I'm proud to have two female relatives both of whom have successfully worked for Bain Capital, the company Mitt Romney founded, for over 10 years - and who continue to receive pay equal with their male counterparts.
President Obama pays his female staffers 18% less than their male counterparts. Real numbers here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128513/Women-paid-significantly-Obama-White-House-male-counterparts.html
But Obama is a champion of equal pay for women, and Mitt Romney keeps women in binders. Could the Obama campaign possibly be trying to distract women from the reality of his failed policies and the drop in women's quality of life these have directly caused? Is apathy among women the real goal of Obama?
It astounds me that the Obama campaign believes women are more gullible than men.
A female sent me this video with the following message:
Please watch this 5 minute video. Share it with every woman you can. Email it to everyone you know (even the men).
You can watch it on YouTube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2pHszcC4JE
Or you can download the original file here:
YouSendIt File Delivery (Attention Women Voters.wmv)
Don't let the corporate-controlled media distract us from what matters. Now is the time to defeat all apathy and think for ourselves.
Together we can make things better!
It's a good video, worth the quick watch.
And Anita Dunn called his administration "Hostile to Women." The latest? He throws Hillary Clinton under the bus for Benghzai. Amazing that he claims irresponsibility for killing Bin Laden (though it was the Navy Seals) and yet when he fails to provide "security" for Ambassadors because he doesn't want to hurt Islamist feelings. Oh yes, those Islamist's who shot the eye out of a 14 year old girl who spoke out for her right to go to school. Yet Obama cowers and shakes their hands and gives them money - those who are MOST evil to women. In a few short hours following the the attack - Obama was informed it WAS a terrorist attack - he then sends Hillary and Rice to say it was a mob attack caused by a home video. When finally, even Jake Tapper remembers he is a journalist and is forced to report that it was a cover up - Obama says, "Wasn't me!" And throws Hillary under the bus. Let's not forget, that during Obama's forum for women on April 6th, he was also entertaining the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House - this is an organization of men who hate and oppress women, and he also gave the Muslim Brotherhood 1.5 million dollars.
Men working in the Obama White House last year made an average of $71,000 a year, 18 percent more than women who averaged $60,000 a year. Of the 21 staffers earning the top income of $172,200 annually, only seven were women. At the bottom of the rung, 51 staffers earned the lowest salary of $42,000 – 30 were women. Democrats meanwhile defended that pay inequity and say the gender pay gap in the White House is smaller than in the overall economy. But as a Senator, Obama also paid women just 83 cents for every dollar a man earned, or $54,400 for men, $45,150 for women. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128513/Women-paid-significantly-Obama-White-House-male-counterparts.html http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/17/obama-equal-pay-for-thee-but-not-for-me/ http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/18/hudson-obama-pandering-to-women-falls-short/
This was a non issue until it was brought up during the last debate, and quite frankly it's just not a relevant topic. There is already plenty of legislation on the books concerning equal rights and each year the gender pay gap has gotten smaller. At this point it is just a matter of time in terms of eliminating any remaining percentage and is not something that can be legislated away. The reality is that this is just another distraction from the real issues, like the trillions in debt that have accumulated due to the wars, for which both parties are responsible.
Have a great day!
Have a great night.
Given that a Republican Administration initiated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a Democratic Administration has continued them, how exactly are you pinning that spending solely on Democrats? Both parties in Congress voted for the Appropriations in Congress each year, to the tune of billions of dollars. It's atrocious ! Bush and Obama spent money we cannot afford and NEITHER candidate has demonstrated they are willing to buck this trend. In fact Romney wants to increase our yearly military spending. It seems completely incongruous to claim to be for limited government and endorse that level of spending. Your attempt to capitalize on the "gender pay gap" discussion at the debate is entirely typical of election cycle politics. Take something that was not an issue until someone asks a non-pertinent question, then make every effort to spin it into a "win". It's disingenuous and counter productive and neither side should be engaging in this type of behavior.
Did the truth hurt your candidate among likely undecided female voters? We shall find out. Likeability polls currently have both candidates neck and neck. Capitalize on gender pay gap - Team Obama's idea. I simply prefer to deal with real vetted facts. So now you're refuting your earlier point that war spending is the fault of Bush, Obama, and both parties, brush aside the recent record-shattering non-military Dem-party-only debt spending - and pin it on Romney for seeking peace through a stronger military? You'd be great at Whack-A-Mole the way you jump from topic to topic so quickly. Keep on spinnin', TJ.
have a great day!
http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/21/the-white-house-boys-club-president-obama-has-a-woman-problem/
Let's talk facts: During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008. Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $15.5 trillion by February 2012 So the last two presidents have each contributed 5 trillion in debt. Both parties are culpable, believing that one party is going to reduce the debt is asinine, unless you have a short attention span and prefer OH LOOK GENDER PAY GAP. Whoops, looks like your ploy worked, I got sidetracked on a totally non-relevant issue there. Hey here's a vetted fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the actual gap is 5%, isn't that interesting? Oh, but they are a liberal conspiracy factory! Right?!?! Since both candidates don't seem like great choices, I am on the fence about where to cast my vote. When you say "your candidate", I guess you meant Romney, because I was considering him. I would definitely like to support smaller government, but the Democrats certainly aren't going to deliver that, but apparently neither are the Republicans with huge increases in military spending planned.
