Support NeoGAF

[ToxicAdam]

Clinton Redux? :lol[/QUOTE]



More like:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche[/url]

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

His acolytes are on campus nearly every day here. I almost always walk by and say "hey, what about that President Bloomberg?" Back in 08 they were everywhere claiming the British were planning on exposing a huge Obama/Clinton scandal, thus paving the way for Bloomberg to become president. :lol

 

[Jackson50]

Funny how driving has become safer despite more congestion, more annoyances thanks to technological improvements in computer-aided design, airbags, MEMS/sensors, etc: Yet this ass thinks he needs to play big brother and impose a solution from Washington.

​

Just for fun, here's OHSA's data on distractions-in-the-car:

​

Ban for multi-passenger vehicles next? Except that would conflict with the green agenda, so shit... dilemma!

Cell phones are the topic du jour for the schoolmarms. Drunk driving is so passe.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Senate Republicans Vote Unanimously Against Bill To Help Guarantee Fair Pay For Women

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/17/paycheck-fairness-act-fail/

Today, Senate Republicans voted unanimously against legislation to close the pay gap between women and men. The Senate voted 58-41 against allowing debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help end discriminatory pay practices against women. It had already passed the House.

Not a single Republican supported the bill, including Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who had previously voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which removed barriers blocking workers from seeking compensation from discriminatory pay practices. At the time, Snowe said, “This new law[] sends a clear message to the American people that this Congress is committed to these core principles and will continue to work in bipartisan fashion to break down the barriers of wage discrimination in our nation.”

Disgusting, and a pretty clear sign that the GOP is united to block even moderate, no-brainer legislation going forward.

 

[Evlar]

Jonathan Chait on the Deficit Commission tax plans (via Paulie K): http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/79226/the-debt-commission-plan-no-deal

The wonks have finally gone through the debt commission's plan, and the findings are... not so good. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities -- a liberal group more favorable to deficit reduction than most liberals -- goes through the main problems here. In short, there's too much pain imposed on people with low incomes.

More problematically, the Tax Policy Center has broken down the distribution of the tax changes. The commission's plan would be more progressive, and would tax the rich at higher rates, than the Bush era tax code. But it would be less progressive and would tax the rich at lower rates than the Clinton-era tax code.

That's a total non-starter. The Bush tax cuts are slated to expire, and President Obama has stated he will not accept a permanent extension. You can argue either side of which policy baseline -- Bush-era tax rates or Clinton-era tax rates -- is the fair baseline to start from. But the fact is that the Bush tax cuts are slated to expire. Liberals don't need to do anything to get Clinton-era rates on the rich to return. There's simply no way Democrats can agree to assume Bush's low, low tax rates on the rich as a starting point, and then have the commission claw back some of those rates. That would mean rich's people's contribution to shared sacrifice would be something that is slated to happen anyway. I understand the need to trim back the welfare state, but we're not going to trim it back far enough for the rich to enjoy sub-Clinton-era levels of taxation.

In other words, taxes go up for the bottom four quintiles and go down for the top quintile compared to the Clinton tax policies... which are slated to go back into effect, remember, unless Congress chickens out and extends the Bush tax cuts indefinitely.

 

[gkryhewy]

likely at the behest of the administration.

Really? Do you really think that? Who's fighting the petty partisan battles?

 

[Dude Abides]

Still fighting the petty partisan battles, eh?

It doesn't matter what party he is or formerly was in. The fact is he's pushing a horrible idea, that many would consider a government infringement on their civil liberties (non-driver passengers for sure) likely at the behest of the administration.

The idea that the government wastes its time with such ideas is ridiculous.

Truly outrageous that the Secretary of Transportation wants to regulate an issue related to road safety.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Disgusting, and a pretty clear sign that the GOP is united to block even moderate, no-brainer legislation going forward.

Has there been any indication of why Republicans voted no?

 

[Cyan]

Truly truly truly outrageous that the Secretary of Transportation wants to regulate an issue related to road safety.

amirite?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Love to know why they voted this way.

Also, Ben Nelson seems to get off trolling his own party.

Because they don't want Democrats to 'win' on anything. It's still so absurd that they filibuster the debate of bills. In-san-ity.

