2012 Debates

[angrysoba]

Being good enough is not good enough.

Is this from Bill's Bumper Book of Zen Koans?

 

[angrysoba]

Did anyone answer this yet? If so, I apologize for repeating.

The Ledbetter act requires that if a group of people are doing the same job, the women have to be paid as much as the men. I don't know the exact wording or the regulatory or enforcement mechanism for compliance.

The origin is that Lily Ledbetter was doing the same job as several other people, all men, in her company. As is usual in corporate America with salaried employees, salaries are kept secret,and are set by individual agreements between the company and an individual employee. She didn't know that the men were making more than her. When she found out, she sued on the grounds of gender discrimination, but lost. The court ruled that it was not her gender that caused the discrepancy, it was simply that she had not negotiated for or demanded a higher salary.

This pattern is very common. Women in these sorts of roles tend to get paid less than men. The reasons could be very complicated, but I prefer a simpler explanation. They pay women lower salaries because they can. Companies will always pay employees as little as possible. The Ledbetter law does something, I'm not exactly sure what, to ensure that women are paid as much as men who are performing the same task at the same company.

Hi there! Thanks for that.

Actually, Silly Green Monkey gave a synopsis which I should have thanked him/her for earlier.

A popup under the screen said Lily sued Goodyear over nineteen years of being paid less than her male coworkers.

So, thanks to both of you.

Just out of interest, does this fall under the old Grrr-pesky-regulations-making-companies-lose-money thing that a lot of Republicans complain about, as in, "If you allowed us to pay women half what men get we could employ two instead of one man which is why I keep binders full of women. Why are your regulations killing jobs?"

 

[tsig]

both candidates said that government doesn't create jobs. i have to wonder what my ten years in the navy were.

That was an adventure, not a job, at least, that's what the ads say.

 

[Foolmewunz]

On the binders full of women and making sure sweet thang could get home to cook dinner....

The guy's just a yutz! No, really. How do you not hit that question out of the park by just sticking to the facts. It was obviously not one he rehearsed but something that's come up in the past because he had a ready answer, but not a prepared one.

"When I was innaugurated as Governor, I, too, had to fight for equality for women in the workplace - in my own cabinet. When I reviewed the list of candidates for positions there was not a single female... In Massachusetts where we have some of the best educated, best trained and most capable women in the country (and he could hum a few bars of the Bee Gees' Massachusetts for effect). So I threw it back to them and said, "You get out and find me some of the capable women in this state so we have a properly representative and diversified cabinet, galdarn it! And you know, I wound up with the most, according to several surveys, diversified cabinet with more women in it than any other state at that time."

But noooooo.... he's got a "binder full of women" and he knew we had to be flexible so they could get back home to cook dinner??!! He's a yutz. Face it.

 

[R.Mackey]

Actually I think R.Mackey is one of the most intelligent members on the board..... much smarter then I. I just think he is capable of being more objective.

You missed my point because maybe I didn't express it well. Sure, R.Mackey is intelligent. So are you. So am I (ok, ok ....). But intelligence does not remove bias and subjective assessments of the world around us.

Easy, guys. All I meant is that the polling results after the first debate were quite surprising, hysterical really, and reflect factors beyond the debate itself. If you relabelled the candidates as Debater A and Debater B, and scored both debates in isolation, I believe you'd find the score in the first debate was fairly symmetric with the second. However, I don't expect to see the same kind of motion in the polls after the second debate.

"Objectivity" probably isn't quite the right word for what I was getting at.

---

I thought Obama won the debate, but I did not see the "knock-out" answers. As someone else said he "won on points". Romney's biggest problem was that he kept posing questions to Obama -- questions Obama could answer just fine. That was some bad debate preparation. You don't ask your opponent questions. It makes you look solicitous and gives your opponent the control.

Agree 100%. No KO, but that was striking. Also one of the reasons I thought Obama's edge in this one was as substantial as his loss in the first.

 

[R.Mackey]

But noooooo.... he's got a "binder full of women" and he knew we had to be flexible so they could get back home to cook dinner??!! He's a yutz. Face it.

You're obviously in the tank for Obama. A yutz? Are you crazy?

Anyone will tell you he's more of a schlemiel. Or maybe a shyster.

 

[marksman]

Agree 100%. No KO, but that was striking. Also one of the reasons I thought Obama's edge in this one was as substantial as his loss in the first.

The other thing I noticed is that most of Obama's best moments were capitalizing on Romney's mistake -- particularly the unfortunate attempt to ask Obama questions. Almost all of Obama's best moments were responses to Romney. In areas where Romney made no rhetorical mistakes, I find he always draws with or beats Obama. And that really surprises me. Had Romney not made any mistakes in presentation, I think he could have beaten Obama in this debate too. Thankfully for Obama, Romney stumbled and Obama was ready to capitalize on it.

Now I'm sort of interested to see how the third debate goes. There's opportunity there for Romney, and the debate is on foreign policy, where Obama has some serious weaknesses (but so does Romney)

 

[Biscuit]

No. What's the Lily Ledbetter Act and why should he have pointed out that Paul Ryan opposed it?

Remember, you may think me awfully ignorant if you have to explain this but that's what candidates have to remember when they're performing for votes.

Did you watch? All you need to do is listen.

Obama clearly described why they passed the LLA.

the first bill I signed was something called the Lily Ledbetter bill. And it's named after this amazing woman who had been doing the same job as a man for years, found out that she was getting paid less, and the Supreme Court said that she couldn't bring suit because she should have found about it earlier, whereas she had no way of finding out about it. So we fixed that.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82484_Page3.html#ixzz29ZSReopJ

 

[Unabogie]

Did anyone answer this yet? If so, I apologize for repeating.

The Ledbetter act requires that if a group of people are doing the same job, the women have to be paid as much as the men. I don't know the exact wording or the regulatory or enforcement mechanism for compliance.

The origin is that Lily Ledbetter was doing the same job as several other people, all men, in her company. As is usual in corporate America with salaried employees, salaries are kept secret,and are set by individual agreements between the company and an individual employee. She didn't know that the men were making more than her. When she found out, she sued on the grounds of gender discrimination, but lost. The court ruled that it was not her gender that caused the discrepancy, it was simply that she had not negotiated for or demanded a higher salary.

This pattern is very common. Women in these sorts of roles tend to get paid less than men. The reasons could be very complicated, but I prefer a simpler explanation. They pay women lower salaries because they can. Companies will always pay employees as little as possible. The Ledbetter law does something, I'm not exactly sure what, to ensure that women are paid as much as men who are performing the same task at the same company.

I think your answer is slightly off. The court ruled that too much time had elapsed, not that it was simply a failure of her to negotiate better.

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

In 1979, Ledbetter was hired by Goodyear; she retired from Goodyear in 1998 and then sued the company for paying her significantly less than her male counterparts.[2] The lawsuit eventually reached the Supreme Court, which denied her claim because no allegedly discriminatory pay-setting act had occurred within the 180 days provided by the statute of limitations before Ledbetter filed suit, and her prior sworn disposition said that she had first learned of the pay disparity in 1992 but had not sued at that time.[3][4]

So the Fair Pay Act (which Romney and Ryan opposed) fixed this by:

loosen[ing] the timeliness requirements for the filing of a discrimination suit so long as any act of discrimination, including receipt of a paycheck that reflects a past act of discrimination, occurs within the 180 day period of limitations.[2][5]

 

[RandFan]

I guess the image that people will take from the debate is the President's quip about how he didn't look at his pension fund statements because they aren't as large as Romney's. Which I thought was a weak point which made Obama seem weirdly anti-wealth...

I'm really curious, why? I don't get that. I don't see how it follows. For one thing, Obama ain't broke. No where near it.

 

[seayakin]

George Will called it the best presidential debate he ever saw. I'm not sure what the takeaway is on this but it was a bold comment anyway.

 

[Biscuit]

The problem with Obama, so far, is that he hasn't explained how he is going to do things differently the next four years.

Are you suggesting he should change course? Why? His policies are working, the recovery is slow but its a recovery. He needs to do more of the same in my opinion.

He continues to rely on emotional arguments while Romney (at least on the economy) is making logically sound arguments even without specifics.

I don't buy this at all. How specific does one get in a debate? He was criticized for being to fact based in the first debate and now he is too emotional? How's this for emotional,

And that's why the plan that I put forward for manufacturing and education and reducing our deficit in a sensible way, using the savings from ending wars to rebuild America and putting people back to work, making sure that we are controlling our own energy, but not just the energy of today but also the energy of the future — all those things will make a difference.

All I ever hear Romney say is "5 point plan" and "When I was in X city I meet Y person and she said Z about the economy."

Romney seems to be better at getting his reasoning across. Obama says what he's done is good, without giving solid reasons. On the other hand, Romney sucks at social issues and Obama is not taking advantage of that.

How about the fact that the economy is recovering?