Labor and Statistics - great. I'm glad the overarching differential between pay for women vs pay for men is now down to 5% among all employers. Perhaps Obama could shoot for that inside his own small staff. Currently it's at 18%, which is the topic of this blog. Confucius say: May who straddle fence have sore perineum.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011 Pay is determined by position, time at the job, and responsibility levels, those are federally mandated criteria. When you group by position (that sort option is available via that link), there is really no difference in pay between men and women. Any differences do exist can be attributed to the other factors mentioned. The 18% number comes from taking the median, which in this case is being used disingenuously and does not really tell the story. Want to talk facts? The facts are right there, but they are being bent to try and score a zinger against the opposition. It is typical partisan politics and a distraction from the more prevalent issues, one of which I brought up. The reason this opinion piece was written was to attempt to score quick points against Obama, because you disagree with his policies. We would be better served by discussing more relevant issues or pertinent examples of fact checking.
Do you have a similar filterable graph from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics to shore up your previous zinger? By the way I did click your link and found no way to filter tenure and responsibility levels, simply title. And when I sort by title, females with the same title are usually earning less than males. Also Obama's gender differential is noticed outside White House walls, and Dee Dee Myers- the first female press secretary in the Clinton administration- feels it is not doing Team Obama any favors. 'Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,' Dee Dee Myers told The New York Times.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf So wow, it's pretty fascinating that you sorted by title and noticed that "usually" women are earning less than men. What was your formula? Hmm, let's take the ANALYST position, well we have 14 people listed here, regardless of sex they are all making the same income, except for one woman who is making 20k more. How about RECORDS MANAGEMENT ANALYST, we have two women in the mid 40k range, another making 73k, one guy making 56k, oh here's one dude at 62k, and one a woman at 60k. Well, these numbers are all over the board! I guess in 25 minutes you had time to run a full statistical analysis! OR you realized that your opinion piece is based off some crap article that has skewed stats. Also it is pretty hilarious that a staunch conservative has to resort to Dee Dee Myers to try and bolster his erroneous point. When the facts aren't on your side, go with a vague quote. Keep tryin little buddy!
Of Obama's 20 top earners, each paid $172,200 in 2011, six were women, one of whom is Valerie Jarrett, a close personal friend since Chicago. The median salary for women in the White House is $60,000 which is 18 per cent less than their male peers whose median salary was $71,000. Using your filter, TJ, females with identical titles to males (assuming the job descriptions that go with the titles are also identical as it goes in all businesses), are paid less. And there are fewer females than males. I find that hypocritical of the President. Probably a few females other than Dee Dee feel the same. "Mitt Romney still won't say whether he'd stand up for equal pay, but he did tell us he has 'binders full of women," Obama tweeted. Statistics don't tell the whole story. Obama has incurred persistent criticism that women in his White House for the most part are kept out of the inner circle. The same woman who was one of Mr. Obama's debate coaches, Anita Dunn, complained that the White House when she worked there would have been in court for being a "hostile workplace" for women." In late 2009, women in the White House felt so marginalized that Obama held a dinner to let the senior female aides voice their complaints directly to him. Nice.
In fact, it even specifies that using median salary to examine gender pay gap is an example of a data point that will not produce an accurate picture. Therefore, it is not possible to take a median salary comparison and draw conclusions. Also you cannot assume that because there are fewer females to males, that holds any meaning. There is no data about who applied for a particular job, how qualified they are, etc. All this adds up to prove that you cannot statistically show there is discrimination based off the information available. As you correctly admit, the statistics don't tell the whole story. Thanks for proving yourself wrong! Just curious, did you catch the Washington Times article where Ms. Dunn says she was misquoted concerning the "hostile workplace" comment? Probably not. Oh Jack, maybe next time you will do a little research before you spew out a bunch of ridiculous assertions based on poor statistical analysis.
Deflect. Blame others. Attempt to distract women voters from the real issues with "binders" and BS. Is Obama a beast to work for if you're female? Who cares. Suggest you and anyone else reading this scroll way-way back to the top and watch the video which is the truth, and started this "dialogue." The path we're on—the status-quo path—is a path that doesn't offer women an answer to how to get the economy going, that doesn't know about how to get the private sector to start creating jobs for women or how to build women's take-home pay. The path we're on does not have new answers. The president has the same old answers as in the past — he wants another stimulus, he wants more government workers, and he wants to raise taxes. There is no prospect whatsoever that that path will help our economy grow and put women to work and raise take-home pay. President Thomas Jefferson person, you have yet to offer anything close to a coherent historical fact-based rebuke to that statement. You represent Obama's core voter base. Your deflections bore me. Here you go, have the last word.