Democrat Hypocrisy on Full Display…Another Non-Issue by the Left

Just because there is hypocracy involved doesn't make it a "bogus issue".

In fact the hypocracy involved only serves to highlight the importance of the problem.

Each party carries its own brand of hypocracy, take for instance the constant clamoring of the right against "The Gay agenda" and then being caught in same sex escapades.

Shame on both sides I say.

reply to post by SourGrapes


Sorry, I neither have the time nor the inclination to do your homework for you.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


This is blatantly false.

I can't do a proper ATS link from my iPad but read this:
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...

"Government Jobs Buoyed Bush’s Economy And Sunk Obama’s"

It even has a chart so you don't have to read.

My post may be out of place since it addresses the actual topic.

Typical govt attitude attempting to make us (the people who elected them and who they represent!) follow laws that they don't have to. This case it is Democrats but there are plenty of examples to go around for both parties. Case in point:

Women's equal pay (as demonstrated in this post and has been pointed out in numerous threads that the Obama
Admin. pays women almost 20% less)
Social Security (they have their own plan)
Obamacare (again they have their own plan)
Paying Taxes! (govt employees owe BILLIONS in delinquent taxes)
Green Energy (we are supposed to cut back on driving and buy overpriced hybrid junk cars while they fly across the country weekly)

reply to post by seabag


The repubs in the U.S. have cornered the market on hypocrisy and the right is less concerned with personal liberties and small government and more concerned with what and who one puts into (and what's taken out of) their bodies as well as keeping the wealth where they feel it belongs... which is with them (or the greedy families that have duped them into thinking they have a chance at the same wealth) and to heck with those unfortunate enough to have their bootstraps break.

If everyone adopted this mindset we would be in even worse shape than we are and the only real solution that comes to mind is for both sides to hold their nose and work together to get the money out of elections and Congress and perhaps mount some lobbyist's heads around the senate gallery.

Left, right... both have lost all meaning except wrong... though the ruling class likes this bickering. At least THEY aren't stupid... just corrupt and dispicable.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Oh it's not?

Didn't things start going downhill before Obama took office?

I don't expect you to acknowledge that.

I'll start by saying that Obama isn't "great and wonderful", but, at the same time, he's not "that bad" either. He's no comparison to Clinton, who actually gave us the best economy and growth we have ever seen, but he's also no comparison to bush, whose mess we are still cleaning up. The angry people who originally supported bush are angry that there wasn't an immediate change, but it takes time to clean up major messes.
In my opinion, George W Bush is the absolute worst thing that has happened to this country in the past 200 years. I'm not alone in this, he had the lowest approval rating of any president in history. I believe it was 22%, it may have been lower, but that's the number that's sticking in my head at the moment. That means that only about 1 in 5 Americans actually approved of the job he was doing. They counter with "oh, but he also had the highest" , sorry, but that only makes it worse. Of course that occured right after 9/11, the worst tragedy to ever hit our soil and people were wrapped up in emotion.
IF we hadn't been in the horrendous shape we were in, Obama's success would be much more clear. He's not great, wonderful and perfect, not by any means, but he's above average and in fact, has done a great deal of cleanup. Job growth didn't turn on its heels overnight and those who hate him either due to politics or prejudice are going to use that to try to make it seem as horrible as possible. However, if we look at facts, there has been job growth, job growth in proportion to the job loss that occured under Bush.
There are tons of statistics out there and of course, with any statistic, they are twisted and distorted by both sides. However, there are basics that are clearly seen regardless of any twisting and turning. This is short, sweet and to the point:
sierravoices.com...

You can't get much more symmetric than that. Just as the problem didn't happen overnight, it can't be fixed overnight, but it is improving and we are on the upswing, regardless of what political shills from either side want to say.
Obama is not the great and powerful Oz, or even the great and powerful Clinton, but he is doing his job and he's improving at the same rate that Bush destroyed.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

Just to point out, Obama is no friend to the auto industry or manufacturing industry.

He's looking out for unions.

Not the aspect that hiresand actually creates jobs.

Not neccesarily defending Obama because I frankly don't like him that much, he's just better than the alternative...but...
I prefer that the leaders look out for the people more than they look out for the corporations. At the same time, the corporations do need some attention in order to keep employing the people, but they shouldn't be making grand profits and paying their CEO's extravagant amounts while laying off the workers. That's how companies used to go out of business in the "good old days".

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

Just to point out, Obama is no friend to the auto industry or manufacturing industry.

He's looking out for unions.

Not the aspect that hiresand actually creates jobs.

Not neccesarily defending Obama because I frankly don't like him that much, he's just better than the alternative...but...
I prefer that the leaders look out for the people more than they look out for the corporations. At the same time, the corporations do need some attention in order to keep employing the people, but they shouldn't be making grand profits and paying their CEO's extravagant amounts while laying off the workers. That's how companies used to go out of business in the "good old days".

I'd prefer a president that took a hands off approach to business altogether.

Nothing good comes from the intervetion of government.

Nothing good ever comes from the intervetion (sic) of government

reply to post by beezzer


Yeah, nothing good ever comes from govt... well, except roads, infrastructure, education, public safety, public health, defense, economic assistance, fine cheese... but besides that, nothing good EVER came from govt! (paraphrased from "Life of Brian").

The neat-o thing about the U.S. and it's concept of self goverment is that it was an attempt at ... well, self governing... meaning some inbred psychopath wasn't necessarily destined to rule through birth (until the Bushes, that is... though one may recall the Adams family, too).

The populace of the last few decades have been served a "choice" of candidates by the very people who have corrupted this representitive republic for their own interests at the expense of all others.

Our candidates should be drafted into public service from a pool of individuals chosen by their immediate peers and with the stipulation that the congressman or senator must not want to serve and then have their campaigns funded by a modest public stipend and then the winners would be pushed grumbling and cursing into the capitol.

Problem solved... until the system gets reinfested with greed and cronyism. Stupid humans.

After reading the OP link, I found the stats do not necessarily point to hypocrisy over "equal pay for equal work". Rather, one could make a case for saying that employers are placing more males than females in higher paying positions.

No wonder Republican Olympia Snowe has had it with congress...it wasn't always this way...

In 1983, a federal judge had ruled in favor of a group of women who said they had been paid less than men for work of equal worth. The judge based his ruling on a study that indicated that traditionally female jobs, such as secretaries, and traditionally male jobs, such as truck drivers, each produced the same ''worth" of work product, but the secretaries were paid less.

Three Republican congresswomen at the time -- Olympia Snowe of Maine, Claudine Schneider of Rhode Island, and Nancy Johnson of Connecticut -- wrote to the White House, urging the Reagan administration not to suppport the company's appeal of the judge's ruling.

source

If you believe in the betterment of women, then you should oppose regulatory attempts to increase their wages because in doing so you will hurt them.

Forcibly increasing the wages of woman guarantees an increase in the unemployment of woman.

The question is, why do woman earn less in the first place? It's because they cost more to employ. They can fall pregnant and statistically they become ill more often than men. They offer less of a return on investment.

So why would an employer ever invest in female staff? Because they earn less. So if you take that away from them, they lose the edge, they lose the job entirely.

The best thing we can do for woman is to deregulate labour laws. Allow woman to freely take on individual worker's contracts to give her the edge over male counterparts. Empower women by allowing her to sign contracts that ensure her not falling pregnant, and/or taking less sick leave then what a man may be offering. Only then will she earn the same as a man and have a job.

reply to post by Baddogma


And everything you cited brings with it redundant beurocracy, bloated costs, graft, micro-management, and inefficiency.

I have an MBA/MSF - whatever that probably doesn’t mean anything to the people here on ATS, but still it serves as some sort of credentials. In my studies, particularly Human Resource Management/Development, I came to the conclusion that women pose a greater risk to employers than men do. Before anyone gets carried away about that comment that’s be logical. Women are more physiologically advanced than men; i.e. higher maintenance. They cost more compared to men, they are more likely to take leaves of absence, mainly due to pregnancy; this is incredibly costly for employers, especially because of the lost productivity and painstaking process of finding a reliable temporary replacement. Also a good percentage of women on maternity leave do not come back. Therefore, one could presume they are less demanded in the work force and in-turn are offered lowered wages/salary, of course this is a generalization and not true for all cases. In my experience, the stigma has been women sometimes have a hard time preventing emotions from inhibiting decision making and critical thinking. This is both true and false, to each’s own I like to say – hell I’ve met many men that are far more emotional than any woman. Like I said before these are generalizations and food for thought more or less, I would rather have a woman as a boss/supervisor than a man simply because they have more patience and usually have an easier time seeing the big picture, and also because men tend to think waist down and women waist up. Let’s face it -I’m thinking about tits and ass right now! This situation is the same reason we have laws, a few bad experiences ruin everything for everyone.