Romney a Lock - You Can Put it On the Board YESSSS!!

Well, that's only true if you believe policies that preserve middle-class jobs are better for the middle class than are policies that keep rich people's taxes low. What a crazy thought.

 

Well, if you believe a "rising tide lifts all boats", then the bigger concern is fixing the economy as a whole, and not shoveling cash to interest/minority groups in the interest of "short-term" relief and votes from said groups.

As for the actual jobs act, there are a ton of reasons to be against it. The cost might not be worth the benefit. They might think the bill will just perpetuate a problem, and not fix it. They might not think it's the Federal Government's roll to spend money in this fashion.

But, none of the objections have to do with wishing evil on women, and African-Americans.

And, if the only solution the President and the Democrat Party has is to spend money, then they are lacking in ideas. That's not the Republican Party's fault.

 

DemOcrat Party!

 

Why? The factors I described were in relation to entry level jobs, straight out of school.

Do you not think there are additional factors that go into the salary of more experienced workers?

Men are more likely to ask for, and negotiate raises. They are more likely to switch jobs, change careers, and move to a new city in pursuit of a higher salary, and are likely to more aggressively negotiate their salary each time.

Because women are the primary givers of child care in our society, men are more able to work later hours, and travel for business, which can result in higher salaries.

For the same reason, a woman might find a job that she is comfortable in, and where she is able to juggle work and child care, and not pursue better compensated opportunities.

Because women often take time off from their career to raise children, two people in the same job, at approximately the same age, might have a difference in the years of experience they have under their belt.

How does legislation "correct" for these factors?

 

We've learned the hard way over the last 30 years -- certainly dating back to the lack of a middle-class recovery from the Bush Recession of '87 -- that a rising tide does NOT lift all boats. Supply side economics does not work for anything other than making the rich richer.

 

Dem crat Party!

 

I didn't say the GOP *wants* to inflict damage on blacks and women. I'm saying that they *have* inflicted damage on blacks and women, either by pursuing policies that disproportionately aid the rich and corporations or by blocking policies that are geared toward middle- and low-income Americans, who, shockingly, are more often blacks and women.

The aid to states portion of the AJA addressed a major drag on the American economy. And even if the GOP opposed the legislation as a whole, it came up separately and was blocked by Republicans.

Whether they want to hurt certain classes of people is a moot point. The fact is, they have.

 

So, then the squeaky wheel gets the grease?

On another thread, folks were bitching about the outsized influence the Cuban community in South Florida wields. It is resented by many. The same thing goes for the "Israel lobby".

But, direct spending to benefit specific minority groups is ok? How should that work? How do we decide where to spend? Who deserves "help" more?

Whenever we help one group, we are essentially hurting another. When the government picks winners, it also picks losers.

 

And the GOP just happens to pick as winners the guys with millions in the bank and hundreds of thousands coming in every year.

 

I'm not arguing in favor of that.

 

Then you are out of step with the current GOP.

 

Maybe my point wasn't clear earlier...but I don't think anyone is calling for direct spending on certain minority groups. It's just disingenuous for Republicans to say Obama's policies have been bad for women (and minorities) when some of his policies would have had very real benefits for sectors of employment that are more highly populated with women and minorities.