Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bond rating agencies were and are regulated by the SEC. So it appears they failed in enforcing already existing regulations due to conflicts of interest and ineptness. How would more laws or another government regulatory agency all together prevent a crisis?This is one area where competition nearly ruined us. Since they get paid to rate bonds by the bond issuer It was in their financial interests to rate various instruments better than they actually were or lose business to the others. Then this inaccurate rating was used leverage things for many times their value thereby magnifying the loss many times when they failed. There has to be some way to make this process more accurate. I am sure people more knowledgeable than me about Wall Street, like Sen. Warren, have some ideas, shame no one is listening.I assume you are referring to deposits being funded by the taxpayer. What you are advocating in this case is more of a free market, not more government regulation. I agree in fact, remove moral hazard and government bailouts.Well not allowing the banks to use consumer deposits to play on Wall Street would be a good start, puts the FDIC on the hook if investments go south. Another good one would be making the penalties for index manipulation so severe that a bank would not survive getting caught. The entire bond rating system needs to be altered to be more honest. There are lots of things that should to be done to restore faith in investment and reduce volatility but the big bank's best scams depend on boom and bust.I am against her commandments because because they represent and stupid and crass form of populism that appeals to people like you in the lowest common denominator.If you can't defeat the progressives on ideas alone you are in trouble, here they are:
- "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it."
- "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth."
- "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality."
- "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."
- "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.".
- "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt."
- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions."
- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal.
Get to work telling us how all this stuff is wrong without the mudslinging
Good for the working class and good for the country.
So why are RWs against it?
Because it would be good for the working class and good for the country.
Really, that's the only possible reason.
It is evident in her very first commandment
"We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it."
What specific regulations do we need, and why?
As for ratings agencies, what specific regulation should the government enact, and why?
No one has all the answers but I have listed some things that need to at least be seriously discussed and they still haven't really been addressed. In spite of the worst economic collapse of our lifetimes the big banks got off easy and are bigger than ever. When they inflate the next bubble we will be just as helpless to prevent it and the nation will be holding the bag. Personally I would like to see the big banks broken up but that is just not going to happen, too well insulated by pet politicians and the SEC might as well not exist for all the good they do.Bond rating agencies were and are regulated by the SEC. So it appears they failed in enforcing already existing regulations due to conflicts of interest and ineptness. How would more laws or another government regulatory agency all together prevent a crisis?This is one area where competition nearly ruined us. Since they get paid to rate bonds by the bond issuer It was in their financial interests to rate various instruments better than they actually were or lose business to the others. Then this inaccurate rating was used leverage things for many times their value thereby magnifying the loss many times when they failed. There has to be some way to make this process more accurate. I am sure people more knowledgeable than me about Wall Street, like Sen. Warren, have some ideas, shame no one is listening.I assume you are referring to deposits being funded by the taxpayer. What you are advocating in this case is more of a free market, not more government regulation. I agree in fact, remove moral hazard and government bailouts.Well not allowing the banks to use consumer deposits to play on Wall Street would be a good start, puts the FDIC on the hook if investments go south. Another good one would be making the penalties for index manipulation so severe that a bank would not survive getting caught. The entire bond rating system needs to be altered to be more honest. There are lots of things that should to be done to restore faith in investment and reduce volatility but the big bank's best scams depend on boom and bust.I am against her commandments because because they represent and stupid and crass form of populism that appeals to people like you in the lowest common denominator.Good for the working class and good for the country.
So why are RWs against it?
Because it would be good for the working class and good for the country.
Really, that's the only possible reason.
It is evident in her very first commandment
"We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it."
What specific regulations do we need, and why?
As for ratings agencies, what specific regulation should the government enact, and why?
