A suggestion for the "war on women".

[taichiliberal]

"...she MUST be paid less than a man for the EXACT same job."


I should make a list of the absurdities libs believe.....


If that were correct, why would any employer ever hire men?

You do see the logic....don't you?

Sorry kid, but your idea of logic given that leap you make to "why would any employer ever hire men" gives new meaning to the word "babbling".

But please explain the "logic" in this, sweetpea:

Equal Pay and the Gender Gap: Men Still Outearn Women - TIME

No prob....

...if the nonsense such as 'women get paid 74 cents for every dollar men get for the same job" were even close to true....


...an employer would hire all women and increase his profits by 26% of the costs of labor.


Get it?

I recommend Dr. Sowell's book: "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One" in which Sowell takes the key political issues and challenges the reader to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) political impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) economic impact.

I get that you're not too bright when it comes to real life experience...because what you're describing flies in the face of GENERATIONS of workers rights and reformation regarding minimum wage and pay scale. If someone tried to pull what you imply, then the free market that neocons/teabaggers hold so high on the mount would destroy that business by simply offering better pay for the same amount of labor, thus killing this theoretical company of yours.

Get it? Because if you don't, I suggest you read up on the Labor movement in this country, and the economic basis for the New Deal.

As for Sowell....is yet another token darling of the neocons...he's been taken apart by so many fact checks by the very institutions and people he writes about that it's pathetic.

Here's just a sample:

[FONT="Century Gothic"]In his July 15 syndicated column criticizing Sen. Barack Obama's tax proposals, Thomas Sowell wrote that "[w]hen [ABC World News anchor Charles] Gibson reminded him of the well-documented fact that lower tax rates on capital gains had produced more actual revenue collected from that tax than the higher tax rates had, Obama was unmoved." However, as Media Matters for America documented when Gibson claimed during an April 16 Democratic presidential debate that "in each instance, when the [capital gains tax] rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased," numerous economists have challenged the assertion that cuts in the capital gains tax raise revenue in the long term. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in June 2006 that the 2006 extension of the 2003 cuts on capital gains taxes would result in decreased revenues of $20 billion over 10 years.

Additionally, Sowell asserted: "Since about half the people in the United States own stocks -- either directly or because their pension funds buy stocks -- socking it to people who earn capital gains is by no means socking it just to 'the rich.' But, again, that is one of the many facts that don't matter politically." In fact, most distributions from two common forms of retirement accounts -- 401(k) and IRA -- are taxed as regular income, not as capital gains. Additionally, Obama said after the debate that he would not raise the capital gains tax rate on individuals with income of less than $250,000.


In the concluding chapter, “Thoughts on the History of Economics,” Sowell departs from the now generally accepted view that we study the history of economics so we may learn how and why theories developed or evolved, recognize the errors in those discarded, and draw insights for handling current problems in theory construction and policy formulation. Rather, he thinks that studying the history of economics is worthwhile only so that one may be considered “an educated individual” (p. 188). He wonders if all the useful aspects of classical economics have not already been “incorporated into the latest textbooks, with the classical insights rendered into diagrams and equations, and the classical errors and misstatements decently buried without fanfare” (p. 188)—the “absolutist” view of theories’ development. Sowell appears oblivious of Kenneth Boulding’s “After Samuelson, Who Needs Adam Smith?” (History of Political Economy 3 [1971]: 225–37) and of Mark Blaug’s “No History of Ideas, Please, We’re Economists” (Journal of Economic Perspectives 15 [2001]: 145– 64), which argue the contrary view.

Sowell also downplays the role of economic events in prompting new theory construction, placing more weight on a discipline’s “own internal pressures to resolve the inevitable ambiguities and puzzles that arise in the course of groping for truth and clarity” (p. 196), a viewpoint drawn from Stigler. The evolution of theories, particularly in macroeconomics, would indicate otherwise. Thus, Sowell wonders whether Keynes’s General Theory “would have been such an instant and runaway success had it arrived during the prosperity of the 1920s rather than during the Great Depression of the 1930s” (p. 201). But Keynes wrote that book specifically to address problems of a depression economy under the erroneous presumption that extant “classical” principles were inadequate.[/FONT]http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=663

Get your act together, chic!

 

[taichiliberal]

You made the claim that some states are writing laws that make it legal.



I am waiting for that list of states. Or, just a thought, you could admit you lied.

Learn to read, you silly windbag. Like the part that says "....SOME INDIVIDUAL STATE LAWS"

And I showed an individual state law being changed by a GOP with neocon/teabagger leanings.


Once again for the cheap seats: When you remove the ability for a person to seek legal recourse in a case of pay discrimination, you open the door for a business to do just that...pay women on a lower scale than men for the exact same job.

The law was enacted via cases of pay discrimination against women, don't cha know?

Now, are you going to just acknowledge the point or are you just going to be the intellectually dishonest and insipidly stubborn Windbag we've all comt to know and be amused by?

Which
Individual
States? I said some individual state LAWS, you blithering bumpkin! Then I gave Wisconsin as an example in a following post. Jeez, did you fail English composition in high school or what?[/SIZE]

Pay discrimination is illegal, period. Either provide actual evidence, or admit you lied.

Just as I said, folks. Our Quantum Windbag is just that, an insipidly stubborn and intellectually dishonest Windbag who's myopic parroting is his own undoing.

What the Windbag doesn't like, he ignores or pretends he's too stupid to understand what an 8th grader with decent cognitive reasoning skills can get. Pathetic.

 

[taichiliberal]

I dont believe there is actually a war on women as far as pay. There are some wackos out there in Arizona who believe that an employer can judge a women on the grounds of her use of contraception. Those people should be shunned.

Ahhh, but there is and has been a consistent disparity in the pay scale for women in this country....as Winsconsin seems to be the testing ground for this more recent effort:

Horseshit. When you factor in things like experience and qualifications, women make exactly the same amount or even more than men.

Then the Census bureau is lying? Or did you even READ the links I provided? Or are you just going to dump your mental horsehit on this thread and pretend its fact?

 

[taichiliberal]

There isn't. It's a myth.

Cities Where Women Outearn Male Counterparts - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Sorry to inform you, but the Census bureau covers more than just a few cities....

Equal Pay and the Gender Gap: Men Still Outearn Women - TIME

Apples and oranges. Doctors make more than ditch diggers.

You're not even reading the material I provide, are you bunky? Because if you did, you wouldn't make such an irrelvent and moot point in light of the SPECIFIC information given. We're talking about pay disparities FOR THE SAME WORK, you buffoon! Pay attention!

 

[taichiliberal]

still trying to make up a war on women eh? You guys are seriously afraid of Barack Obama running on his record if you have to keep making nonsense like this up

Still ignoring the FACTS in favor of Limbaugh BS, eh Avatar. You guys are seriously afraid that the people are NOT going to stand for this teabagger bullshit, and that Obama (who got Osama when the Shrub couldn't) is looking all the better for it.

See ya in November, when the Party of No gets a taste of it's own medicine!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Learn to read, you silly windbag. Like the part that says "....SOME INDIVIDUAL STATE LAWS"

And I showed an individual state law being changed by a GOP with neocon/teabagger leanings.


Once again for the cheap seats: When you remove the ability for a person to seek legal recourse in a case of pay discrimination, you open the door for a business to do just that...pay women on a lower scale than men for the exact same job.

The law was enacted via cases of pay discrimination against women, don't cha know?

Now, are you going to just acknowledge the point or are you just going to be the intellectually dishonest and insipidly stubborn Windbag we've all comt to know and be amused by?

Which
Individual
States? I said some individual state LAWS, you blithering bumpkin! Then I gave Wisconsin as an example in a following post. Jeez, did you fail English composition in high school or what?[/SIZE]

Pay discrimination is illegal, period. Either provide actual evidence, or admit you lied.

Just as I said, folks. Our Quantum Windbag is just that, an insipidly stubborn and intellectually dishonest Windbag who's myopic parroting is his own undoing.

What the Windbag doesn't like, he ignores or pretends he's too stupid to understand what an 8th grader with decent cognitive reasoning skills can get. Pathetic.

I forgot who I was dealing with.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Actually, neocon/teabagger clowns like yourself who try to change the subject when the FACTS condemn the actions of your GOP leaders is of little concern.

Deal with the OP and subsequent proof to back it up, toodles. then we can address your flimsy accusation and why you would use the photo of a long deceased commercial icon. I'll wait.

Change the subject

We are talking about "war" on some of the left's favorite identity groups
are we not

Note.
Her "Indian name" is little bullshit
no doubt a relative of yours



Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

And Neotrosky proves himself to be nothing more than just a little asshole barking in frustration because yet another neocon/teabagger bullhorn has been laid to rest. No sense in waiting for Neotrosky to grow up and deal with reality.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

Have the Democrats won the war they started
War on Native Americans

or since the Left does it
is it OK now ?

I'm Beginning to Suspect The Left Just Might Be Playing Fast and Loose With Race For Political Reasons

 

[Artevelde]

For those of you that don't live in America or for those who do, but live in a cave;

In the last few months there has been a political battle being waged regarding women's rights here. That's right, in 2012 the "battle of the sexes" is STILL going on....only at this point it's become a "war on women". As I right this "conservative" politicians and their backers/supporters are passing in some individual States laws that circumnavigate federal laws that give women the right to advocate for equal pay in the work space or to insert all types of "extra" requirements regarding their consultation with their physician regarding a decision to have an abortion (yep, they're STILL pissed about Roe vs. Wade).
Well, rather than write on and on about my personal views in relation to federal vs. state law, religious vs. secular morality, Constitutional rights and protections, etc., etc., I'll just sum it up like this:

Guys, women MUST have breast and MUST have vaginas! That’s how you were born and then fed as a baby. If they didn't have those things, there wouldn't be a human race. And if the vast majority of women didn't use them properly, you'd be dead before your 2nd birthday.

So, stop acting simple...mind your own business and just pay the women properly, will ya please? Thank you.

And that is related to who pays for your birth control.....exactly how?

the same people who pay for your viagra, sweetness! Interesting how that little caveat rarely comes up in the conversation from the neocons and teabaggers.

thing is, right wing zealots want to fix it so THEY determine if a woman has an abortion and that she MUST choose between a job or being a stay at home mom and that she MUST be paid less than a man for the EXACT same job.

My statemente stands.

Could you point to any shred of actual evidence that any elected politician in the US is proposing that women MUST be paid less than a man for the Exact same job? If not, I guess you'll agree you are spouting nonsense.

 

[Douger]

Hmmmm . Interesting Mpyre news. You should star a page like that mush mouth idiot, Drudge.

 

[bripat9643]

Ahhh, but there is and has been a consistent disparity in the pay scale for women in this country....as Winsconsin seems to be the testing ground for this more recent effort:

Horseshit. When you factor in things like experience and qualifications, women make exactly the same amount or even more than men.

Then the Census bureau is lying? Or did you even READ the links I provided? Or are you just going to dump your mental horsehit on this thread and pretend its fact?

When did the census bureau say that women with the same occupation, experience, education and work history make less than men?

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry to inform you, but the Census bureau covers more than just a few cities....

Equal Pay and the Gender Gap: Men Still Outearn Women - TIME

Apples and oranges. Doctors make more than ditch diggers.

You're not even reading the material I provide, are you bunky? Because if you did, you wouldn't make such an irrelvent and moot point in light of the SPECIFIC information given. We're talking about pay disparities FOR THE SAME WORK, you buffoon! Pay attention!

No we are not. Your source noted that women gravitate to lower paying occupations. How can that be if it's the "same work?" Women tend to become nurses rather than doctors and they become teachers rather than finance executives. They do this for a reason: because these occupations give them the flexibility they need to take care of children.

For example, I have a job that requires 100% travel. How many women are going to take a job like that? I guarantee you that none with children will be interested. Yet, the fact that it requires 100% travel is the reason it pays about 30% more than similar positions that don't require travel.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry kid, but your idea of logic given that leap you make to "why would any employer ever hire men" gives new meaning to the word "babbling".

But please explain the "logic" in this, sweetpea:

Equal Pay and the Gender Gap: Men Still Outearn Women - TIME

No prob....

...if the nonsense such as 'women get paid 74 cents for every dollar men get for the same job" were even close to true....


...an employer would hire all women and increase his profits by 26% of the costs of labor.


Get it?

I recommend Dr. Sowell's book: "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One" in which Sowell takes the key political issues and challenges the reader to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) political impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) economic impact.

I get that you're not too bright when it comes to real life experience...because what you're describing flies in the face of GENERATIONS of workers rights and reformation regarding minimum wage and pay scale. If someone tried to pull what you imply, then the free market that neocons/teabaggers hold so high on the mount would destroy that business by simply offering better pay for the same amount of labor, thus killing this theoretical company of yours.

Get it? Because if you don't, I suggest you read up on the Labor movement in this country, and the economic basis for the New Deal.

As for Sowell....is yet another token darling of the neocons...he's been taken apart by so many fact checks by the very institutions and people he writes about that it's pathetic.

