Thursday, October 23, 2008
Economists' Policy Group for Women's Issues
Jesus Christ, it's 2008! Why haven't we made more progress? See this grade report on McCain and Obama. I absolutely do not understand why BOTH candidates, actually, do not have more As. But McCain and Palin's views here really top everything. They truly disgust me. Even our goddamn president voted for the VAWA. WTF???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Do they disclose their formula for calculating the grades? I think Obama's policies will be worse for all concerned, especially those who depend on employers to have the cash to employ them (e.g. low-income women). More taxes=less money to employ people, and the first to go will be the low-income employees. Reproductive rights, well, even if R. v. W. is overturned (which is unlikely regardless who wins), that would not make abortion illegal. It would leave it up to the states to decide. I don't doubt there is a pay discrepancy between men and women ON AVERAGE, simply because women get pregnant, men do not. I think it is unreasonable to expect that comparison of AVERAGE measurements of income, etc. between men and women (apples and oranges) would yield equal results. A more useful measure would be a measure of OPPORTUNITY. THAT, I think should be equal for all and should be the metric used.
-CG
If "more taxes=less money to employ people" then why did our unemployment rate skyrocket under Bush "tax cuts"? Also: "I don't doubt there is a pay discrepancy between men and women ON AVERAGE, simply because women get pregnant, men do not." WTF? That's the whole point! Someone who gets pregnant should not get less pay than someone who doesn't get pregnant. It's called "paid maternity/paternity leave", and compared to many European countries, U.S. parental leave is quite meager. If we're gonna go with that whole hackneyed mentality of "strong families make a strong America" that many of you conservative types spew out, then why would we pay women less for being mothers (or people less for being parents)?
You should get your own blog!
unemployment is at 4% I think. where did it skyrocket from? There are other factors that come in to play, and I bet the bush tax cuts prevented it from 'skyrocketing' further. I don't see how the gov't taking more money from employers can result in more jobs.
But don't you think a woman that isn't pregnant is more valuable to an employer than one that is? I'm not saying that they are less valuable to society (I think they are more so). to look at it differently, shoudln't women who choose to forgo pregnancy to focus on their career reap some reward (better job/pay) for the sacrifice they make?
Post a Comment