doesn't work that way, Mitt.It doesn't sound at all like he wants to decrease the size of the government. It really sounded to me like he wants to do the same thing that Obama's doing but under his banner. And then he talks about how Obama has no new ideas? I assume you mean the Fisker automotive comment? That wasn't a rail against outsourcing. If the government gives a business a subsidized loan then the government should get something above and beyond interest in return - namely jobs since that's the supposed point of making the loan with government money. Otherwise the government shouldn't be lending money if the first place. Yes, I understand that specifically what he is talking about makes sense. But he was using it as a example. I assume he's trying to differentiate it from his own policy. Which is apparently free market, but without shipping our jobs overseas? Should we not have the government invest in private business? Again, I'm just not sure what Romney's actual position is. I'm not sure what he's advocating. But I guess he's running on "I'm not Obama"?
Pretty sure he was advocating against the government investing in private businesses. Which is good, since there's very little justification for it.
|
On July 22 2012 01:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 14:18 1Eris1 wrote:On July 21 2012 13:59 aksfjh wrote:On July 21 2012 13:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:35 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 13:26 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:23 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 11:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?
cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that." Well, the concept of taxes is, for some reason, so un-American on the right that now Obama has to basically re-explain and justify the concept of taxes to people and explain what they pay for. You're actually not disagreeing with him, and in a strange way he's trying to make your point. The Romney adminstration wants to give a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, possibly at the expense of all the social and infrastructure programs your taxes would normally pay for, and that everyone, including the wealthiest people, benefit from. No, Obama doesn't have to re-explain the concept of taxation. However, he does need to justify why additional taxation is necessary in a bad economy such as this when government waste and largesse is rampant, along with out-of-control entitlement spending. No dude. He literally has to re-explain it. Not to you. There are literally people in the Tea Party that are that fucking dumb. So what? It's no different than some politician having to explain to the retards on the left that money doesn't grow on trees and that "Obama's stash" has its limits. I'm starting to get tired of the myth that "the left"/Democrats/Progressives are as stupid and effective as the extreme right in this country. We have a party in this country who has the sole purpose to play political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare to enact policies that have been PROVEN to benefit a very small minority of people at the expense of everybody else. However, because the intellectuals, academics, and journalists all have a sense of responsibility to be "fair" to the process, they entertain the notion that the GOP platform isn't completely bonkers and the primary reason we're in this huge mess in the first place. Oh give me a freaking break. I am deeply frustrated with the current state of Republican Party, but your assertions here are only lending credibility to xdaunt's statement. Academics, journalists and intellectuals don't act "fair" to conservatism because of some stupid sense of hindering responsibility, they act fair because...wait for it, half of them are actually conservatives! edit: maybe they're not Tea Pary Conservatives (thank god), but they certainly aren't Democrats. You say that as if it were a bad thing! Let's be honest though: neither party has a monopoly on the idiot vote.
I'm consider myself a very moderate Liberal. And I don't know what I despise more ... People that think Obama is supposed to save them or people that blame Obama for all their problems.
There is something about this election that is pushing more and more intelligent voters to middle (including notable conservative pundits) due to the extreme idiocy occurring on both sides.
|
On July 22 2012 04:52 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 01:27 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 14:18 1Eris1 wrote:On July 21 2012 13:59 aksfjh wrote:On July 21 2012 13:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:35 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 13:26 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:23 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 11:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?
cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that." Well, the concept of taxes is, for some reason, so un-American on the right that now Obama has to basically re-explain and justify the concept of taxes to people and explain what they pay for. You're actually not disagreeing with him, and in a strange way he's trying to make your point. The Romney adminstration wants to give a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, possibly at the expense of all the social and infrastructure programs your taxes would normally pay for, and that everyone, including the wealthiest people, benefit from. No, Obama doesn't have to re-explain the concept of taxation. However, he does need to justify why additional taxation is necessary in a bad economy such as this when government waste and largesse is rampant, along with out-of-control entitlement spending. No dude. He literally has to re-explain it. Not to you. There are literally people in the Tea Party that are that fucking dumb. So what? It's no different than some politician having to explain to the retards on the left that money doesn't grow on trees and that "Obama's stash" has its limits. I'm starting to get tired of the myth that "the left"/Democrats/Progressives are as stupid and effective as the extreme right in this country. We have a party in this country who has the sole purpose to play political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare to enact policies that have been PROVEN to benefit a very small minority of people at the expense of everybody else. However, because the intellectuals, academics, and journalists all have a sense of responsibility to be "fair" to the process, they entertain the notion that the GOP platform isn't completely bonkers and the primary reason we're in this huge mess in the first place. Oh give me a freaking break. I am deeply frustrated with the current state of Republican Party, but your assertions here are only lending credibility to xdaunt's statement. Academics, journalists and intellectuals don't act "fair" to conservatism because of some stupid sense of hindering responsibility, they act fair because...wait for it, half of them are actually conservatives! edit: maybe they're not Tea Pary Conservatives (thank god), but they certainly aren't Democrats. You say that as if it were a bad thing! Let's be honest though: neither party has a monopoly on the idiot vote. I'm consider myself a very moderate Liberal. And I don't know what despise more ... People that think Obama is supposed to save them or people that blame Obama for all their problems. There is something about this election that is pushing more and more intelligent voters to middle (including notable conservative pundits) due to the extreme idiocy occurring on both sides.