Here's just a sample:

[FONT="Century Gothic"]In his July 15 syndicated column criticizing Sen. Barack Obama's tax proposals, Thomas Sowell wrote that "[w]hen [ABC World News anchor Charles] Gibson reminded him of the well-documented fact that lower tax rates on capital gains had produced more actual revenue collected from that tax than the higher tax rates had, Obama was unmoved." However, as Media Matters for America documented when Gibson claimed during an April 16 Democratic presidential debate that "in each instance, when the [capital gains tax] rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased," numerous economists have challenged the assertion that cuts in the capital gains tax raise revenue in the long term. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in June 2006 that the 2006 extension of the 2003 cuts on capital gains taxes would result in decreased revenues of $20 billion over 10 years.

Additionally, Sowell asserted: "Since about half the people in the United States own stocks -- either directly or because their pension funds buy stocks -- socking it to people who earn capital gains is by no means socking it just to 'the rich.' But, again, that is one of the many facts that don't matter politically." In fact, most distributions from two common forms of retirement accounts -- 401(k) and IRA -- are taxed as regular income, not as capital gains. Additionally, Obama said after the debate that he would not raise the capital gains tax rate on individuals with income of less than $250,000.


In the concluding chapter, “Thoughts on the History of Economics,” Sowell departs from the now generally accepted view that we study the history of economics so we may learn how and why theories developed or evolved, recognize the errors in those discarded, and draw insights for handling current problems in theory construction and policy formulation. Rather, he thinks that studying the history of economics is worthwhile only so that one may be considered “an educated individual” (p. 188). He wonders if all the useful aspects of classical economics have not already been “incorporated into the latest textbooks, with the classical insights rendered into diagrams and equations, and the classical errors and misstatements decently buried without fanfare” (p. 188)—the “absolutist” view of theories’ development. Sowell appears oblivious of Kenneth Boulding’s “After Samuelson, Who Needs Adam Smith?” (History of Political Economy 3 [1971]: 225–37) and of Mark Blaug’s “No History of Ideas, Please, We’re Economists” (Journal of Economic Perspectives 15 [2001]: 145– 64), which argue the contrary view.

Sowell also downplays the role of economic events in prompting new theory construction, placing more weight on a discipline’s “own internal pressures to resolve the inevitable ambiguities and puzzles that arise in the course of groping for truth and clarity” (p. 196), a viewpoint drawn from Stigler. The evolution of theories, particularly in macroeconomics, would indicate otherwise. Thus, Sowell wonders whether Keynes’s General Theory “would have been such an instant and runaway success had it arrived during the prosperity of the 1920s rather than during the Great Depression of the 1930s” (p. 201). But Keynes wrote that book specifically to address problems of a depression economy under the erroneous presumption that extant “classical” principles were inadequate.[/FONT]http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=663

Get your act together, chic!

As usual, those on the Left fail to understand that people...who, for the most part are far brighter than you are,...function via a dynamic basis while you, merely a static one.

Do you need a dictionary?


It means that changes in the situation result in changes in behavior.


Here is a test, based on my post and your inability to either understand it, or to do simple math.

If you were the employer, and paid only three quarters of the salary to women that you do men....
...but they did the same job equally well...

....who would you hire?


Right.


So, you are either a bankrupt dunce, i.e., Liberal....

...or a women-only employer with a 25% savings in labor costs.


Let's see you refute that.


I just love running circles around you Libs.....

 

[SniperFire]

Obama just hammered women with 92% of the job losses which have occurred under his Administration.

There is your war.

 

[BluePhantom]

So, you are either a bankrupt dunce, i.e., Liberal....

...or a women-only employer with a 25% savings in labor costs.


Let's see you refute that.

There's no way to. If I could get away with paying my female staff less than my male staff I would never hire a man again for the exact reason you just stated. Then Democrats would be talking about how useless stay at home Dads are

 

[hortysir]

Ahhh, but there is and has been a consistent disparity in the pay scale for women in this country....as Winsconsin seems to be the testing ground for this more recent effort:

DNC Chair Slams Wis. Gov. Walker for Equal Pay Repeal - ABC News

From your own link, TactlessLiberal:

But not all Democrats are convinced that the GOP is intentionally attacking women. Rep Emanuel Cleave, D-Mo., who is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, defended Republicans while on CNN’s “State of the Union,” saying that it would be “wrong” to accuse Republicans of waging a war on women. “We have got to quit exaggerating our political differences,” said Cleaver, who is also a Methodist pastor.



