The Binder is a lie.

UTLonghorn said:
Sure, if we are to take Romney at his word, then good on him for making it an initiative to hire more women for his cabinet.
Click to expand...
And of course that part has been debunked. It wasn't Romney's initiative. In fact, the binders were prepared by the women's groups before he was even elected.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
And of course that part has been debunked. It wasn't Romney's initiative. In fact, the binders were prepared by the women's groups before he was even elected.
Click to expand...

No I realize that, but I was pointing out that even if his claim was true, it doesn't really address the problem that the Lilly Ledbetter Act was intended to fix, or excuse him for his waffling stance on the issue.
 
RandFan said:
None of us want that but IF you are going to do it then...
Click to expand...

Consider how offensive it would have sounded if he'd said it about any minority group. Imagine he were asked about a pay inequity between blacks and the population at large and his answer included the phrase, "if you're going to have blacks in the workforce, they'll sometimes have to be more flexible."

NSFW (contains the N word):
 
UTLonghorn said:
No I realize that, but I was pointing out that even if his claim was true, it doesn't really address the problem that the Lilly Ledbetter Act was intended to fix, or excuse him for his waffling stance on the issue.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's what I said in my first post in this thread. He ignored the question about pay and instead addressed a question that has been settled for decades: women in the workforce.
 
It just seems to me that Romney is trying sugar coat a position that essentially says that women don't need any special legislation or protected status because they are equal now. He does not believe gender discrimination is a significant problem. All you need to do is follow Romney's plans to improve the economy and things will be fine.

However, extending my metaphor, in embellishing he messed up the sugar coating with his binders comment and flexible scheduling.

Instead of making a thoughtful argument for the above position and risk losing women's support he danced around and never dealt with the subject.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
While the Forbes article tries to address the overall pay gap, it doesn't address what you were referring to above in bold. In fact that article specifically refers to men and women taking different jobs/positions based on familial obligations. How then does it relate to men and women "with comperable jobs" having a pay gap?
Click to expand...

If women scale back the hours they work, take time off from work for maternity leave, exit the work force for a period of time, or make other decisions that shift their time towards children and away from work, then they won't advance as much in their careers. Even for the exact same position (and not simply "comparable" jobs), salaries are strongly affected by factors like seniority, or even simply the hours put in. If women choose to give up some of that, and the corresponding salary increase, in exchange for something that they value more, we should neither try to stop them from doing so nor "fix" any salary discrepancy that results.
 
Ziggurat said:
If women scale back the hours they work, take time off from work for maternity leave, exit the work force for a period of time, or make other decisions that shift their time towards children and away from work, then they won't advance as much in their careers. Even for the exact same position (and not simply "comparable" jobs), salaries are strongly affected by factors like seniority, or even simply the hours put in. If women choose to give up some of that, and the corresponding salary increase, in exchange for something that they value more, we should neither try to stop them from doing so nor "fix" any salary discrepancy that results.
Click to expand...

Bingo Sierra.

EVEN when you have none of those factors, women get lower pay and fewer promotions.

I have even heard it expressed that a company didn't want to promote a woman because "she'll only have a baby and we will be in a bad place" - even though the woman was unmarried, and almost 40, and had zero desire to be a mother. At the time I was a contractor and my opinion meant nothing, to I could do nothing about it, but it was disgusting.
 
It just seems to me that Romney is trying sugar coat a position that essentially says that women don't need any special legislation or protected status because they are equal now. He does not believe gender discrimination is a significant problem. All you need to do is follow Romney's plans to improve the economy and things will be fine.

However, extending my metaphor, in embellishing he messed up the sugar coating with his binders comment and flexible scheduling.

Instead of making a thoughtful argument for the above position and risk losing women's support he danced around and never dealt with the subject.
 
seayakin said:
It just seems to me that Romney is trying sugar coat a position that essentially says that women don't need any special legislation or protected status because they are equal now. He does not believe gender discrimination is a significant problem. All you need to do is follow Romney's plans to improve the economy and things will be fine.

