|
04 Jan 13 - 09:12 AM (#3461200) Subject: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce This thread is to give a lace for the accomplishments of the present democratic administration. "White House War on Women Escalates White House fails to represent women in latest Flickr photo Flickr BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff January 3, 2013 12:37 pm The White House's Flickr account recently released a photo of President Barack Obama and his top advisers. The complete absence of women in the image is another reminder that females are underrepresented in Obama's staff. Additionally, the president still pays his female employees significantly less than their male counterparts. The Obama White House in 2011 paid female staffers 18 percent less than their male colleagues: According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000). The Obama reelection campaign, though better, was also a bastion of inequality: The Obama reelection campaign's female employees earned an average of $6,872 during that period, compared with an average of $7,235 for male employees. That is a difference of $363, or 5.3 percent. The annualized pay difference is more than $2,100 per year. It is unclear when Obama and the Democrats will call off the war on women. " |
|
04 Jan 13 - 09:37 AM (#3461207) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Wesley S We men waste more money than women. So that sounds about right. And isn't $2,100 about the cost of a good assault rifle? |
|
04 Jan 13 - 09:43 AM (#3461210) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: MarkS Don't forget Joe Bidens greeting to the new Democratic female Senators. "Spread your legs, you're going to be frisked." |
|
04 Jan 13 - 10:34 AM (#3461226) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Greg F. The Free Beacon, Beardie? Another TeaPublican propaganda mill only slightly less reliable than Fox "News"[sic]? Congratulations! I wouldn't have thought it possible, but You've exceeded yourself in posting this latest pile of shit. |
|
04 Jan 13 - 10:38 AM (#3461228) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Ebbie I bb is being facetious. |
|
04 Jan 13 - 10:50 AM (#3461233) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Midchuck And isn't $2,100 about the cost of a good assault rifle? No way of knowing. The term, "assault rifle," denotes a weapon with selective full auto/semi auto capability. Such weapons are not (legally) sold to the general public. Did you mean a semi-auto only weapon designed to imitate an assault rifle? In that case, I have a 2010 Ruger catalog, which priced their new SR-556 at $1,995.00. Assuming some inflation since then, you're quite close. P. |
|
04 Jan 13 - 11:28 AM (#3461254) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Wesley S And then there's sales tax...... |
|
04 Jan 13 - 12:26 PM (#3461277) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Greg F. I [think]bb is being facetious. Not on your life, Ebbie. He believes & stands behind every word. |
|
04 Jan 13 - 12:58 PM (#3461293) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Ebbie It did occur to me, Greg F, that bb doesn't have a long history of levity. :) |
|
04 Jan 13 - 01:27 PM (#3461298) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,999 "That may present more of a problem, as the President's platform clearly values equal pay, as Mr Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act only nine days into his term. The current administration's gender differential is certainly not the first, as former President Bill Clinton only had four women among his 17 top paid employees. The downward trend continued with President George W. Bush, who only had 35 women among his top 122 workers. Unlike in previous years, Mr Obama may be held to a greater degree of accountability on the issue now as both parties paint the other as waging a war against women." BBruce has a point. The above snip is from the following article. A fuller picture presented here. |
|
04 Jan 13 - 01:27 PM (#3461299) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce And GregF HAS a long history of harassment and racist lies. |
|
04 Jan 13 - 01:31 PM (#3461300) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Greg F. Hi, Beardie. Take your meds like a good boy. |
|
04 Jan 13 - 09:23 PM (#3461520) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: McGrath of Harlow If you haven't got a majority in your legislature, you can't really call that 'being in power'. There's a Democrat as President, true enough, but that's not quite the same thing. |
|
05 Jan 13 - 10:32 AM (#3461696) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Greg F. If you haven't got a majority in your legislature, you can't really call that 'being in power'. BB can and does and apparently, with the rest of the deluded TeaPublicans, believes lt - unless he's simply lying like Fox "News"[sic]. |
|
07 Jan 13 - 08:21 AM (#3462571) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce So, McGrath, you think the pPresident does not dontrol the people on his own staff????? You are being more foolish than GregF, and that takes a lot. |
|
07 Jan 13 - 08:31 AM (#3462575) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Jack the Sailor I think Bruce is simply taking the creationist approach to debate. Filter for any opinion that supports your own and present it as evidence. Obviously there is a difference between the accomplishments of an administration and its hiring policy. Any fool with his eyes open can see that. |
|
07 Jan 13 - 09:05 AM (#3462588) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Greg F. Apparently any fool save at lease one, Jack. |
|
07 Jan 13 - 09:09 AM (#3462589) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert Dems in power??? Supreme Court??? Republican House of Representatives??? Republican Senate??? With over 300 filibusters in the last 4 years, you might as well say Republican... White House??? Moderate Democrat with Nixon Republican leanings... Tell me again just how much power the Dems have... B~ |
|