 

[Dude Abides]

amirite?

Couldn't be riter.

 

[Chichikov]

Senate Republicans Vote Unanimously Against Bill To Help Guarantee Fair Pay For Women

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/17/paycheck-fairness-act-fail/

Today, Senate Republicans voted unanimously against legislation to close the pay gap between women and men. The Senate voted 58-41 against allowing debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help end discriminatory pay practices against women. It had already passed the House.

Not a single Republican supported the bill, including Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who had previously voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which removed barriers blocking workers from seeking compensation from discriminatory pay practices. At the time, Snowe said, “This new law[] sends a clear message to the American people that this Congress is committed to these core principles and will continue to work in bipartisan fashion to break down the barriers of wage discrimination in our nation.”

Makes perfect sense.
That way, men will have more money to spend on dates and gifts for their lady friends.
It's just like trickle down!

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Makes perfect sense.
That way, men will have more money to spend on dates and gifts for their lady and male friends.
It's just like trickle down!

Fixed.

 

[Byakuya769]

Makes perfect sense.
That way, men will have more money to spend on dates and gifts for their lady and male friends.
It's just like trickle down!

Fixed.

Makes perfect sense.
That way, men will have more money to spend on dates and gifts for their lady friends and male prostitutes.
It's just like trickle down!

Fixed. Fixed.

 

[CharlieDigital]

:lol

Let's get serious for a moment, though.

What possible reasoning would anyone have for voting no? Maternity leave maybe?

 

[Evlar]

:lol

Let's get serious for a moment, though.

What possible reasoning would anyone have for voting no? Maternity leave maybe?

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but in the absence of other explanations I presume it's the normal objection to government having anything to do with the workplace.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but in the absence of other explanations I presume it's the normal objection to government having anything to do with the workplace.

But clearly, this is a case where the market doesn't self-regulate. In a fair market, women would be paid equal money for equal work; there is no market based solution to this problem.

 

[Evlar]

But clearly, this is a case where the market doesn't self-regulate. In a fair market, women would be paid equal money for equal work; there is no market based solution to this problem.

I agree with you, but they would likely see the cure as worse than the disease, small business doesn't need more government regulation, IT'S A FREE COUNTRY DAMMIT yadda yadda

 

[Ri'Orius]

Well, I did find this letter to the Senators, written by the US Chamber of Commerce (note, not an actual government organization; just a misleading title).

It starts:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, urges you to oppose S. 3772, the “Paycheck Fairness Act.” The Chamber strongly supports equal employment opportunity and appropriate enforcement of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, this bill would, among other things, expand remedies under EPA to include unlimited punitive and compensatory damages, significantly erode employer defenses for legitimate pay disparities, and impose invalid tools for enforcement by the Labor Department.

The EPA, while allowing recovery for lost back pay, does not provide for compensatory and punitive damages, nor should it. The EPA is a strict liability statute in that there is no requirement that the employer intend to act unlawfully. It strains logic to mandate that damages conceived and designed to punish and deter wrongful conduct should apply to claims of inadvertent, unintentional conduct that has the effect of violating the EPA. If a plaintiff can demonstrate that a wage disparity is due to intentional discrimination, then he or she should bring a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where punitive and compensatory damages (capped at certain levels) are available.

So yeah. I mean, I'm by no means an expert in compensation discrimination laws, but it is not inconceivable that this particular one, while well-meaning, was poorly implemented.

Business is complex. You can't just say "Everyone should be paid the same!" Trying to determine whether a pay discrepancy is due to race, sex, or an honest difference in value of work done is hard.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Why are they polling with Tim Kaine rather than Mark Warner?

You mean Webb? He's the incumbent up in 2012.

It's a hypothetical if Webb doesn't run again.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Business is complex. You can't just say "Everyone should be paid the same!" Trying to determine whether a pay discrepancy is due to race, sex, or an honest difference in value of work done is hard.

Well, that's what courts are for, right?

 

[besada]

Couldn't be riter.

That's truly, truly, truly outrageous.

 

[Cyan]

Trying to determine whether a pay discrepancy is due to race, sex, or an honest difference in value of work done is hard.

Speaking solely from personal and anecdotal evidence, I've found that the most common factor in pay discrepancy is willingness to negotiate. That is, people who put themselves forward and demand higher pay are more likely to receive it.

I suspect that might be a confounding variable here, where women tend to be less likely to negotiate on pay, and thus tend to receive lower pay.

Salary transparency could help mitigate that.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Well, I did find this letter to the Senators, written by the US Chamber of Commerce (note, not an actual government organization; just a misleading title).

It starts:



So yeah. I mean, I'm by no means an expert in compensation discrimination laws, but it is not inconceivable that this particular one, while well-meaning, was poorly implemented.

Business is complex. You can't just say "Everyone should be paid the same!" Trying to determine whether a pay discrepancy is due to race, sex, or an honest difference in value of work done is hard.

Honestly, a woman who does the same job as her male counterpart as is just as successful as he is deserves the same pay.

 

[Frank the Great]

There is a good argument though that punitive damages shouldn't be available for strict liability employment claims.

 

[Jackson50]

Well, I did find this letter to the Senators, written by the US Chamber of Commerce (note, not an actual government organization; just a misleading title).

It starts:



So yeah. I mean, I'm by no means an expert in compensation discrimination laws, but it is not inconceivable that this particular one, while well-meaning, was poorly implemented.

Business is complex. You can't just say "Everyone should be paid the same!" Trying to determine whether a pay discrepancy is due to race, sex, or an honest difference in value of work done is hard.

Even if it is difficult, pay discrimination exists. And this bill would ameliorate that. Granted, I do not approve of every component of the bill, and I think debating it in the Senate and amending it would be ideal-exactly how our Congress should function. I think Section 7 is extraneous. It is unnecessary to establish a "National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace." And I am not a fan of the alternative employment practices component. But such concerns will not be redressed because debate has been prohibited. That is maddening.

Speaking solely from personal and anecdotal evidence, I've found that the most common factor in pay discrepancy is willingness to negotiate. That is, people who put themselves forward and demand higher pay are more likely to receive it.

I suspect that might be a confounding variable here, where women tend to be less likely to negotiate on pay, and thus tend to receive lower pay.

Salary transparency could help mitigate that.

I think the bill was constructed based on similar presumptions. In addition to salary transparency, Section 5 allows for grants that would establish "negotiation skills training programs for girls and women."

 

[mckmas8808]

What about when the lady gets pregnant?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Even if it is difficult, pay discrimination exists. And this bill would ameliorate that. Granted, I do not approve of every component of the bill, and I think debating it in the Senate and amending it would be ideal-exactly how our Congress should function. I think Section 7 is extraneous. It is unnecessary to establish a "National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace." And I am not a fan of the alternative employment practices component. But such concerns will not be redressed because debate has been prohibited. That is maddening.

I think that is the most frustrating issue of this debacle. Once again the Republicans vote to not even allow debate to go forward, although Democrats once again show they are clueless and don't actually force the Republicans hand by calling their bluff. Make them filibuster. Make them stay there day in day out. They'd break pretty fast IMO but Reid and others are pathetic.

 

[Jackson50]

I think that is the most frustrating issue of this debacle. Once again the Republicans vote to not even allow debate to go forward, although Democrats once again show they are clueless and don't actually force the Republicans hand by calling their bluff. Make them filibuster. Make them stay there day in day out. They'd break pretty fast IMO but Reid and others are pathetic.

Exactly. Obstruction has been a worrisome trend for the past few preceding decades until it exploded this Congress into even obstructing debate. I cannot believe it. To prohibit debate on what is, in the grand consciousness of American politics, a relatively minor issue is unbelievable.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think that is the most frustrating issue of this debacle. Once again the Republicans vote to not even allow debate to go forward, although Democrats once again show they are clueless and don't actually force the Republicans hand by calling their bluff. Make them filibuster. Make them stay there day in day out. They'd break pretty fast IMO but Reid and others are pathetic.

Filibustering isn't what you think it is.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Filibustering isn't what you think it is.

No, I realize that this was before the debate even took place and filibuster is to stop cloture from taking place. Nevertheless Reid and the Dems just lay down. They don't push buttons. They don't call the Repubs out nationally on radio and TV. They don't go to the people and explain to them why this crap happens. They stay silent like little mice and allow the Repubs to form the debate.

