A suggestion for the "war on women".

[taichiliberal]

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?

For your education:

http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf

Now PLEASE don't waste my time with the standard neocon/teabagger denial tact of taking information out-of-context to attach to your Drudge addled mantras. Read it carefully and comprehensively, then you'll understand how the article I cited was able to refer stats to the CB.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

To whom are you addressing this too?

Based on you lack of response to posts #52 and #54, are you now convinced of the fact that the Left uses

provably false victimology to persuade the weak-minded?


Or, would you rather serve as verification of my axiom:

"Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals."

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

The source I noted DID NOT state the conclusion you did here, and I defy you to quote such. Stop acting like a petulant child by substituting YOUR neocon/teabagger myopia for what is actually printed by others.


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.

Once again, NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN YOUR HYPOTHETICALS. I REFER TO FACTS...facts that just don't support your belief system. But then again, belief rarely relies on facts. Case in point:

http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf

Grow up, Bripat.

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

Prove it beyond your personal opinion, supposition and conjecture, my chuckleheaded chic! Other than that, you're just blowing smoke as usual.

Do you need a dictionary?

No, I uderstand the words that define YOU, chic......stubborn, ignorant, pride....a deadly combination.

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


Are you referring to the claptrap you spewed earlier? No sweetpea, you made a statement and proposed a scenario that DEFIES the history of the labor movement and Labor reform laws in this country. Then you cited Sowell's latest claptrap that I provided adequate contrary analysis to. Now you're going off on another tangent.....which doesn't make sense to people who are not privy to the convoluted logic of your mind....makes sense to YOU, but to the reader not so much.


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.....

You're running in a circle, sweetpea....but it's called convoluted logic.

Once again: your scenario has NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY. The HISTORY OF THE LABOR MOVEMENT AND SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION RESULTED IN PREVENTING THE VERY SCENARIO YOU PROPOSE. This is why when you have drudges like Walker in Wisconsin or Scott in Florida passing/rescinding laws that contradict the very history of this country to INSURE that women have a shot of equal pay in this country for the same jobs they can do as a man.

Let me dumb it down further: YOUR BUSINESS OWNER WOULD BE TAKEN TO COURT AND SUED BLIND if he tried what you propose. That's why it's a constant battle in this country to keep the idiocy you propose from becoming reality.

Here, for your education:

http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf

And again, DO YOUR HOMEWORK regarding the labor movement in this country, because I'm damned tired of doing it for willfully ignorant clowns like you who are proud of their ignorance!

 

[taichiliberal]

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

There is your war.

If you can't provide any documented facts to back up your accusation, then you've missed your target, my neocon flunkie.

 

[taichiliberal]

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

What's incredible is that neocon nitwits and teabagger bumpkins keep ignoring facts in favor of their own constructed fantasies and scenarios....then they treat the latter as the true topic of conversation.

Apropo to my OP:

http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf

Let's all deal with reality, shall we?

 

[taichiliberal]

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, **** Rick Scott.

You're not too bright, are ya bunky? You REPEAT a point, but you don't get it. Here, I'll dumb it down for you....the guy you source is not only in the minority among black Caucus in Congress, but among the Democratic Party. But hey, you neocon/teabaggers just love to exaggerate the importance of your failed mantras and ideals.

Oh, and "**** Rick Scott"? Hmmm, then you should also have the same attitude for Walker in Wisconsin, and ALL the GOP jokers that were mentioned in the link I provided in the OP.

So essentially, you're in agreement with me....yet being insipidly stubborn as all neocon/teabaggers are, you'll eat shit and call it ice cream before conceding a point. Pathetic.

But here's a little more for you to chew on: http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

Obama doesn't have to do a damn thing to get women pissed at the GOP, toodles....the GOP did that all by themselves when they convened a committee to discuss women's issues AND EXCLUDED women!

A matter of fact, a matter of history. Look it up! And if that weren't bad enough, what I listed in the OP and the actions of Walker in Wisconsin and Scott in Florida are clinchers.

Now, if you can provide the sources for all your statistics, I can address the rest of your assertions.

 

[taichiliberal]

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

To whom are you addressing this too?

Based on you lack of response to posts #52 and #54, are you now convinced of the fact that the Left uses

provably false victimology to persuade the weak-minded?


Or, would you rather serve as verification of my axiom:

"Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals."