Obama hit hard on the social issues last night. From planned parenthood, to contraceptives, to LLA.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I like how Romney tells the truth about oil drilling on federal land -- that anyone can verify as being true -- and our president repeatedly calls Romney a liar. I guess that is what you would call "winning".

I like how Obama tried to win the second debate by basically copying Romney's style and technique. I guess that is what you would call "being a leader".

 

[Unabogie]

I like how Romney tells the truth about oil drilling on federal land -- that anyone can verify as being true -- and our president repeatedly calls Romney a liar. I guess that is what you would call "winning".

I like how Obama tried to win the second debate by basically copying Romney's style and technique. I guess that is what you would call "being a leader".

That's because Romney was cherry picking, which is a dishonest thing to do. Saying drilling is down "on federal land" when drilling is actually up overall, and using that to try and say that the lack of drilling is driving up prices, is lying.

Do you not understand that simple point? If you are a religious person and I point out how you never go to church on Mondays as if that proves you never go to church, you'd likely call me a liar.

 

[Biscuit]

Now I'm sort of interested to see how the third debate goes. There's opportunity there for Romney, and the debate is on foreign policy, where Obama has some serious weaknesses (but so does Romney)

His only weakness was on the Lybia attack. Last night he put that to bed with out a bed time story.

So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn't happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I've said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president. That's not what I do as commander in chief.

 

[Tricky]

I like how Romney tells the truth about oil drilling on federal land -- that anyone can verify as being true -- and our president repeatedly calls Romney a liar. I guess that is what you would call "winning".

Romney was quoting numbers without context. Obama showed the context. I had a post about this earlier, and Obama is correct. We haven't cut back drilling on federal land. We've cut back the number of leases on federal land because many of them were not being drilled or even had drilling plans.

And I challenge you to find one instance where either candidate used the word "liar".

 

[PhreePhly]

I like how Romney tells the truth about oil drilling on federal land -- that anyone can verify as being true -- and our president repeatedly calls Romney a liar. I guess that is what you would call "winning".

I like how Obama tried to win the second debate by basically copying Romney's style and technique. I guess that is what you would call "being a leader".

Wrong as usual. Tricky answered this earlier in this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8697495&postcount=1427

The oil companies have been playing games with leases, doing the bare minimum to keep them, but not drilling until the price of oil makes it worth it. This administration has decided to stop that game and basically told them to start drilling or lose the lease. The best part is that the Fed can then lease the land out to another company (at a higher rate, bringing more revenue) with conditions that include requiring drilling.

 

[BenBurch]

On the drilling thing; it's like saying unemployment in the public sector is WAY UP. Sure it is, but it was supposed to be, and the private sector is doing fine.

 

[MaverickPLM]

I'm really curious, why? I don't get that. I don't see how it follows. For one thing, Obama ain't broke. No where near it.

I think there seems to be too much analysis going into a pithy one-liner given in response to a red herring that Romney felt needed to be insistently repeated directly to Obama. (Not directed at anyone here, just a general observation.)

 

[marksman]

I'm really curious, why? I don't get that. I don't see how it follows. For one thing, Obama ain't broke. No where near it.

As I said, it's a matter of perception. Here's the exchange from the ABC News Transcript...

ROMNEY: Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?

OBAMA: You know, I -- I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours so it doesn't take as long.

ROMNEY: Well, let me give you some advice.

OBAMA: I don't check it that often.

ROMNEY: Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension. You also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments outside the United States. You also have investments through a Cayman's trust.

First off, the statement "I don't look at my pension" came off as out of touch. Who doesn't look at his pension? That's his retirement. I am telling you that I don't care how small your pension is, you look at it, because that's your retirement. If you don't look at it, it's because you're so rich you don't worry about it. So he stumbled off the bat.

Then he went for the laugh with "It's not as big as yours so it doesn't take as long." And then he tried to cover-up the first sentence with "I don't check it that often," which, imo, weakened the joke.

And the joke is basically making run of Romney for being rich. It's not even saying he's out of touch for being rich, or anything else. Just that Romney is very wealthy. I think he was going for a "Romney doesn't understand folks like you or me -- I'm like you, audience, I have a small pension that doesn't take as long to review as Romney's" but to me it just came off as a "Heh. He's rich!" And Romney's response, while not funny, sort of hit Obama for not knowing about his own pension funds and the nature of his investments. It didn't get a laugh, but I think it did undermine Obama's attack on Romney's questionable investments.

I didn't think it was Obama's best moment, but it did get one of the biggest audience reactions.