Not bailing out the banks for their poor investments would have been a good start. Instead, we bailed them out to the tune of trillions of dollars(through Congress and the Federal Reserve) and now 5 banks own about 80% of the assets, talk about an oligopoly. And about 98% of the gains since the financial crisis have gone to the 1%, so much for a recovery.No one has all the answers but I have listed some things that need to at least be seriously discussed and they still haven't really been addressed. In spite of the worst economic collapse of our lifetimes the big banks got off easy and are bigger than ever. When they inflate the next bubble we will be just as helpless to prevent it and the nation will be holding the bag. Personally I would like to see the big banks broken up but that is just not going to happen, too well insulated by pet politicians and the SEC might as well not exist for all the good they do.Bond rating agencies were and are regulated by the SEC. So it appears they failed in enforcing already existing regulations due to conflicts of interest and ineptness. How would more laws or another government regulatory agency all together prevent a crisis?This is one area where competition nearly ruined us. Since they get paid to rate bonds by the bond issuer It was in their financial interests to rate various instruments better than they actually were or lose business to the others. Then this inaccurate rating was used leverage things for many times their value thereby magnifying the loss many times when they failed. There has to be some way to make this process more accurate. I am sure people more knowledgeable than me about Wall Street, like Sen. Warren, have some ideas, shame no one is listening.I assume you are referring to deposits being funded by the taxpayer. What you are advocating in this case is more of a free market, not more government regulation. I agree in fact, remove moral hazard and government bailouts.Well not allowing the banks to use consumer deposits to play on Wall Street would be a good start, puts the FDIC on the hook if investments go south. Another good one would be making the penalties for index manipulation so severe that a bank would not survive getting caught. The entire bond rating system needs to be altered to be more honest. There are lots of things that should to be done to restore faith in investment and reduce volatility but the big bank's best scams depend on boom and bust.I am against her commandments because because they represent and stupid and crass form of populism that appeals to people like you in the lowest common denominator.
It is evident in her very first commandment
What specific regulations do we need, and why?
As for ratings agencies, what specific regulation should the government enact, and why?
At the time there was a bunch of brand new Chinese billionaires looking to invest in anything American. Historically the US mortgage market was as safe and lucrative an investment as has ever been. Trouble was there was only so many mortgages to invest in.Not bailing out the banks for their poor investments would have been a good start. Instead, we bailed them out to the tune of trillions of dollars(through Congress and the Federal Reserve) and now 5 banks own about 80% of the assets, talk about an oligopoly. And about 98% of the gains since the financial crisis have gone to the 1%, so much for a recovery.No one has all the answers but I have listed some things that need to at least be seriously discussed and they still haven't really been addressed. In spite of the worst economic collapse of our lifetimes the big banks got off easy and are bigger than ever. When they inflate the next bubble we will be just as helpless to prevent it and the nation will be holding the bag. Personally I would like to see the big banks broken up but that is just not going to happen, too well insulated by pet politicians and the SEC might as well not exist for all the good they do.Bond rating agencies were and are regulated by the SEC. So it appears they failed in enforcing already existing regulations due to conflicts of interest and ineptness. How would more laws or another government regulatory agency all together prevent a crisis?This is one area where competition nearly ruined us. Since they get paid to rate bonds by the bond issuer It was in their financial interests to rate various instruments better than they actually were or lose business to the others. Then this inaccurate rating was used leverage things for many times their value thereby magnifying the loss many times when they failed. There has to be some way to make this process more accurate. I am sure people more knowledgeable than me about Wall Street, like Sen. Warren, have some ideas, shame no one is listening.I assume you are referring to deposits being funded by the taxpayer. What you are advocating in this case is more of a free market, not more government regulation. I agree in fact, remove moral hazard and government bailouts.Well not allowing the banks to use consumer deposits to play on Wall Street would be a good start, puts the FDIC on the hook if investments go south. Another good one would be making the penalties for index manipulation so severe that a bank would not survive getting caught. The entire bond rating system needs to be altered to be more honest. There are lots of things that should to be done to restore faith in investment and reduce volatility but the big bank's best scams depend on boom and bust.
As for ratings agencies, what specific regulation should the government enact, and why?
There is a revolving door between wall street and government, so I share reservations about any further regulatory power as it will only end of benefiting the financially connected.
If I may ask, what do you think caused the inflated bubble?
It's odd you bring up the AAUW study as evidence of a 78% myth. Because the AAUW study debunks that.The reality is, if there were studies available that were able to narrow it down to specific occupations within broader fields along with all the other factors we have discussed here than the gap would be far less to non-existent(which you have yet to provide with your dishonest 78% number). Certainly no evidence of discrimination.First of all, the Department of Labor Report wasn't one study, it was a compilation of data of over 50 peer reviewed papers. No one ever said there is no gap unequivocally, but the "gap" as it is spoken of is patently false. There may be a gap of around 4 to 7 percent, but that is a far cry from the 23% hysteria, and no evidence that this significantly smaller disparity is the result of discrimination. The report concluded that it may all very well be explained away by differing choices between men and women in the labor market.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf“In principle, more of the raw wage gap could be explained by including some additional variables within a single comprehensive analysis that considers all of the factors simultaneously; however, such an analysis is not feasible to conduct with available data bases. Factors, such as work experience and job tenure, require data that describe the behavior of individual workers over extended time periods. The longitudinal data bases that contain such information include too few workers, however, to support adequate analysis of factors like occupation and industry. Cross-sectional data bases that include enough workers to enable analysis of factors like occupation and industry do not collect data on individual workers over long enough periods to support adequate analysis of factors like work experience and job tenure.
Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”
The problem is, your graph doesn't mean anything, doesn't account for differences hours worked or experience for example. In both cases, on average, full time male workers work more hours, and as you even admitted, don't have the same gaps in work experience due to taking off time for being with children, the so called "motherhood penalty".
Kay Hymowitz Why Women Make Less Than Men - WSJThe Labor Department defines full-time as 35 hours a week or more, and the "or more" is far more likely to refer to male workers than to female ones. According to the department, almost 55% of workers logging more than 35 hours a week are men. In 2007, 25% of men working full-time jobs had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 14% of female full-time workers. In other words, the famous gender-wage gap is to a considerable degree a gender-hours gap.
The difference in hours worked alone explains away about 25% of t the so called 77% myth.
The Department of Labor’s Time Use Survey, for example, finds that the average full-time working man spends 8.14 hours a day on the job, compared to 7.75 hours for the full-time working woman. Employees who work more likely earn more. Men working five percent longer than women alone explains about one-quarter of the wage gap.
It s Time That We End the Equal Pay Myth - Forbes
You just keep bringing out the same rehashed and debunked statistic that doesn't account for any of the factors mentioned.
If your hypothesis were true, and women that work equal hours for the same work, and have the same education level and experience in the field, were paid 78% of men, profit maximizing companies would only hire women. But as I said before, the stats don't bare this out.
Absurd claims, as usual from the right...absurd to claim your flawed study debunks anything, Absurd to claim none of the other studies take into account any of those factors. But of course, those studies were not done by conservatives paid for by corporate dollars.
Here is the "study" you are trying to present as factual...
The study by Consad Research Corp. commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and estimated that the 77% wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
But the researchers also warned that either they did not have enough long-term data or the studies they looked at had too few workers to definitively ascertain why exactly the wage gap exists, as well as the size of it.
The government researchers also warned they did not have enough data to ascertain the impact of various factors like work experience, tenure, occupation and industry to deliver “adequate analysis” of what the true wage gap really is.
Specifically, the Consad researchers warned that “data bases that contain such information include too few workers, however, to support adequate analysis of factors like occupation and industry” or “do not collect data on individual workers over long enough periods to support adequate analysis of factors like work experience and job tenure.”
They also warned: “As a result it has not been possible to develop reliable estimates of the total percentage of the raw gender wage gap,” though their statistical analysis “produced results” that showed the pay gap could be between 93% and 95%.
It’s not just the fact that use of the word “may” is prevalent throughout the study, showing the research is far from conclusive. The Consad Research report itself indicated the analysis merely gives signposts of what could be the cause, and repeatedly warned that “the data for other factors was not available” to definitively determine why the pay gap exists.
Missing, too, is a huge whopper that could cause the wage gap. Due to a lack of data, the researchers could not include in their analysis whether women are rejected from jobs they apply for right from the get go because they have children, even if they had resumes identical to men—an all too prevalent reality that undercuts the theory that the “pay gap doesn’t exist.”
Not only is your claim of this pay gap debunked by existing data, but by common sense, and you have yet to answer the question. If women with equal ability and experience get paid 78% of a man's salary for the same exact job, why ever hire a man?
There are some pretty comprehensive studies...click on any of the bold headings for detailed statistics.
The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap (Spring 2015)
You’ve probably heard that men are paid more than women are paid over their lifetimes. But what does that mean? Are women paid less because they choose lower-paying jobs? Is it because more women work part time than men do? Or is it because women tend to be the primary caregivers for their children?
AAUW’s The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap succinctly addresses these issues by going beyond the widely reported 78 percent statistic. The report explains the pay gap in the United States; how it affects women of all ages, races, and education levels; and what you can do to close it.
- The pay gap has barely budged in a decade.
In 2013, among full-time, year-round workers, women were paid 78 percent of what men were paid.
- Women in every state experience the pay gap, but some states are worse than others.
The best place in the United States for pay equity is Washington, D.C., where women were paid 91 percent of what men were paid in 2013. At the other end of the spectrum is Louisiana, the worst state in the country for pay equity, where women were paid just 66 percent of what men were paid.
- The pay gap is worse for women of color.
The gender pay gap affects all women, but for women of color the pay shortfall is worse. Asian American women’s salaries show the smallest gender pay gap, at 90 percent of white men’s earnings. Hispanic women’s salaries show the largest gap, at 54 percent of white men’s earnings. White men are used as a benchmark because they make up the largest demographic group in the labor force.
- Women face a pay gap in nearly every occupation.
From elementary and middle school teachers to computer programmers, women are paid less than men in female-dominated, gender-balanced, and male-dominated occupations.
- The pay gap grows with age.
Women typically earn about 90 percent of what men are paid until they hit 35. After that median earnings for women are typically 75–80 percent of what men are paid.
- While more education is an effective tool for increasing earnings, it is not an effective tool against the gender pay gap.
At every level of academic achievement, women’s median earnings are less than men’s earnings, and in some cases, the gender pay gap is larger at higher levels of education. While education helps everyone, black and Hispanic women earn less than their white and Asian peers do, even when they have the same educational credentials.Here are changes that can help close the wage gap.
- The pay gap also exists among women without children.
AAUW’s Graduating to a Pay Gap found that among full-time workers one year after college graduation — nearly all of whom were childless — women were paid just 82 percent of what their male counterparts were paid.
- For companies
While some CEOs have been vocal in their commitment to paying workers fairly, American women can’t wait for trickle-down change. AAUW urges companies to conduct salary audits to proactively monitor and address gender-based pay differences. It’s just good business.
- For individuals
Women can learn strategies to better negotiate for fair pay. Improved negotiation skills can help close the pay gap.
- For policy makers
The Paycheck Fairness Act would improve the scope of the Equal Pay Act, which hasn’t been updated since 1963, with stronger incentives for employers to follow the law, enhance federal enforcement efforts, and prohibit retaliation against workers asking about wage practices. Tell the Congress to take action for equal pay.
The authors of the study state that the gap is actually 6%, not 22%, and that they found no evidence of gender discrimination.
Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists Christina Hoff SommersThe AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out."
Well first off, I am discussing the results AAUW study which you just cited.It's odd you bring up the AAUW study as evidence of a 78% myth. Because the AAUW study debunks that.The reality is, if there were studies available that were able to narrow it down to specific occupations within broader fields along with all the other factors we have discussed here than the gap would be far less to non-existent(which you have yet to provide with your dishonest 78% number). Certainly no evidence of discrimination.First of all, the Department of Labor Report wasn't one study, it was a compilation of data of over 50 peer reviewed papers. No one ever said there is no gap unequivocally, but the "gap" as it is spoken of is patently false. There may be a gap of around 4 to 7 percent, but that is a far cry from the 23% hysteria, and no evidence that this significantly smaller disparity is the result of discrimination. The report concluded that it may all very well be explained away by differing choices between men and women in the labor market.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf
The problem is, your graph doesn't mean anything, doesn't account for differences hours worked or experience for example. In both cases, on average, full time male workers work more hours, and as you even admitted, don't have the same gaps in work experience due to taking off time for being with children, the so called "motherhood penalty".
Kay Hymowitz Why Women Make Less Than Men - WSJ
The difference in hours worked alone explains away about 25% of t the so called 77% myth.
It s Time That We End the Equal Pay Myth - Forbes
You just keep bringing out the same rehashed and debunked statistic that doesn't account for any of the factors mentioned.
If your hypothesis were true, and women that work equal hours for the same work, and have the same education level and experience in the field, were paid 78% of men, profit maximizing companies would only hire women. But as I said before, the stats don't bare this out.
Absurd claims, as usual from the right...absurd to claim your flawed study debunks anything, Absurd to claim none of the other studies take into account any of those factors. But of course, those studies were not done by conservatives paid for by corporate dollars.
Here is the "study" you are trying to present as factual...
The study by Consad Research Corp. commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and estimated that the 77% wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
But the researchers also warned that either they did not have enough long-term data or the studies they looked at had too few workers to definitively ascertain why exactly the wage gap exists, as well as the size of it.
The government researchers also warned they did not have enough data to ascertain the impact of various factors like work experience, tenure, occupation and industry to deliver “adequate analysis” of what the true wage gap really is.
Specifically, the Consad researchers warned that “data bases that contain such information include too few workers, however, to support adequate analysis of factors like occupation and industry” or “do not collect data on individual workers over long enough periods to support adequate analysis of factors like work experience and job tenure.”
They also warned: “As a result it has not been possible to develop reliable estimates of the total percentage of the raw gender wage gap,” though their statistical analysis “produced results” that showed the pay gap could be between 93% and 95%.
