Guilt of Omission: New Hillary Ad Intentionally Leaves Out Glaring Fact

easyt65

Diamond Member
Aug 4, 2015
90,307
61,086
2,645
“On average, it takes three hundred Americans working for a solid year to make as much money as one top CEO,” the narrator says in the ad says. “It’s called the wage gap. And the Republicans will make it worse by lowering taxes for those at the top and letting corporations write their own rules.””

The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign has begun air ads in Iowa bemoaning the income inequality between CEOs and average workers in the country. But the ad doesn’t mention the wage gap was wider during President Bill Clinton’s administration than now.

Nor does the ad state that the gap between CEO and average employee pay has grown steadily during the Obama administration.

In 2000, President Bill Clinton’s final year in office and Hillary Clinton’s final year as first lady, the ratio of CEO pay to average workers was 384.4 to 1. Thus, using that same logic, under the first Clinton administration – which Democrats frequently site for a booming economy – it would take 384.4 workers to make the pay of one CEO during the Clinton’s final year in the White House.

By 2007, during President George W. Bush’s administration, the number had fallen modestly to 351.3, which came before the large economic downturn of 2008 (when Democrats took over a near Super majority control of congress - 5 seats shy).

LINK: Hillary’s ‘Wage Gap’ Ad Omits Important Information About the Bill Clinton and Obama Administrations

The video conveniently left out as well that while Hillary, Obama, and the Liberals were falsely accusing the Republicans of waging a 'war on women' both Hillary and Obama were paying their female employees less than their equal male counterparts. That is not only called a 'pay gap', it's called 'sexual discrimination' and the real 'war on women'.

"The Hillary-Obama doctrine: Do as we say, not as we do on equality pay"

"“On average, full-time working women earn 78 cents for every dollar earned by men, and women of color face an even greater disparity,” Mr. Obama said in a proclamation. “This wage gap puts women at a career-long disadvantage, and it harms families, communities and our entire economy.”

"But it’s well documented that his White House has a history of paying female staffers less than men on average. An analysis of White House salaries last July showed that there was still a 13 percent pay gap between male and female staffers.

Mrs. Clinton, under pressure from the left wing of the Democratic Party to speak out against income inequality, took aim Tuesday at the excessive pay of some corporate executives instead of focusing on gender inequity. The Republican PAC America Rising noted that the Clintons’ income of $16.7 million in 2012 was 321 times that of the average family in the U.S.

However, an analysis by the Washington Free Beacon showed that during her time in the U.S. Senate, Mrs. Clinton paid women in her office 72 cents for each dollar paid to men. The report found the median annual salary for female staffers was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for men between 2002 and 2008, a gender gap of 28 percent."

------------------

HILLARY H Y P O C R I S Y 2016!
 
You might want to note that the increases in the top 1% income during Obama's presidency are a result of laws enacted before he became president. The right has blocked every effort to narrow the income gap. It's pretty hypocritical to blame him for something he has been trying to change, but the right is preventing.
 
I find it so fuckin humorous a corporatist that loves banks and corporations talks about income inequality. ESPECIALLY considering who her husband is!
 
You might want to note that the increases in the top 1% income during Obama's presidency are a result of laws enacted before he became president.

Yup, laws passed during the last 3 years of the bush administration...after the democrats took over a near Super majority control of congress, controlling the purse strings, spending, and control of what bills made it to the floor of the Senate for discussion and voting.
 
You might want to note that the increases in the top 1% income during Obama's presidency are a result of laws enacted before he became president. The right has blocked every effort to narrow the income gap. It's pretty hypocritical to blame him for something he has been trying to change, but the right is preventing.

Why didn't his administration change those laws when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the White House?

Responsibility sucks! Obama owns this, despite your limp-wristed excuses.
 
You might want to note that the increases in the top 1% income during Obama's presidency are a result of laws enacted before he became president. The right has blocked every effort to narrow the income gap. It's pretty hypocritical to blame him for something he has been trying to change, but the right is preventing.

Yeah, how did the Clintons amass a $200MM fortune?
 
You might want to note that the increases in the top 1% income during Obama's presidency are a result of laws enacted before he became president. The right has blocked every effort to narrow the income gap. It's pretty hypocritical to blame him for something he has been trying to change, but the right is preventing.

Yeah, how did the Clintons amass a $200MM fortune?

Well, we know it wasn't a multi-million dollar check from daddy.
 
You might want to note that the increases in the top 1% income during Obama's presidency are a result of laws enacted before he became president.

Yup, laws passed during the last 3 years of the bush administration...after the democrats took over a near Super majority control of congress, controlling the purse strings, spending, and control of what bills made it to the floor of the Senate for discussion and voting.


You mean like now when the GOP is doing nothing to change things?
 

Forum List

Back
Top