07 Jan 13 - 09:16 AM (#3462593) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce Other than 999, I note only attacks on ME, and NO comments about the facts. Seems typical of the present bigots on Mudcat. "The White House's Flickr account recently released a photo of President Barack Obama and his top advisers. The complete absence of women in the image is another reminder that females are underrepresented in Obama's staff. Additionally, the president still pays his female employees significantly less than their male counterparts. The Obama White House in 2011 paid female staffers 18 percent less than their male colleagues: According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000). The Obama reelection campaign, though better, was also a bastion of inequality: The Obama reelection campaign's female employees earned an average of $6,872 during that period, compared with an average of $7,235 for male employees. That is a difference of $363, or 5.3 percent. The annualized pay difference is more than $2,100 per year." |
|
07 Jan 13 - 09:25 AM (#3462601) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert I just laid the ***facts*** out there, bb... Fact is that the Dems are not in power... If they were then we wouldn't be having a conversation on whether or not the US should be paying it's bills with most of them being racked up from 2000 to 2008 when Bush was president... And we's have a gun control bill passed... And we'd have single payer health care... And, and, and... Nope... Even Helen Keller can clearly see that the party that has the ability to gum up the workings of the government has the power... And it ain't the Dems... B~ |
|
07 Jan 13 - 09:46 AM (#3462613) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce Fact is that when the Dems DO get some power, they fail to live up to their promises- EVEN WHEN THEY CAN. AS MY FACTS POINT OUT, if you bother to read the OP. So, you now claim that the DEMS were responsible for all the action of the Bush administration, since THEY were the ones who had the ability to gum up the works?? Or do you continue to insist on one set of rules for those you like, and a different set for those you disagree with? THAT is what I call "bigotry" |
|
07 Jan 13 - 09:59 AM (#3462621) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert The Dems haven't truly had that power for a long, long time, bb... With the anti-undemocratic Senate rules it takes a "super majority" of 60 votes to get anything done... They really haven't had that at all... Ben Nelson and Joe Leiberman aren't Democrats... They are obstructionists... Joe Leiberman supported John McCain in 2008... Ben Nelson had to be given $Bs to get him to vote for the Affordable Care Act... Nope... No in-power Dems since the early 90s... B~ |
|
07 Jan 13 - 10:36 AM (#3462640) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Jack the Sailor Where is the campaign promise that the staff would be half women? Can you send me a link to the speech? Even sillier, where is the promise that when all of the salaries are added up and divided by the number of people they would average out to the same number for men and women. Equality is equal pay for equal work. You want everyone to be paid the same no matter what their job is? What are you? A communist. Did you know that the top two diplomatic posts in the country are presently held by women? OR DO THE "FACTS" you got from an opinion piece on a "right" wing propaganda website not point that out? No one except Greg is attacking you directly. We are questioning your ideas and your sources of ideas as worthless and silly. |
|
07 Jan 13 - 10:52 AM (#3462648) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce "Where is the campaign promise that the staff would be half women? Can you send me a link to the speech? Even sillier, where is the promise that when all of the salaries are added up and divided by the number of people they would average out to the same number for men and women. Equality is equal pay for equal work. You want everyone to be paid the same no matter what their job is? What are you? A communist. " Yet when criticising the conservatives, none of this is taken into account- YET you want it used here, when looking at liberals? Sounds like a double standard. AS I SAID. The sources of my ideas are facts- what are the sources of YOUR "worthless and silly" comments? |
|
07 Jan 13 - 11:36 AM (#3462669) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Dems in power- Results??? Hey this is a simple fact..while the Republicans and Democrats APPEAR to be divided, and all this divisive bickering goes back and forth, the policies are pretty much the same. The wars..nobody in the rest of the world is differentiating between Republican drones and Democrat drones..or invasions, or military presence..THEY are ALL American..and they just keep coming. The rationalizations are only nagged at over here. Taxes, regulations, unemployment and corporate 'favors', BOTH sides. Corruption?..Both sides. Intrusion of privacy?.. Both sides. Loss of our freedoms?..Both sides. Corporations using the 'government' to enforce their agendas?..Both sides. Disintegration of a representative government?..Both sides! Banksters changing our monetary system?..Both sides. The rest are small potatoes....but as long as we AMERICANS bicker back and forth, we are all distracted from actually DOING something about it!!! Now what was the issue? GfS |
|
07 Jan 13 - 11:39 AM (#3462671) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore Toll alert. |
|
07 Jan 13 - 11:42 AM (#3462674) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore Ugh. Sorry Bruce. Meant troll alert. |
|
07 Jan 13 - 12:15 PM (#3462689) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce It would be reasonable to read the OP before making comments... So far, everyone seems ok with the Dems acting just like they complained about the Reps acting. |
|
07 Jan 13 - 12:21 PM (#3462695) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Jack the Sailor "Yet when criticising the conservatives, none of this is taken into account- YET you want it used here, when looking at liberals?" I haven't said any of those things. Why don't you bring up the specific criticisms you are responding to? Maybe we could have a real conversation. But I can think of nothing sillier than you cherry picking bullshit articles to counter arguments made by people other than us and that we are probably not aware of. Would you please acknowledge that there is a difference between accomplishments in setting public policy and staffing and office. Please show us all that you are not as dumb as the people you quote. |