It’s not just the fact that use of the word “may” is prevalent throughout the study, showing the research is far from conclusive. The Consad Research report itself indicated the analysis merely gives signposts of what could be the cause, and repeatedly warned that “the data for other factors was not available” to definitively determine why the pay gap exists.
Missing, too, is a huge whopper that could cause the wage gap. Due to a lack of data, the researchers could not include in their analysis whether women are rejected from jobs they apply for right from the get go because they have children, even if they had resumes identical to men—an all too prevalent reality that undercuts the theory that the “pay gap doesn’t exist.”
Not only is your claim of this pay gap debunked by existing data, but by common sense, and you have yet to answer the question. If women with equal ability and experience get paid 78% of a man's salary for the same exact job, why ever hire a man?
There are some pretty comprehensive studies...click on any of the bold headings for detailed statistics.
The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap (Spring 2015)
You’ve probably heard that men are paid more than women are paid over their lifetimes. But what does that mean? Are women paid less because they choose lower-paying jobs? Is it because more women work part time than men do? Or is it because women tend to be the primary caregivers for their children?
AAUW’s The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap succinctly addresses these issues by going beyond the widely reported 78 percent statistic. The report explains the pay gap in the United States; how it affects women of all ages, races, and education levels; and what you can do to close it.
- The pay gap has barely budged in a decade.
In 2013, among full-time, year-round workers, women were paid 78 percent of what men were paid.
- Women in every state experience the pay gap, but some states are worse than others.
The best place in the United States for pay equity is Washington, D.C., where women were paid 91 percent of what men were paid in 2013. At the other end of the spectrum is Louisiana, the worst state in the country for pay equity, where women were paid just 66 percent of what men were paid.
- The pay gap is worse for women of color.
The gender pay gap affects all women, but for women of color the pay shortfall is worse. Asian American women’s salaries show the smallest gender pay gap, at 90 percent of white men’s earnings. Hispanic women’s salaries show the largest gap, at 54 percent of white men’s earnings. White men are used as a benchmark because they make up the largest demographic group in the labor force.
- Women face a pay gap in nearly every occupation.
From elementary and middle school teachers to computer programmers, women are paid less than men in female-dominated, gender-balanced, and male-dominated occupations.
- The pay gap grows with age.
Women typically earn about 90 percent of what men are paid until they hit 35. After that median earnings for women are typically 75–80 percent of what men are paid.
- While more education is an effective tool for increasing earnings, it is not an effective tool against the gender pay gap.
At every level of academic achievement, women’s median earnings are less than men’s earnings, and in some cases, the gender pay gap is larger at higher levels of education. While education helps everyone, black and Hispanic women earn less than their white and Asian peers do, even when they have the same educational credentials.Here are changes that can help close the wage gap.
- The pay gap also exists among women without children.
AAUW’s Graduating to a Pay Gap found that among full-time workers one year after college graduation — nearly all of whom were childless — women were paid just 82 percent of what their male counterparts were paid.
- For companies
While some CEOs have been vocal in their commitment to paying workers fairly, American women can’t wait for trickle-down change. AAUW urges companies to conduct salary audits to proactively monitor and address gender-based pay differences. It’s just good business.
- For individuals
Women can learn strategies to better negotiate for fair pay. Improved negotiation skills can help close the pay gap.
- For policy makers
The Paycheck Fairness Act would improve the scope of the Equal Pay Act, which hasn’t been updated since 1963, with stronger incentives for employers to follow the law, enhance federal enforcement efforts, and prohibit retaliation against workers asking about wage practices. Tell the Congress to take action for equal pay.
The authors of the study state that the gap is actually 6%, not 22%, and that they found no evidence of gender discrimination.
Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists Christina Hoff SommersThe AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out."
A dog chasing it's tail.
Sommers, like you, is trying to portray the CONSAD Research Corp report as authoritative...it is NOT.
Unless you change the English language...
MAY means tentative possibility, NOT certainty.
Furthermore, the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors.
Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most.
If you can't defeat the progressives on ideas alone you are in trouble, here they are:Her character and how she labeled herself a minority to advance herself personally is relevant here, as it exposes an unethical pattern of behavior.Starts out with character assassination, pretty screwed up way to present a supposed rebuttal of ideas. Got a print version?
If you don't have the time to watch the whole presentation, perhaps you shouldn't be making premature comments?
- "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it."
- "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth."
- "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality."
- "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."
- "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.".
- "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt."
- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions."
- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal.
Get to work telling us how all this stuff is wrong without the mudslinging