However, extending my metaphor, in embellishing he messed up the sugar coating with his binders comment and flexible scheduling.

Instead of making a thoughtful argument for the above position and risk losing women's support he danced around and never dealt with the subject.
Click to expand...
.
Kinda like his tax plans...
http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
 
I Ratant said:
.
Kinda like his tax plans...
http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
Click to expand...
Exactly. But if you think about it, 47% of voters are irresponsible anyway so why should he have to explain anything? Look everyone, it's simply just trust Romney that he cares for everyone and he will work to make sure everyone has a job and you know he can do it because he's a business man.
 
This is about as good a thread as any (as it really doesn't deserve it's own thread) but this is hilarious for a dirty-minded person like me. Yes, it's out of context. Yes, it is unimportant, but it still shouldn't be missed.

Ann Romney talking to Joy Behar on The View:

"You know, again, I would love it if you'd get my husband on the couch, Joy, and you could go down with that all you want."
 
Greatest political protest theatre ever:



I think this could surpass the haircut incident.
 
UTLonghorn said:
No I realize that, but I was pointing out that even if his claim was true, it doesn't really address the problem that the Lilly Ledbetter Act was intended to fix, or excuse him for his waffling stance on the issue.
Click to expand...

His wording was bad on that question and does lead to the belief that he is more in favor of the a woman staying home. But do you believe he is not in favor of equal pay for women? Has anything in his record shown that he is not in favor of equal pay for equal jobs.

What was in the Lilly Ledbetter Act that was not already addressed in laws before? All of my life in the workplace I have known it is against the law to pay different wages for the same job based upon sex. I ask this question in ernest I would like someone to tell me what is in the act and more specifically why werent existing laws good enough.
 
eeyore1954 said:
His wording was bad on that question and does lead to the belief that he is more in favor of the a woman staying home. But do you believe he is not in favor of equal pay for women? Has anything in his record shown that he is not in favor of equal pay for equal jobs.

What was in the Lilly Ledbetter Act that was not already addressed in laws before? All of my life in the workplace I have known it is against the law to pay different wages for the same job based upon sex. I ask this question in ernest I would like someone to tell me what is in the act and more specifically why werent existing laws good enough.
Click to expand...
It closed a loophole based on the statute of limitations. Lilly Ledbetters case was thrown out of court because the limitation was based on when her first paycheck was issued, which meant the time limit had passed before she even discovered what was going on.
 
rdaneel said:
It closed a loophole based on the statute of limitations. Lilly Ledbetters case was thrown out of court because the limitation was based on when her first paycheck was issued, which meant the time limit had passed before she even discovered what was going on.
Click to expand...

Actually that is wrong, and Obama got it wrong in the debate. The reason Ledbetter's claim was disallowed was the limitation was based on when she first discovered the income difference, not when her first paycheck was issued.

In Ledbetter the Supreme Court did not hold that employees who learned of alleged discrimination more than 180 days after the alleged offenses were precluded from suing their employers. That question was not before the Court, and the majority opinion expressly noted (in footnote 10) that it was not answering this question. Ledbetter’s claim was not premised on a recent discovery of past discrimination. In fact, during the course of the litigation Ledbetter acknowledged that she first learned of the alleged discrimination more than 180 days before she filed suit. Indeed, as Hans Bader notes, Ledbetter admitted in a deposition that she learned of the pay disparities in 1992, but did not file suit until 1998.
Click to expand...

Of course, all the fact-checkers continue to get this wrong.
 
Brainster said:
Actually that is wrong, and Obama got it wrong in the debate. The reason Ledbetter's claim was disallowed was the limitation was based on when she first discovered the income difference, not when her first paycheck was issued.

...
Click to expand...

A distinction totally without a difference. It was that she discovered the income difference long, long after the first paycheck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom