There's an old joke that goes something like this: my neighbor went to public schools before joining the military. He went to college on the G.I. Bill, bought his first home through the FHA, received his health care through the V.A. and Medicare, and now receives Social Security. He's a conservative because he wants to get the government off his back.
I thought about this joke about a week ago, when the Obama campaign unveiled an interesting online feature called "The Life of Julia," featuring a woman at 12 different stages of her life -- ages 3 to 67 -- and "how President Obama's policies help one woman over her lifetime -- and how Mitt Romney would change her story."
The point of the project is fairly obvious: throughout a woman's life, Obama has an agenda that provides protections and benefits that offer opportunities, while Romney has an agenda that does largely the opposite. Head Start programs help "Julia" at age 3; college aid benefits her at 17; the Affordable Care Act covers her at age 22; the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act protects her at 23, Medicare covers her at 65, etc.
The right is not at all fond of "Julia's" story. As Joan McCarter noted yesterday, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called the online feature "creepy" and an extension of a "government-centered society." Ross Douthat is thinking along similar lines.
Jon Chait makes the case that conservatives seem to be missing the point.
Obviously, the feature is about government programs because it's about politics. If Obama's website decided to publish a novella about a character whose only interactions were with Head Start and the Affordable Care Act, it would certainly be creepy. But its purpose is to illustrate how public policy affects a person. That, rather than Douthat's imagined paternalism, explains why Julia's life story is missing friends, a husband, and so on.
"The Life of Julia" also portrays government in a positive way because this is its contrast with Romney, who has tied himself to a sweeping anti-government agenda. It's not an embrace of unlimited government, it's an attack on the extremely truncated vision of government proposed by the Republicans. [...]
And this is the policy contrast of the election. It's not Obama's government-centric society against Romney's market-centric society. It's Obama keeping something resembling the status quo intact -- a relatively small government that partially offsets some of the worst imperfections of the market - against the Republican plan to rewrite the social compact.
Reading through the "Life of Julia" slideshow, it's hard to imagine the American mainstream finding anything "creepy." It doesn't show a model in which the government controls anyone's life; it shows public institutions that offer everyone opportunities to succeed.
The next question should be to press Ryan and Douthat on what, exactly, they find "creepy" about the specific measures within the feature. Is Head Start scary government intervention? How about student loans? Is health care coverage for young adults (backed by 85% of the country) considered excessive? How about Medicare? Is access to affordable contraception and equal-pay laws offensive? How about small-business loans?
The right finds "The Life of Julia" to be an extension of a socialistic worldview. Fine. Then let's have a debate about which of the public benefits conservatives intend to destroy, present that to the electorate, and see whether voters agree.
Incidentally, Judith Grey reports that Republicans have been seething about the Obama campaign's feature, but women seem to like it quite a bit.
Leave a Comment:
Personally, I find Ayn Rand "creepy".
Personally, I find the republican't party "creepy".
Roget that.
maybe she can go through another phase--
Having been to public school, where she was taught by incompetent union protected teachers to misspell, her nanny government paid for remedial education, so she can spell those complicated words (like "roger that"). This enabled her to compete with the people who really learned.
I have never waded into the mess before; I have never before posted, though the temptation has been overwhelming. I only have one question. What's wrong with keeping more of what you earn? I have worked all may life; I worked my way through schools. I worked every day (literally) for the last 10 years. I want to enjoy my life and savings. Why should I have it taken away and given to those who in many cases never worked for anything? Why should my children start out 5 trillion dollars deeper in the hole of national debt when all that money was pissed away, in many cases for payoffs to buy work for union people and other cronies (can you spell solyndra?) What's wrong with meritrocracy, where one is rewarded by how one works, rather than by what one "needs" (oh, I guess that gets us back to creepy individual-responsibility Ayn Rand), or by who one knows. Oh, I guess that's more than one question; but just one more request. Since y'all are so big on taking away money from all those at the top of the heap, just help me with one thing. If "helping" those on the low end is so noble, who don't all you progressives voluntarily pay more taxes than you have to?
Show me 10 "progressives" who have voluntarily paid more tax than they owed--for pure unselfish want-to-help-out reason, and I'll never ask any more stupid questions.
Don't engage in name calling or personal attacks. Just show me the money. And if you can't put your own money where your mouths are, don't you dare want my money. Or just be honest, that progressive is just another word for thief.
Do I believe that this post will last long on this site? I don't think you have the integrity to leave it on. And don't you dare call me greedy. I have worked for what I have and do not covet what others have worked for. And I seek not to gain by taking from others and giving away what isn't my own. Forced charity is slavery. Think about it.
Answer with a question: Who is going to pay for the military?
Voluntary taxation is called noblesse oblige and is un-American.
Here is a question for you: why don't all you conservatives voluntarily pay for the god damned military you like so much?
By the way, a teachers' union does not judge competency, that is done by another group called administrators who are well-paid for exactly that duty and are equal partners to the union contract.
In case you don't know, and of course you do not, all of those trillions were pissed off on the military. (Can you capitalize Solyndra?) "Payoffs to buy work for union people" is a euphemism for the American people, as opposed to tax cuts for the rich, which is where the money is actually going.
However, most administrators are powerless to fire teachers who aren't living up to expectations because of tenure. With many states giving teachers tenure after only a few years, that protection which is supported by the union becomes a major roadblock to holding individual teachers accountable for their performance. In major cities, only about 1 out of 1000 teachers is relieved of their duties due to poor performance. Take New York City for example - from 2007-2010 only 88 out of some 80,000+ teachers lost their jobs due to performance related issues - in what other profession could you make such a claim? When our system of education is already struggling to keep its head above water, what administrator is going to fire an under-performing teacher and take on possibly $100,000 - $200,000 in legal costs fighting the union that is protecting that teacher?