Everything, these days, is a "war" on this or a "war" on that.

Dry it up, already.

Right....so ONE black Democrat tells you what you want to hear, and that just throws the FACTS I produced on this thread right out the window, ehh?

Only in your intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant neocon/teabagger mind, bunky.

FYI

Florida Governor Rick Scott Vetos $1.5 Million For Rape Crisis Centers During Sexual Assault Awareness Month

Florida Governor Rick Scott Vetos $1.5 Million For Rape Crisis Centers During Sexual Assault Awareness Month | ThinkProgress

So one black Democrat proposes actually talking sensibly, rather than slinging extreme hyperbole at each other and you're ready to dismiss such silly talk because it doesn't fir your "evil Republican" mantra?



And, BTW, fuck Rick Scott.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, you are either a bankrupt dunce, i.e., Liberal....

...or a women-only employer with a 25% savings in labor costs.


Let's see you refute that.

There's no way to. If I could get away with paying my female staff less than my male staff I would never hire a man again for the exact reason you just stated. Then Democrats would be talking about how useless stay at home Dads are

Seeing how men vote for Republicans in higher numbers than women do....a campaign about 'the Republican war on men' probably wouldn't fly.....

...as doesn't the 'war on women' with intelligent women.

 

[BluePhantom]

So, you are either a bankrupt dunce, i.e., Liberal....

...or a women-only employer with a 25% savings in labor costs.


Let's see you refute that.

There's no way to. If I could get away with paying my female staff less than my male staff I would never hire a man again for the exact reason you just stated. Then Democrats would be talking about how useless stay at home Dads are

Seeing how men vote for Republicans in higher numbers than women do....a campaign about 'the Republican war on men' probably wouldn't fly.....

...as doesn't the 'war on women' with intelligent women.

Well let's be real honest about what's really happening with this "war on women" horseshit. Obama has the "non-white" vote in the bag. He's getting about 89% of the black vote, 68% of the Hispanic vote, and about 63% of the rest. The problem is that only makes up about 24% of all the people who actually go cast a vote on election day. White voters make up about 76% of those. He's losing badly among men and he's getting completely annihilated among Independents where he gets about 33% support according to the most recent data. BUT women make up 53% of the people who actually vote so if he can score women's support in large numbers he can make up the difference for all those demographic losses. So he has to get women pissed off at the GOP and convince them that Republicans hate women and think they should be in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant (and if you ask TM...with one black eye too).

It's really his only chance because as much as people love him personally, very few are willing to go broke for him and nothing makes people forget about their wallet like good old fashioned fury especially when it can be directed at "the evil ones" and is emotional in nature.

 

[taichiliberal]

Which
Individual
States? I said some individual state LAWS, you blithering bumpkin! Then I gave Wisconsin as an example in a following post. Jeez, did you fail English composition in high school or what?[/SIZE]

Pay discrimination is illegal, period. Either provide actual evidence, or admit you lied.

Just as I said, folks. Our Quantum Windbag is just that, an insipidly stubborn and intellectually dishonest Windbag who's myopic parroting is his own undoing.

What the Windbag doesn't like, he ignores or pretends he's too stupid to understand what an 8th grader with decent cognitive reasoning skills can get. Pathetic.

I forgot who I was dealing with.

That's okay....just don't try to pass off your supposition and conjecture as fact, or try to isolate a particular sentence and couple it with your opinions, and I won't have to humiliate you in public. Also, you might note that repeating yourself ad nauseum won't magically make your assertions and accusations come true if they are already factually disproven. Carry on.

 

[taichiliberal]

And that is related to who pays for your birth control.....exactly how?

the same people who pay for your viagra, sweetness! Interesting how that little caveat rarely comes up in the conversation from the neocons and teabaggers.

thing is, right wing zealots want to fix it so THEY determine if a woman has an abortion and that she MUST choose between a job or being a stay at home mom and that she MUST be paid less than a man for the EXACT same job.

My statemente stands.

Could you point to any shred of actual evidence that any elected politician in the US is proposing that women MUST be paid less than a man for the Exact same job? If not, I guess you'll agree you are spouting nonsense.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5215719-post13.html

When you remove a law that was established to STOP a process that was occuring, you are opening the doors for that process to start again.

 

[taichiliberal]

Hmmmm . Interesting Mpyre news. You should star a page like that mush mouth idiot, Drudge.

To whom are you addressing this too?