|
07 Jan 13 - 12:47 PM (#3462708) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Jack the Sailor: "But I can think of nothing sillier than you cherry picking bullshit articles to counter arguments made by people other than us and that we are probably not aware of. Would you please acknowledge that there is a difference between accomplishments in setting public policy and staffing and office. Please show us all that you are not as dumb as the people you quote. " I reiterate: "Hey this is a simple fact..while the Republicans and Democrats APPEAR to be divided, and all this divisive bickering goes back and forth, the policies are pretty much the same. The wars..nobody in the rest of the world is differentiating between Republican drones and Democrat drones..or invasions, or military presence..THEY are ALL American..and they just keep coming. The rationalizations are only nagged at over here. Taxes, regulations, unemployment and corporate 'favors', BOTH sides. Corruption?..Both sides. Intrusion of privacy?.. Both sides. Loss of our freedoms?..Both sides. Corporations using the 'government' to enforce their agendas?..Both sides. Disintegration of a representative government?..Both sides! Banksters changing our monetary system?..Both sides. The rest are small potatoes....but as long as we AMERICANS bicker back and forth, we are all distracted from actually DOING something about it!!! GfS |
|
07 Jan 13 - 12:59 PM (#3462715) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert Here we go again with the GfinS "Both Sides Shuffle" which is the cornerstone or Republican PR talking points... Yup, that mythology is "bought and paid" for by the RNC... Huh??? Yup. if you believe that propaganda than it gives the Republican Party cover for not only bad and rude behavior but also cover piss poor policy positions that the rich and greedy want put into law... B~ |
|
07 Jan 13 - 03:11 PM (#3462772) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert..Oh, Bobert...how can that be a Republican talking point??...to be told that Democrats are acting the same as Republicans????? I don't think so! ONLY the two parties THINK they are acting different..or in reality, see themselves as being 'different' from each other. Do you think that people in the Mideast like Democratic bullets, more or less than Republican bullets??..or do they think of it as AMERICAN bullets??? ...something that the 'two different'(?) parties just can't come to grips with. When Bush wanted to go to Afghanistan, the Democrats screamed bloody murder....UNTIL Obama thought it was a 'good strategy', too...then the Democrats started defending the decision just like the Republicans did for Bush. It's all smoke and mirrors. GfS |
|
07 Jan 13 - 05:17 PM (#3462838) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert Of course it's a talking point, GfinS... Face it, the Republican Party and its follower have been very bad... They yelled "Hang him" in regards to Obama at Sarah Palin rallies... One of them yelled "You lie" at Obama during a State of the Union Address... One yelled "Hell no, we won't" in Congress... These are rude and disrespectful and not the kinds of things that you'd want your kids to hear... That's the smell test here... There are no such things being said on the Dem side... BTW, the "Hang him" calls bring back a century when black people were lynched for trumped up bullshit offenses so this bad behavior on the part of your party, GfinS, is as bad as it gets... So for the RNC's PR people the challenge is how to get away with vulgar and boorish behavior while continuing ti to keep its rabid right wackos happy with doses of red meat rudeness and so the answer... .... "The Both Sides Shuffle" that you love to play... And in the words of the late Walter Cronkite, "And that's the way it is..." B~ |
|
07 Jan 13 - 05:26 PM (#3462842) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "One of them yelled "You lie" at Obama during a State of the Union Address..." Other than being rude...was he saying something not true?? Of course he was lying..don't they all?....Find me a politician that doesn't lie....and I'LL even try what you're smoking! Now does the fact the guy yelled that, do that make you think they think that they are different?..When in fact, they aren't! GfS |
|
07 Jan 13 - 05:40 PM (#3462848) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert George Bush lied about Iraq trying to get nuclear material in a State of the Union Address... Remember the "17 words"??? There were lots Democrats in attendance who very much did not believe that assertion but there were none yelling "You lie"... Guess better next time, GfinS... B~ |
|
07 Jan 13 - 06:24 PM (#3462870) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Yes, as I said, it was rude...but nonetheless true! Surely you aren't going to go out on a rather thin limb, and say Republicans lie, but Democrats don't! From all indications, they are all lying sacks of shit! GfS |
|
07 Jan 13 - 06:31 PM (#3462875) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert Actually, it wasn't true... B~ |
|
07 Jan 13 - 06:48 PM (#3462881) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity What wasn't true?..that the guy yelled that out, or Obama was lying? GfS |
|
07 Jan 13 - 06:57 PM (#3462886) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Jack the Sailor Bobert, May I please point out that it is much easier to ignore GfS if you do not reply to him. I had to stop myself from replying to his bait at the last second. |
|
07 Jan 13 - 07:02 PM (#3462890) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert Not to worry, JtS... GfinS are buddies... BTW, GfinS... Wilson lied when he yelled "You lie" which makes him (Wilson) both a liar and ill-behaved... B~ |
|