 

[Hitokage]

Filibustering these days is done by procedure alone.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Because they don't want Democrats to 'win' on anything. It's still so absurd that they filibuster the debate of bills. In-san-ity.

I don't see this tactic working too much longer for them, considering Republicans actually have a "horse" in the race as far as government goes. With control of the House an a slightly larger piece of the Senate pie they can't just keep shitting on the process without catching more of the heat for Congress' inaction and ineptitude.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I don't see this tactic working too much longer for them, considering Republicans actually have a "horse" in the race as far as government goes. With control of the House an a slightly larger piece of the Senate pie they can't just keep shitting on the process without catching more of the heat for Congress' inaction and ineptitude.

They have 2 years to do this. Why? Because the Democratic leadership (lol) in the Senate doesn't know how to play the game. Then you have Obama who wants to wave a daisy every time the Republicans threaten to stop his policy. You have Reid who allows the Republicans to form the debate and blame game. The Republicans are masterful at it and will continue doing so for the next two years.

 

[JCX]

Sarah Palin Considering running in 2012, says she could beat President Obama
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sara...ident-tells-barbara-walters/story?id=12170631

And here I was worried about him getting re-elected.

 

[QuickSilverD]

Senate Republicans Vote Unanimously Against Bill To Help Guarantee Fair Pay For Women

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/17/paycheck-fairness-act-fail/

Today, Senate Republicans voted unanimously against legislation to close the pay gap between women and men. The Senate voted 58-41 against allowing debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help end discriminatory pay practices against women. It had already passed the House.

Not a single Republican supported the bill, including Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who had previously voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which removed barriers blocking workers from seeking compensation from discriminatory pay practices. At the time, Snowe said, “This new law[] sends a clear message to the American people that this Congress is committed to these core principles and will continue to work in bipartisan fashion to break down the barriers of wage discrimination in our nation.”

Every single study I have seen on this "gender pay gap" thing that actually bother to account for occupation, hours worked, extra hours and personal choices has found that there is no gender pay gap, at least not one because of discrimination, and if you think about it wouldn't make sense either if one could actually pay women less for the same job no one would hire men.

So I, for once, am glad this bad law was killed.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Every single study I have seen on this "gender pay gap" thing that actually bother to account for occupation, hours worked, extra hours and personal choices has found that there is no gender pay gap, at least not one because of discrimination, and if you think about it wouldn't make sense either if one could actually pay women less for the same job no one would hire men.

So I, for once, am glad this bad law was killed.

Care to post some studies? I am sure many here would be interested in reading them.

 

[QuickSilverD]

Care to post some studies? I am sure many here would be interested in reading them.

First understand that the 77 cents to the dollar figure that is often posted prove of the pay gap is an average it doesn't actually compare male to female in the same fields working the same hours and seeing how most billionaires are men that alone would account for some of the gap.

Look here 2 random articles I got after 5 seconds of googling:

http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2010/08/myth-of-gender-pay-gap.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba392

But one of the best argument/studies that I have ever watch is this one by Dr. Warren Farrel at the CATO institute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb_6v-JQ13Q

 

[S1lent]

and if you think about it wouldn't make sense either if one could actually pay women less for the same job no one would hire men.

This assumes rational, market-based self-interest overrides irrational discrimination, which is often not the case. See: segregation of private businesses in the U.S. prior to success of civil rights movement.

 

[Frank the Great]

This assumes rational, market-based self-interest overrides irrational discrimination, which is often not the case. See: segregation of private businesses in the U.S. prior to success of civil rights movement.

No, free market eliminates discrimination, Milton Friedman told me so.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Bryan Fischer: We've 'Feminized' Medal Of Honor By Not Giving It To Soldiers Who Kill More People

Bryan Fischer, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the conservative Christian group the American Family Association, was unhappy yesterday that President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to a soldier for saving lives. This, Fischer wrote on his blog, shows that the Medal of Honor has been "feminized" because "we now award it only for preventing casualties, not for inflicting them."

Thall shall not kill, remember? What kind of a church man are you, anyway? --Vash the Stampede.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Thall shall not murder, remember? What kind of a church man are you, anyway? --Vash the Stampede.

I know its a quote but the Hebrew actually says murder which is different.

 

[RustyNails]

Well if that's the reason why we should give out Medal of Honors, I'm sure the unmanned Drones will be awarded the highest.

No seriously, what do these guys smoke before writing such articles?

 

[PhoenixDark]

That AFA director has so many "what the fuck" quotes over the last 12 months. What a piece of shit. Many MOH winners saved lives while also racking up body counts, which is what this guy did

 

[Mudkips]

Every single study I have seen on this "gender pay gap" thing that actually bother to account for occupation, hours worked, extra hours and personal choices has found that there is no gender pay gap, at least not one because of discrimination, and if you think about it wouldn't make sense either if one could actually pay women less for the same job no one would hire men.

So I, for once, am glad this bad law was killed.

100% correct.
For the same work, women get paid the same as men.

In terms of total compensation, they get MORE than men, because they get better health benefits and leave options due to maternity.

 

[S1lent]

100% correct.
For the same work, women get paid the same as men.

In terms of total compensation, they get MORE than men, because they get better health benefits and leave options due to maternity.

The wage gap is certainly overstated when not controlling for occupation and other "choices" (studies show discrimination exists during the hiring process--especially in certain fields) but it still exists, as even the link he posted, from a conservative think tank, admits (even as it posits the gap as a "myth" in the title--go figure):

June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that among people ages 27 to 33 who have never had a child, women's earnings approach 98 percent of men's. Women who hold positions and have skills and experience similar to those of men face wage disparities of less than 10 percent, and many are within a couple of points.

A broader, more robust, and less biased look at things seems to reveal a wider gap than our conservative think tankers would have you believe:

Even accounting for factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure, reports the GAO, working women today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. This pay gap has persisted for the past two decades, remaining relatively consistent from 1983-2000.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/womenspay.htm

 

[QuickSilverD]

@S1lent the very same study you post gives a good reason for the pay gap, that women in general don't work as many hours weekly as men and take more time off, reducing their chances at getting promotios.

I dont know you, but that doesnt sounds like discrimination to me.

 

[S1lent]

@S1lent the very same study you post gives a good reason for the pay gap, that women in general don't work as many hours weekly as men and take more time off, reducing their chances at getting promotios.

I dont know you, but that doesnt sounds like discrimination to me.

No, the article is saying (in a muddled way) that without controlling for hours worked, the gap is even larger. The 80 cents on the dollar figure mentioned is after those (and other) variables have been controlled for. Here, from the GAO study itself that the article is based upon:

To determine why an earnings difference between men and women may exist, our model controlled for a range of variables, which can be grouped into three variable sets...The third set of independent variables included labor market activity reported in a given survey year. Variables included hours worked in the past year, weeks out of the labor force in the past year, and weeks unemployed in the past year.

We found that before controlling for any variables that may affect earnings, on average, women earned about 44 percent less than men over the time period we studied—1983 to 2000. However, after controlling for the independent variables that we included in our model, we found that this difference was reduced to about 21 percent over this time period. The model results indicated a small but statistically significant decline in the earnings difference over this period.

 

[empty vessel]

Well, the current prices simply reflect the deduction. If you remove it, they drop. But the increased value from the deduction is sustainable as long as you sustain the deduction. The current drops in housing prices have nothing to do with the mortgage deduction but they'll certainly get worse if we eliminate it.

But it's funny. If the deduction increases the value (and hence price) of the house, then homeowners are paying interest to a private bank on that (artificial) increase in price. So you get a tax deduction on the interest you pay, but you pay more interest than you would without the deduction. So instead of that money going to the government, it's going to a private bank.

 

[Jackson50]

No, the article is saying (in a muddled way) that without controlling for hours worked, the gap is even larger. The 80 cents on the dollar figure mentioned is after those (and other) variables have been controlled for. Here, from the GAO study itself that the article is based upon:

That is what I have observed. Even when certain variables are factored, there is an appreciable disparity unattributable to such considerations. This has been observed in the wage disparities for teenagers and young adults. Certain variables could account for the majority of the disparity, but an appreciable disparity unattributable to these variables remain. This may be attributable to discrimination and gender bias.