I already put your claptrap to rest, sweetpea:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5226176-post64.html

But do keep patting yourself on the back for your insipid stubborness and willful ignorance....it's pathetic, but strangely entertaining.

 

[Neotrotsky]

 

[taichiliberal]

And yet another neocon bullhorn bites the dust:


Why Mitt Romney's 'Economic War on Women' Charge Could Backfire
Why Mitt Romney's 'Economic War on Women' Charge Could Backfire - Jordan Weissmann - Business - The Atlantic

 

[hortysir]

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, **** Rick Scott.

You're not too bright, are ya bunky? You REPEAT a point, but you don't get it. Here, I'll dumb it down for you....the guy you source is not only in the minority among black Caucus in Congress, but among the Democratic Party. But hey, you neocon/teabaggers just love to exaggerate the importance of your failed mantras and ideals.

Oh, and "**** Rick Scott"? Hmmm, then you should also have the same attitude for Walker in Wisconsin, and ALL the GOP jokers that were mentioned in the link I provided in the OP.

So essentially, you're in agreement with me....yet being insipidly stubborn as all neocon/teabaggers are, you'll eat shit and call it ice cream before conceding a point. Pathetic.

But here's a little more for you to chew on: http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf

You can minimize the CHAIRMAN of the Black Caucus and refer to him as the minority if you want.
It still doesn't change the logic he speaks.

There is no "war" on women launched by republicans.

There IS, however, a war started by democrats to deflect as much as they can from Obama's record.
Obama/Pelosi/Ried had a blank-check majority and screwed the pooch.
Shit was sliding downhill at break-neck speed.

Things only started to try and turn around once the (R)s took back control of the House (remember all this bragging about Obama's turning the economy around?).

Wait until the Senate turns over.
Then, and only then, will we see real growth.

Good news is....IF Obama manages to get re-elected, he'll get to claim all the credit for the (R)-controlled House and Senate's success.


I couldn't give 2 shits less about Walker. I wouldn't be caught dead in Wisconsin.
Scott, is just a straight-up skeeze bucket and he won't be re-elected with my vote in his column.
He has worked (sorta) hard at getting big companies/contracts into the Cape Canaveral area.....another Republican stuck cleaning up Obama's skidmarks.


The.pdf was a good read.
Still doesn't point to a "War" on women waged by Republicans.
It mentions that firms that are predominately female average lower wages than a similar business that's predominately male.
Wouldn't that be the business owners' fault? Not the fault of any policy or legislated practice.
Odds are that a "predominately female business" would be run by a female. Right?
So women are at war with other women? Women are "the Man", now???


Another hilarious little stat was watching them compare a mechanic shop worker's pay to that of a hair stylist.
Different skill set and different education level.

Then there's the bar graph that shows more experienced male business owners hire more females.
Now it's a bad thing to give women jobs!!


Look, dude.
Let's be honest, here.
The census bureau set out with a set goal.
They picked out only the data they needed in order to support their claim and magically proved their point.
(Poorly, in my opinion)

But, hey, it got you to bite to such a degree that you've spammed this thread with the bullshit link.
(did you find it in your daily TP e-mail?)

 

[BluePhantom]

Obama doesn't have to do a damn thing to get women pissed at the GOP, toodles....the GOP did that all by themselves when they convened a committee to discuss women's issues AND EXCLUDED women!

Ahhhh....so only women are permitted to address or understand women's issues. Got it.

A matter of fact, a matter of history. Look it up! And if that weren't bad enough, what I listed in the OP and the actions of Walker in Wisconsin and Scott in Florida are clinchers.

Scott vetoed it because they already get $35.5 million from the state. Certainly the $1.5 million boost he vetoed could be redirected from within their existing budget. You DO realize that if you don't exhaust your budget and then ask for more your budget will be reduced right? Might want to think about that one for a while.

Now, if you can provide the sources for all your statistics, I can address the rest of your assertions.

Oh sure, my pleasure. It's not real hard to go to RCP, read the available crosstabs, and average them out. Thankfully I have already done that for everyone posted weekly right here. Demographic breakdowns are posted for weeks ending 4/17 and 5/1

 

[bripat9643]

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?

For your education:

http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf

Now PLEASE don't waste my time with the standard neocon/teabagger denial tact of taking information out-of-context to attach to your Drudge addled mantras. Read it carefully and comprehensively, then you'll understand how the article I cited was able to refer stats to the CB.

Sorry, but that document doesn't prove your claim. It says that businesses that were primarily populated with males paid higher wages. The reason for that is the fact that men gravitate towards male dominated occupations that pay higher wages. Men take construction jobs, that pay higher wages. Women take teaching jobs that pay lower wages. If teaching paid better, then there would be plenty of men entering the profession.

My brother's girlfriend owns a company that does in-home nursing for the elderly. That profession is dominated by women, so it's hardly surprising that the owner of the company is a woman. It typically doesn't pay high wages because it's a low skill occupation.

The premise of your document is totally flawed. It's the typical misleading horse manure that demagogues who wail about "the war against women" typically trot out.

Now produce some evidence that women in the exact same occupation as men and with the same education and experience get paid a lower wage. You can't do it, and we both know it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To whom are you addressing this too?

Based on you lack of response to posts #52 and #54, are you now convinced of the fact that the Left uses

provably false victimology to persuade the weak-minded?


Or, would you rather serve as verification of my axiom:

"Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals."

I already put your claptrap to rest, sweetpea:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5226176-post64.html

But do keep patting yourself on the back for your insipid stubborness and willful ignorance....it's pathetic, but strangely entertaining.

What an interesting strategy!!!

Be proven wrong, yet claim success!


How very.....Liberal of you!!


Did you want another chance?
Or, merely walk away with the egg dripping off your two faces?

Sure....
...why wouldn't an employer hire the woman at 75% of the cost of hiring a man for the same job equally well done?
C'mon....another demonstration of your business acumen!


So....What size shoe does your mouth take?

Now don't be afraid to admit you were wrong....it would constitute a step away from the darkside....

 

[Lakhota]

Republicans, Get In My Vagina: Kate Beckinsale Satirizes 'War On Women' With Funny Or Die (VIDEO)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Based on you lack of response to posts #52 and #54, are you now convinced of the fact that the Left uses

provably false victimology to persuade the weak-minded?


Or, would you rather serve as verification of my axiom:

"Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals."

I already put your claptrap to rest, sweetpea:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5226176-post64.html

But do keep patting yourself on the back for your insipid stubborness and willful ignorance....it's pathetic, but strangely entertaining.

What an interesting strategy!!!

Be proven wrong, yet claim success!


How very.....Liberal of you!!


Did you want another chance?
Or, merely walk away with the egg dripping off your two faces?

Sure....
...why wouldn't an employer hire the woman at 75% of the cost of hiring a man for the same job equally well done?
C'mon....another demonstration of your business acumen!


So....What size shoe does your mouth take?

Now don't be afraid to admit you were wrong....it would constitute a step away from the darkside....

OMG!

I was so impressed with your fall-back strategy, i.e., when you lose, simply claim victory...that I had no idea that you had an even more efficient tactic!!!

When pressed in such a way that would reveal how absurd your position is...

....you simply toddle off!!!

Brilliant!

Not to mention efficient.



Just kiddin'....I always knew you were an invertebrate.

 

[Artevelde]

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?

For your education:

http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf

Now PLEASE don't waste my time with the standard neocon/teabagger denial tact of taking information out-of-context to attach to your Drudge addled mantras. Read it carefully and comprehensively, then you'll understand how the article I cited was able to refer stats to the CB.

Did you actually read the link you posted? It says very clearly that the differences in income between men and women comes primarily from working in different firms and from the differences in pay between those firms.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

For your education:

http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf

Now PLEASE don't waste my time with the standard neocon/teabagger denial tact of taking information out-of-context to attach to your Drudge addled mantras. Read it carefully and comprehensively, then you'll understand how the article I cited was able to refer stats to the CB.

Did you actually read the link you posted? It says very clearly that the differences in income between men and women comes primarily from working in different firms and from the differences in pay between those firms.

It's amazing what they will accept as true, even with the obvious link to 'victimology' that is so evident to clear-thinkers.


Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....

 

[editec]

I do not think that there is now a consistent pattern of women being paid less than men for the same work.

There used to be, of course.

That said, I still do not doubt that nationwide and icnluding all income brackets women are making something less than men.

But that can be explained, I suspect, by the fact that women still bear the brunt of domestic responsibility and for many women that means interupting their careers in favor of their families.

And if one studies incomes of professional women without families one finds that now they make more money than their males counterparts.

STill why the Republicans are refusing to sign a bill that makes compensation descrimination illegal totally mystifies me.