07 Jan 13 - 07:20 PM (#3462899) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I take it then you don't believe Obama has lied?? Oceans haven't receded 3 inches, in his first term, as he promised during his first election. ..and if you believe THAT nonsense, then I'm sure trying to talk sense into you at this point is a lost cause! Come on Bobert!..Surely you can't be taking the position that ANY of these guys running for high office are getting there by being honest! have you EVER met ANYONE who believes that????? these guys are doing whatever the banksters tell them to do, and will use any lie to keep the electorate stupid! "You can fool some of the people some of the time..."etc etc --Lincoln over a hundred years ago...has anything ever changed? GfS |
|
07 Jan 13 - 07:29 PM (#3462908) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert That is not the issue here, GfinS... As an example of the kinds of bad behavior by the Republicans I picked the "You lie" shout during the State of the Union Address... That was wrong... It was bad behavior... You can't change that, can you??? That is the point here... When you ***proclaim*** incorrectly that both sides are engaging in bad behavior and I provide a list of them *and* state that the Democrats have not resorted to such bad behavior you are... ...wrong... Guess better next time... This isn't about whether or not Obama has ever lied... It's about one side engaging in bad behavior, not both, as you and yer bud, LH, say... B~ |
|
07 Jan 13 - 10:38 PM (#3462976) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Jack the Sailor Behavior against the rules of the House. |
|
08 Jan 13 - 02:17 AM (#3462989) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "It's about one side engaging in bad behavior, not both, as you and yer bud, LH, say..." Let's try it again.... "Dems in power- Results??? Hey this is a simple fact..while the Republicans and Democrats APPEAR to be divided, and all this divisive bickering goes back and forth, the policies are pretty much the same. The wars..nobody in the rest of the world is differentiating between Republican drones and Democrat drones..or invasions, or military presence..THEY are ALL American..and they just keep coming. The rationalizations are only nagged at over here. Taxes, regulations, unemployment and corporate 'favors', BOTH sides. Corruption?..Both sides. Intrusion of privacy?.. Both sides. Loss of our freedoms?..Both sides. Corporations using the 'government' to enforce their agendas?..Both sides. Disintegration of a representative government?..Both sides! Banksters changing our monetary system?..Both sides. The rest are small potatoes....but as long as we AMERICANS bicker back and forth, we are all distracted from actually DOING something about it!!! Now what was the issue?" GfS |
|
08 Jan 13 - 08:08 AM (#3463080) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert Dems are not in power, GfinS... The Repubs own the Supreme Court The Repubs own the House of Representatives Because of the filibuster, the Repubs can easily gum up the Senate... So the way I see it, the Repubs have at least as much power as the Dems without counting the Supreme Clowns and when you factor the clowns in they have more power than Dems... B~ |
|
08 Jan 13 - 08:18 AM (#3463083) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST |
|
08 Jan 13 - 08:32 AM (#3463093) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "Because of the filibuster, the Repubs can easily gum up the Senate..." The Senate is already 'gummed up'..(actually fucked up) because of Reid and corruption....and don't pretend you don't know that! the Supreme Court Republican???..How did Obamacare get through then? "The Repubs own the House of Representatives"....only because of the backlash from Obamacare getting rammed through Congress, by backroom deals and Congress not reading it first. (Remember Pelosi's famous pre-vote speech??...("Let's pass this bill so we can all see what's in it?") Look Bobert, the whole thing is fucked up from top down. This is not a Republican verses Democrat conflict. the country is sorely divided, because of the agendas who pay off whomever they want. I don't know if you know this, you can 'Google' it, but the 'Democratic' Senate just passed a Sandy relief 'package' just passed...TWO THIRDS OF IT IS PORK!...and probably will NOT pass the House, because of it. I believe they are only going to approve 9 billion, or about 1/3...and then it goes back to the Senate. How much more evidence do you need, before your eyes are opened??? 2/3 Pork???????!!!!..in a time of fiscal crisis???...all due to corruption??? Katrina revisited!!!.. Same crap, different shitters! (or so it seems!). GfS |
|
08 Jan 13 - 08:41 AM (#3463099) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce SO, BOBERT, YOU claim that the staffing in the White House is result of the REPUBLICAN control of the government????? What are you smoking????????? |
|
08 Jan 13 - 09:00 AM (#3463110) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Hey Bruce..'High'!! He must be smoking a LOT of it!..Drinking it, too!..but then that's Bobert..from 'Green Party' to Democrat shill...He was better off as a Green...BTW, why were you a Green?? Perhaps because the other two parties were full of shit??? You were right the first time!!! GfS |
|
08 Jan 13 - 05:34 PM (#3463315) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert Obama ain't got much in the way of power, bb... Anything he wants Congress to do can be stopped for no reason by any one of the Senate Republicans with a "hold"... As for the Green Party??? Once we get the radical Tea Party wackos under control I'll jump back to it but not until... B~ |
|
08 Jan 13 - 10:19 PM (#3463426) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "As for the Green Party??? Once we get the radical Tea Party wackos under control I'll jump back to it but not until..." I hereby nominate Bobert O'Bobert as head of the newly formed 'Green Tea Party!' May the cream be with you! GfS |
|
08 Jan 13 - 10:35 PM (#3463431) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert There was a time when I was a social worker that I could make a call to a magistrate and have anyone detained in the Richmond, Va.... Them days are long gone... Just what am I gonna do with you, GfinS??? But realistically, it the current Tea Party voters - not the millionaires they have put in Congress - had a clue to just how they are collectively voted against their own interests then I'd dare suggest that rather than be "Limbaugh-ed" into a stupor that they would vote Green Party... BTW, I don't know if I ever told this story but in 2000 I was working as a precinct captain for Nader and was driving around in my 1966 Corvair Corsa with a "Nader/2000" sticker on the rear bumper... For those of you who don't know the significance of this Ralph Nder once published a book entitled "Unsafe at Any Speed" about the dangers of the Corvair... Never mind... B~ |
|
08 Jan 13 - 10:49 PM (#3463434) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "BTW, I don't know if I ever told this story but in 2000 I was working as a precinct captain for Nader and was driving around in my 1966 Corvair Corsa with a "Nader/2000" sticker on the rear bumper..." I'm proud of you Bobert...at least you once had the balls and integrity to point out the irony of it all! BTW, Did Nader ever try to accommodate you with a safer car..I mean, you WERE working for him.... GfS |
|
09 Jan 13 - 12:22 AM (#3463447) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: artbrooks "Median salary" of males and females is a meaningless comparison, unless there is an exactly equal distribution of jobs and experience levels. One can reasonably compare four males and four females, if there are two lawyers, one accountant and one clerk in each group. If the female group has four lawyers and the male group four clerks (or vice versa), than their median salaries will be different. Duh. |
|
09 Jan 13 - 08:32 AM (#3463534) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce Art, Yet that point is NOT brought out when the Dems make legislation about "Equal Pay"- the figures they use to justify their legislation are NEVER quantified in such a way as to allow the determination of different job responsibilities. Again, the use of a double standard, which I feel to be bigotry. What YOU are saying is that women in the main, in spite of a few highly visible "examples", do not get the high paying positions in the Obama administration. Right? |
|
09 Jan 13 - 08:52 AM (#3463541) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce Bobert, Can you think about your bigotry NOW??? (now that it is in a source you agree with already?) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/us/politics/under-obama-a-skew-toward-male-appointees.html?_r=2& The skew was widespread: male appointees under Mr. Obama outnumbered female appointees at 11 of the 15 federal departments, for instance. In some cases, the skew was also deep. At the Departments of Justice, Defense, Veterans Affairs and Energy, male appointees outnumbered female appointees by about two to one. "We're not only getting better than previous administrations, but we also want to get better ourselves as well," Nancy D. Hogan, assistant to the president and director of presidential personnel, said in response to the Times analysis. "The president puts a premium on making his team representative of the American people." The White House itself employs almost exactly the same number of men and women, and administration officials said they hoped to even out the ratio across the government and help ensure that future Democratic administrations have a diverse and deep bench of candidates for high-level jobs. But Mr. Obama's recent nominations raised concern that women were being underrepresented at the highest level of government and would be passed over for top positions." |
|
09 Jan 13 - 08:57 AM (#3463544) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce Point one- women are paid less than men "The Obama White House in 2011 paid female staffers 18 percent less than their male colleagues: According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000). " Point two- There are comparable numbers of women and men employed "The White House itself employs almost exactly the same number of men and women, and administration officials said they hoped to even out the ratio across the government and help ensure that future Democratic administrations have a diverse and deep bench of candidates for high-level jobs. " CONCLUSION- Women have lower level jobs than men, on the average. |
|
09 Jan 13 - 09:10 AM (#3463551) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: artbrooks What I am saying is that the figures cited are meaningless, and I am not interested in getting into any discussion about who is or is not biased or bigoted. Any kind of median data must be adjusted, unless all items in the data sample are identical. In this case, at the least, information on specific jobs and experience levels must be provided for it to be useful at all, and even then it would be subject to interpretation. Otherwise, one is comparing the pay levels of managers and clerks and saying that they are unfair based upon gender alone...kinda like saying that an engineer who chooses to live in the woods gets paid less than a Wall Street executive based solely on the fact that the former has an ugly beard and the latter is clean shaven. This article from Politifact addresses the issue. |
|
09 Jan 13 - 09:26 AM (#3463560) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert bb, If bigotry means not wanting stupid people making policy decisions on what is best for America then... ...count me in!!! B~ |
|
09 Jan 13 - 09:39 AM (#3463566) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce No, bigotry i using one set of rules to evaluate what YOU want to believe, and a different set of rules for what you dislike. Now the the NYT has brought it up, care to comment on the Obama administration NOT living up to the standards it set for itself, in its' own practices that it alone controls? |
|
09 Jan 13 - 09:44 AM (#3463571) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: artbrooks From the article cited: Interviews with current and former members of the administration, both men and women, suggested that there was no single reason for the gender discrepancy in administration appointments, and several repeatedly spoke of the administration's internal commitment to diversity and gender equity. But several said that the "pipeline" of candidates appeared to be one problem. They said it seemed that more men than women were put forward or put their names forward for jobs. In part, that might be a result of the persistence of historical discrepancies: men have traditionally dominated government fields like finance, security and defense. The Obama administration has helped reverse that trend by putting women in top policy-making jobs in traditionally male-dominated fields, officials said. "It makes a huge difference when you have women who are leaders," said Celeste A. Wallander, who was a deputy assistant defense secretary until July. "They tend to have networks of excellent women they can call on." |
|
09 Jan 13 - 11:37 AM (#3463604) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity So, I guess it's up to figuring out WHO is in power, the Democrats or Republicans.....one group you can safely rule out, though, is 'We the People'!!!!!!!!!!!!! GfS |
|
09 Jan 13 - 06:54 PM (#3463760) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Jack the Sailor The part in BB's article which said that The Bush Administration was 33% female appointees While Obama's and Clinton's were 43% KICKS BB's argument in the balls. |
|
10 Jan 13 - 12:37 AM (#3463851) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Sure Clinton hired 'em..he even had a fat ugly intern that...oh, never mind.......he didn't discriminate...Hilary was screwing the same ones! GfS |
|
10 Jan 13 - 08:24 AM (#3463906) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce JtS, MY argument is that the present administration has NOT lived up to its' stated standards- Bush is not president anymore- get over it and deal with the problems of the present administration instead of just saying "It's better now, so we should not make any complaints." |
|
10 Jan 13 - 10:06 AM (#3463947) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce "Ryan asks if Obama will meet deadline to submit a budget request this year By Erik Wasson - 01/09/13 05:22 PM ET House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday asked the White House if it will once again miss the legal deadline for submitting an annual budget to Congress. Under the law, Obama must submit a budget by the first Monday in February, but he has met the deadline only once. The annual budget submission is supposed to start a congressional budgeting process, but that has also broken down. The Senate last passed a budget resolution in 2009. "Given the critical importance of addressing our nation's fiscal problems, I am writing to ask whether the President will submit his budget request this year on or before February 4 as required by law," Ryan wrote in a letter to Acting Budget Director Jeff Zients. "If the Administration does not plan to meet the statutory deadline, when do you anticipate the request being made?" Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/276397-ryan-asks-white-house-if-it-will-miss-budget-deadline-again#ixzz2HaLyGKSt" |
|
10 Jan 13 - 11:09 AM (#3463972) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: artbrooks Submitted on time in Feb. 2011 and 2012. I didn't bother to go back further. |
|
10 Jan 13 - 12:15 PM (#3464012) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce Care to give s reference for that? I would like to see the details. |
|
10 Jan 13 - 12:34 PM (#3464025) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce Wrong, Art. "Under the law, Obama must submit a budget by the first Monday in February, but he has met the deadline only once." 2012- feBrUary 14, 2011. DUE 6 February http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2012-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD-1.pdf 2011 - Feb 1, 2010 The only one on time 2010 - Feb 26, 2009 DUE 2 February BUSH 2009 - Feb 4 2008 2008 - Feb 5,2007 2007 - Feb 6,2006 2006 - Feb 7,2005 2005 - Feb 2,2004 see http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=BUDGET&browsePath=Fiscal+Year+2006&isCollapsed=true&leafLevelBrowse=false&isDocumentResults=true&ycord=0 |
|
10 Jan 13 - 12:42 PM (#3464030) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,999 And then there's Congress. |
|
10 Jan 13 - 01:17 PM (#3464051) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce "Charlie Rangel hits Obama on diversity By KEVIN CIRILLI | 1/10/13 11:18 AM EST Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) on Thursday called it "embarrassing as hell" that President Barack Obama is facing charges that his White House lacks diversity. "It's embarrassing as hell. We've been through all of this with [2012 GOP presidential nominee] Mitt Romney. And we were very hard with Mitt Romney with the women binder and a variety of things," Rangel said on MSNBC. "And I kind of think there's no excuse with the second term." The Obama administration has been criticized recently for not having enough diversity with its Cabinet appointees after The New York Times ran a photo of Obama meeting with senior advisers in the Oval Office, the vast majority of them white men. The White House responded by releasing its own photo, which showed a much more diverse crowd of Obama's top advisers. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/charlie-rangel-hits-obama-on-diversity-86005.html#ixzz2Hb7vOmpm" |
|
10 Jan 13 - 01:26 PM (#3464053) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: artbrooks Yes, you are absolutely right. He was a week late in both 2011 (2/14) and 2012 (2/13). Grounds for impeachment, certainly. |
|
10 Jan 13 - 01:41 PM (#3464059) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce "Under the law, Obama must submit a budget by the first Monday in February, but he has met the deadline only once. The annual budget submission is supposed to start a congressional budgeting process, but that has also broken down. The Senate last passed a budget resolution in 2009. " And even Bobert will have a hard time saying this is the Republican's fault. This is just a further example of the Obama Administration not meeting its' own standards, or the law. Yet that is fine with most here. So when the next Republican administration fails to meet your desires, you have no room to even speak up. |
|
10 Jan 13 - 01:57 PM (#3464065) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST The Republicans won't be back in power in executive or legislative branches after 2014 for at least 18 years. |
|
10 Jan 13 - 01:59 PM (#3464069) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,999 Last post was me. |
|
10 Jan 13 - 03:04 PM (#3464107) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: pdq Nothing ever changes... White House officials have said that Obama will sign the budget despite the pork it contains. President Obama to sign budget despite earmarks breaking campaign pledge By The Associated Press Monday, March 2, 2009, 11:12 AM WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will break a campaign pledge against congressional earmarks and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers' pet projects, administration officials said. Administration budget chief Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel both downplayed the $410 billion spending bill and signaled Obama would hold his nose and sign it. Orszag said: "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward." Said Emanuel: "That's last year's business." The House last week passed the measure that would keep the government running through Sept. 30, when the federal budget year ends. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion. Either way, it is far more than Obama promised as a candidate. He refused earmarks for the economic stimulus package he championed and a children's health bill. He similarly pledged to reject tailored budget requests that let lawmakers send money to their home states. Orszag said Obama would move ahead and overlook the time-tested tradition that lets officials divert millions at a time to pet projects. "We want to make sure that earmarks are reduced and they're also transparent. We're going to work with the Congress on a set of reforms to achieve those," said Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Obama's top hands assigned responsibility to their predecessors and President George W. Bush. Blaming Bush-era proposals for deficits, Obama wanted to set up his own budget that would start Oct. 1, which he proposed last week with a bold goal of cutting the deficit by half within his four-year term. "First, this is a $1.7 trillion deficit he inherited. Let's be clear about that. We inherited this deficit and we inherited $4 trillion of new debt," Emanuel said. "That is the facts." Facts, aides said, would be the cornerstone of the administration's public relations push. Officials faced a tough haul, even as Orszag and others said the proposal would raise taxes on wealthy Americans and increase energy costs. Emanuel said energy costs are too low, anyway. U.S. car companies relied too long on gas-guzzling autos and failed to invest in alternative energy vehicles, he said. The time for new auto fuels is now, he contended. "They never invested in both alternative energy cars. They got dependent on big gas guzzlers. ...They have a health care cost structure that's outdated," Emanuel said, repeating the administration's premise that health costs must come under control or else risk breaking all other pieces of the budget. Republicans were not persuaded. Rep. Eric Cantor, the GOP's No. 2 in the House, said Obama was failing on his promises. "Listen, I mean, the president was elected by the people of this country to institute change in Washington and to finally demand a federal government that is accountable to the people," he said. "The fact that there are 9,000 earmarks in this bill and the fact that the vetting process just doesn't take place the way it should, we ought to stand up and draw the line right now and stop the waste." {Orszag and Cantor appeared on ABC's "This Week." Emanuel spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation."} |
|
10 Jan 13 - 03:10 PM (#3464112) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,999 That's three years old. |
|
10 Jan 13 - 03:34 PM (#3464123) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: pdq No, it's four years old. But, "thanks to a consistent fiscal policy, we haven't had to change a single word". |
|
10 Jan 13 - 03:43 PM (#3464128) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,999 LOL |
|
11 Jan 13 - 02:28 AM (#3464396) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity GUEST,999: "The Republicans won't be back in power in executive or legislative branches after 2014 for at least 18 years." Ya' think???? I was thinkin' that there won't be another 18 years..at all!...at least for anything recognizable as America......... ......the way things are going. GfS |
|
14 Jan 13 - 02:35 PM (#3466033) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: beardedbruce White House tells Paul Ryan it won't meet budget deadline By Erik Wasson - 01/14/13 12:06 PM ET The White House has informed House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that it will miss the legal deadline for sending a budget to Congress. Acting Budget Director Jeff Zients told Ryan (R-Wis.) late Friday that the budget will not be delivered by Feb. 4, as required by law, a House aide said. "Late Friday evening, Deputy Director Zients confirmed that for the fourth time in five years, the president's budget will not be submitted in compliance with the law," the aide said. "Zients did not indicate how late the administration will delay its submission, simply noting 'We will submit it to Congress as soon as possible,' " the aide said. Ryan last Wednesday had asked the White House in a letter if it would miss the deadline. Under the law, Obama must submit a budget by the first Monday in February, but he has met the deadline only once. The annual budget submission is supposed to start a congressional budgeting process, but that has also broken down. The Senate last passed a budget resolution in 2009. Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/276969-obama-budget-delayed-again-white-house-tells-paul-ryan#ixzz2HypZIgsH |
|
14 Jan 13 - 04:10 PM (#3466075) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity "Me and Loretta, we don't talk much more She sits and stares through the back door screen And all the news just repeats itself Like some forgotten dream that we've both seen"---John Prine GfS |
|