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women.
|
On July 21 2012 11:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?
cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that." No, he was saying collective society enabled and supported you to build things yourself. He wasn't talking about what government has done for you. I'm not quite sure where people are getting that from, considering he was referring to teachers and other inspirations. He was talking about what we all do for each other. You didn't get there on your own. People helped you and inspired you. It's really not that hard to understand...
so he's trying to say that we should be appreciative of the help that we've received?
my response to him:
well thank you mr. barack. maybe next time you can tell kids to eat their vegetables and tell people that it's bad to speed.
didn't he mention roads? wtf do teachers have to do with roads?
|
On July 22 2012 05:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:31 DoubleReed wrote:On July 21 2012 11:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?
cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that." No, he was saying collective society enabled and supported you to build things yourself. He wasn't talking about what government has done for you. I'm not quite sure where people are getting that from, considering he was referring to teachers and other inspirations. He was talking about what we all do for each other. You didn't get there on your own. People helped you and inspired you. It's really not that hard to understand... so he's trying to say that we should be appreciative of the help that we've received? my response to him: well thank you mr. barack. maybe next time you can tell kids to eat their vegetables and tell people that it's bad to speed. didn't he mention roads? wtf do teachers have to do with roads?
Society built roads too, dude. What is wrong with you?
And I don't get your response. I think you're trying to be clever, but it just came across as trying to be an asshole. Whatever.
|
United States2776 Posts
On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women.
huh?
There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from.
|
On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from.
Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women?
|
On July 21 2012 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 14:31 Danglars wrote:On July 21 2012 13:59 aksfjh wrote:On July 21 2012 13:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:35 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 13:26 xDaunt wrote:On July 21 2012 13:23 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 11:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?
cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that." Well, the concept of taxes is, for some reason, so un-American on the right that now Obama has to basically re-explain and justify the concept of taxes to people and explain what they pay for. You're actually not disagreeing with him, and in a strange way he's trying to make your point. The Romney adminstration wants to give a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, possibly at the expense of all the social and infrastructure programs your taxes would normally pay for, and that everyone, including the wealthiest people, benefit from. No, Obama doesn't have to re-explain the concept of taxation. However, he does need to justify why additional taxation is necessary in a bad economy such as this when government waste and largesse is rampant, along with out-of-control entitlement spending. No dude. He literally has to re-explain it. Not to you. There are literally people in the Tea Party that are that fucking dumb. So what? It's no different than some politician having to explain to the retards on the left that money doesn't grow on trees and that "Obama's stash" has its limits. I'm starting to get tired of the myth that "the left"/Democrats/Progressives are as stupid and effective as the extreme right in this country. We have a party in this country who has the sole purpose to play political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare to enact policies that have been PROVEN to benefit a very small minority of people at the expense of everybody else. However, because the intellectuals, academics, and journalists all have a sense of responsibility to be "fair" to the process, they entertain the notion that the GOP platform isn't completely bonkers and the primary reason we're in this huge mess in the first place. We also have a party in this country that plays political games with the economy, public health, public safety, and public welfare (by stealing from their coffers, and promising more than we can ever hope to afford in the name of fairness). No, the extreme left is just as bonkers if not more bonkers. xDaunt already harkened back to the ecstatic woman that said Obama would pay off her mortage from his stash. His stash is gonna pay her mortgage. People were saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine all up to the point where they failed. That the rich are profiting off the backs of the poor, that the rich ARE the ones impoverishing them, that they price gouge, that they manipulate oil prices through speculation, that they aren't taxed enough, and that more taxes will not affect the rich in the least bit. I've been hearing nice notions of social justice and income equality being parroted about as the rationale behind every last doomed pork barrel spending program on the planet for so many years now. I don't retreat from the idea that a smaller government is key to future American prosperity, more than any welfare program will ever help it. The culpability for the financial mess is on the backs of Democrats in Congress and moderate Republicans that want a little pork for themselves. The sustaining feature is a voting public that likes the pork barrel projects, and will run the first politician, Republican or Democrat, that suggests spending cuts in their private interests out of office. Okay? Your myth that the extreme left are on the side of the angels compared to their counterparts is just that: a myth. Romney finally getting some good speeches out there, not swatting back everybody talking about Bain Capital. + Show Spoiler +www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM9sbQf9MQ4&feature=player_embedded www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3rRe3KRO58&feature=player_embeddedHealth Care reform, end of liberal policies on the economy, end of Obamacare, stimulus not working to combat unemployment thus far, increased regulations eg Dodd-Frank, government investment in private businesses. That's a platform I can vote for and pray he actually holds true to his word in the face of opposition. Man that speech annoyed me. What did he want to do differently than Obamacare? He said he wanted to lower prices, but he didn't say how or anything more than that. What did he want to do differently with the stimulus? Then he rails against outsourcing with one one sentence and talks about bringing back the free market with the other. Doesn't work that way, Mitt. It doesn't sound at all like he wants to decrease the size of the government. It really sounded to me like he wants to do the same thing that Obama's doing but under his banner. And then he talks about how Obama has no new ideas?
I don't really get how he can attack obamacare when he made Romneycare which is..the same thing, except worse. In fact, if not for romneycare in boston (which is obamacare) my brother would be pretty fucked after he got hit by a car. Like, I get people have parties and they want to shit on stuff, but it's the same shit.. soooo..
|
On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women?
I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices.
Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that.
http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/
|
It's also the case that, in the US, single women under 30 earn $1.08 for every dollar earned by single men under 30:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192.html
I doubt companies are discriminating against young men... probably a lot of the difference has to do with the fact that women are now more likely than men to go to college, which is probably at least in part due to affirmative action. As well as early career choices / etc.
So yes I also find the 77 cents statistic annoying, because it isn't true anymore for new workers and it skips over a lot of contributing factors (career field, number of hours worked, choice to take off years raising children) where, if both workers were treated fairly, we'd expect those personal decisions to result in less total income earned.
|
On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/
No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way.
(Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.)
The fact is that there were very few suits about equal pay laws, but republicans wanted to get rid of them anyway, so that employers could discriminate freely. There was no practical reason to take away the laws. All it does is remove legal options from discriminated women.
|
On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way.
No, 5% is an average of all workers when you use a decent list of control variables. No, there is no strong evidence women are on aggregate paid less for the same work aside from a 5% difference that may or may not go away with more controls. Even if they were paid less for the same work it wouldn't be proof of discrimination.
|
On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) The fact is that there were very few suits about equal pay laws, but republicans wanted to get rid of them anyway, so that employers could discriminate freely. There was no practical reason to take away the laws. All it does is remove legal options from discriminated women.
The other problem with 1Eris1's point is that, while I agree the figure is somewhat misleading, the lifestyle/career choice factors that influence it are also problematic from a feminist perspective. A society that socializes its women to not pursue positions of power within it is worrisome for the same reasons as a society that socializes its women to, say, want to have to be accompanied by a male to leave the house.
|
On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.)
Can you actually provide sources that there is rampant discrimination in the same specific jobs? As I said before, there is a little, but it's hardly what Democrats make it out to be, and it's fading with every passing year.
Most people don't understand that discrimination if entirely contrary to Capitalism nature. If you discriminate, you'll have worse workers and less overall profits, and that's just dumb. There's a reason most discrimination cases consist of managers with vendettas or similar; there's no great males-first conspiracy or anything like that, and if there were, they'd go out of business.
On July 23 2012 12:15 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) The fact is that there were very few suits about equal pay laws, but republicans wanted to get rid of them anyway, so that employers could discriminate freely. There was no practical reason to take away the laws. All it does is remove legal options from discriminated women. The other problem with 1Eris1's point is that, while I agree the figure is somewhat misleading, the lifestyle/career choice factors that influence it are also problematic from a feminist perspective. A society that socializes its women to not pursue positions of power within it is worrisome for the same reasons as a society that socializes its women to, say, want to have to be accompanied by a male to leave the house.
I'm not sure what you're point is here. If you have a problem with society, change it, don't change business.. Business caters to society/customers, and right now customers generally act more under what we consider "normal" economic ideals than feminist economic ideals.
|
On July 23 2012 12:11 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. No, 5% is an average of all workers when you use a decent list of control variables. No, there is no strong evidence women are on aggregate paid less for the same work aside from a 5% difference that may or may not go away with more controls. Even if they were paid less for the same work it wouldn't be proof of discrimination.
First, 5% is not that small amount.
Second, it varies very largely from field to field.
Thirdly, it really doesn't matter. Equal pay laws should be around regardless. People should have legal recourse available if they are discriminated against. There is even less evidence that employers didn't hire women for fear of lawsuits. Again, there is no reason to get rid of equal pay laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