14 Jan 13 - 04:17 PM (#3466079) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Little Hawk Results? The same old nonsense as under Bush and all the rest of them as far as I can see. Needless foreign wars and fiscal irresponsibility at home and the same old partisan refusal to get sensible about resolving any of it. The only real difference I notice is that most of the people on Mudcat Cafe don't object to it nearly as much now as they did when Bush was in office, because there's a Democrat in office now, and they feel they should support a Democrat...specially considering they likely voted for him. Thus does the phony 2-party divide suffice to get the tepid consent of about half the American public at any given time...and that's all that is necessary to keep the same old imperial nonsense rolling on and on. (Just terrify them with the possibility that the hated OTHER party might get back into office, and they'll consent to go along with just about anything.) It works exactly that way when the Republicans win too. Only the other way around. The protestors come from the other half of the public in that case, manipulated in just the same manner, but from the opposite set of fears. They're terrified that the Democrats might get into office. Pretty neat way of controlling a country, and it works every time. |
|
14 Jan 13 - 04:20 PM (#3466082) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert The Repubs will hold the House until at least 2020 because they have done a masterful job of gerrymandering... They'll continue to lose Senate seat and don't have a chance in Hell of taking the White House... B~ |
|
14 Jan 13 - 04:51 PM (#3466101) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity ....All Right!!..the next group of pigs at the trough....your turn!! GfS |
|
14 Jan 13 - 06:43 PM (#3466152) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore Saved Big Bird. |
|
14 Jan 13 - 11:19 PM (#3466275) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Even the Big Birds, can fly down into the pig-pen for a quick nibble! GfS |
|
15 Jan 13 - 08:22 PM (#3466734) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore Taking away everybody's guns. First ones whose guns will be taken are those who bought guns at gun shows since the Newtown disaster. |
|
15 Jan 13 - 08:27 PM (#3466735) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore Sandy's victims finally got approval for aid by the house of representatives. |
|
15 Jan 13 - 09:58 PM (#3466766) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Yeah...and they even managed to get a fair amount of pork in it! GfS |
|
16 Jan 13 - 11:07 AM (#3467010) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore Oink. |
|
16 Jan 13 - 07:03 PM (#3467258) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore People who used to think Joe Biden was a clown are starting to understand what a great guy and a competent administrator he really is. |
|
16 Jan 13 - 07:04 PM (#3467260) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore The NRA is on the defense. |
|
16 Jan 13 - 07:58 PM (#3467299) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore The Republicans have been reduced to a scattered , cofused regional party. |
|
16 Jan 13 - 08:05 PM (#3467307) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert I never thought of Biden as a clown... He's always been a regular guy... So regular that he rode a train into DC from his home in Delaware when the Senate was in session and he'd talk with anyone and everyone on the train... No, that's what happens when you are a good guy... Republicans will always attack your strengths... They learned it from Karl Rove... B~ |
|
16 Jan 13 - 08:09 PM (#3467310) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore ER. Cofused? Too many cocktails? How about confused? |
|
16 Jan 13 - 10:37 PM (#3467373) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore Bobert.Clown, the word I used above with regard to Biden was a mistake. I've never thought he was anything but a serious, good-hearted guy, although he occasionally makes a gaffe. Who doesn't? I'm just glad that people are starting to understand that he's an important part of the administration. |
|
16 Jan 13 - 10:42 PM (#3467376) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert So why call me Bobert "Clown", Elmore??? Where exactly is the "clown" in anything I post... I mean, I have about 30,000 posts here and would be more than willing to respond to any of them that you think are "clown-ish"... B~ |
|
16 Jan 13 - 10:46 PM (#3467378) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,999 Bobert, it was Elmore's typing. What he said is Bobert. [note the period] He went on to say "Clown, the word I used above with regard to Biden was a mistake." Put yer glasses on. |
|
16 Jan 13 - 10:53 PM (#3467382) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,999 Put another way: Bobert, the word clown I used with regard to Biden . . . |
|
16 Jan 13 - 10:55 PM (#3467384) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert I broke 'um... Yup, I was takin' a nap today and put them in my slipper (yeah, slipper... The P-Vine makes me wear them in the house 'cause it supposed to keep things clean???) and stepped on my glasses... But, ahhhhh, for anyone who has seen one of my shows then I can see it... I do clown around on stage... I got one of them red rubber clown noses somewhere... Not like I ever wore it... Okay, I tried it on but that's all... B~ |
|
16 Jan 13 - 11:14 PM (#3467387) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Jeri Uhhh... Nah, never mind. |
|
16 Jan 13 - 11:24 PM (#3467393) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore Bobert: I read and enjoy your posts. As the people just above this post have kindly pointed out, I can't type for shit. |
|
16 Jan 13 - 11:31 PM (#3467395) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,999 Oh, yes you can, Elmore :-) |
|
17 Jan 13 - 12:00 AM (#3467401) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore Right. |
|
17 Jan 13 - 12:02 AM (#3467403) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,999 LOL I love people who have a sense of humour. |
|
17 Jan 13 - 03:52 AM (#3467444) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity ..and grow weary of those who don't!! GfS |
|
17 Jan 13 - 09:45 AM (#3467542) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Bobert Okay, Elmore... You are back on my virtual Christmas card list... B;~) |
|
17 Jan 13 - 12:56 PM (#3467640) Subject: RE: BS: Dems in power- Results From: Elmore Thanks, Bobert. I'm pretty sure we agree on nearly all the issues discussed here. |