Also, the section you highlighted from the poster doesn't say the teachers' union is judging competency at all, it is simply stating that a potentially incompetent teacher is being protected by the union.
No. Union contract outlines procedures for firing. Tenure is state law, not union contract. Do you know the difference?
No, you don't. Tenure is supported by the union? Union contract and tenure are entirely unrelated.
That is because administrators are incompetent and blame unions and you believe their lies.
Because by firing senior staff the district can recoup hundreds of thousands for replacing just ONE teacher. Districts are highly motivated to staff their schools with anyone who walks in the door and hand out emergency credentials. Many schools have half the teachers quit every year and administrators just hire the first people they see. I'd like to see that in a hospital or law office.
That is a lie. Administrators are equal partners in the union contract. Teachers' unions do not evaluate competency, they enforce the union contract, signed by administrators, and carries the force of law. You got a problem with contracts and the force of law?
Julia is not creepy to me.
You can be for these government programs but oppose to continued expansion of them. You can be opposed to a government program but still use the program while it exists. (You might think grocery stores should just price low instead of offering coupons and discount cards while you are using the very things you are against.)
Why not expand the services more? Why not have the government provide everyone food, clothing, shelter? Aren't those just as much a right as health care? Where do you draw the line of able bodied people providing for themselves?
To pretend it is an all or nothing, a for or against proposition is dis-ingeniousness, naive, or just plain stupid.
How can you be "for these government programs but oppose to continued expansion" - unless this is the old "what's good for the goose, isn't for the gander? That is not just a double standard, but selfish. The government while not "providing everyone food, clothing, shelter?" - is supposed to help the least of those among US, is supposed to ensure that there is an even-handedness between public and private, and where else except the government to go to for redress of grievances?
There has been a course selfishness that has entered into our discourse, public policy and how WE as a society treat each other! Social darwinism has already happened, it started with the slamming of the Air Traffic Controllers Union back in the 1980's and has continued up to today with bailouts of the billionaire banksters and the mortgage fraud they helped to create, in the meantime the rich and corporate have gotten obscenely wealthy while the working people have lost ground! To pretend that you and others don't see that is obscene, stupid and disingenuous.
Unless you believe that everyone should be provided food subsidies, then you believe there should be limitations in programs, too. I don't mean that sarcastically, I use it to illustrate one can be FOR a program but AGAINST expanding it (thus, limitations).
We just disagree on what those limitations should be.
RobDon refers of course to the military. Why do conservatives hate the military?
I love the military. We don't do enough to support these brave men and women. So, I have no idea what you are referring to or where you get your information.
Your post #3 above.
This is the military to a tee. Able-bodied people living off government largess and driving the country to bankruptcy by sucking handouts off the taxpayers.
Able bodied people… "corporations are people my friend".
So many corporations with "hands" out to government when they already have able bodies... and plenty of money.
Everyone knows only rich people deserve welfare. $2.7 trillion in public funds handed to the richest one tenth of one percent in income.
I think RobDon should voluntarily pay higher taxes to support the military. Let's see him put his money where his mouth is.
Wow! Where to begin? First off its a huge assumption that Julia can get a web designer job immediately upon graduating college. Where's the 3.5+ years during the BO administration when she moves back in with mommy and daddy fruitlessly looking for a job while slinging cafe mochas desperately trying to pay down her $100K of student debt.
Secondly and more importantly, where are the slides which show hw much her taxes go up and who pays for all these government goodies?
@Hank - where were the GOP votes against the policies of George W. Bush that put two wars, a prescription drug program and huge tax cuts for the "haves" on the national credit card - therefore depressing the economy and sending new jobs down a Republican sinkhole? Where were the GOP votes for stronger regulation of the banking industry - the industry that almost imploded the US economy, therefore taking away even more opportunity for Julia?
Where were the GOP votes and support for the legislation that has seen the Obama administration recover the 5 million jobs lost during the Bush Recession, and has also seen them add a net positive of 150,000 jobs?
Where were the GOP votes for student loan reform, which clawed back government subsidies to banks and put that money into more Pell Grants - not to mention ensuring that students never again have to sign their entire paychecks over to banks to pay back their student loans?
If you want to see the slides where Julia's taxes go up, all you have to do is pull up a pdf of Paul Ryan's "blueprint" or "path" or "roadmap" or whatever he's calling it these days. That's where Julia's taxes go up as Ryan (and Romney - who thinks Ryan's ideas are "marvelous") hands the "haves" an additional $265,000 in tax cuts on top of the unfunded Bush tax cuts - who pays for it? The middle-class Julia's.
Where to start is right!
Hank in invited to supply facts to support his slogans. People like that are unable to recognize facts and use evidence to support assertions. All they do is repeat slogans they do not understand.
I suspect Hank does not see the connection between "taxes go up" and "who pays for all these goodies". The higher taxes pay for the goodies. Hank believes that tax money just disappears and the "goodies" [read military] are free. If Hank understood basic economics he'd understand that with more taxes and more goodies the economy as a whole expands due to the increasing velocity of money, and the multiplier effect. Conversely, tax cuts paid for with benefit cuts shrink the economy and reduce income for everyone more than the tax cuts save.
June - I think the topic here is on the fictional Julia cradle to grave socialism that the federal government provides. As goes France, so will the US with BO's reelection.
Google "College Grads Moving back home" yielded 177,000 results. Here are the top 2, the first from Huff Post and the second from Time - neither are conservative outlets:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/13/college-graduates-moving-home-debt_n_861849.html
An increased debt load is a burden for many job seekers searching for any work they can find.
During more robust economic times, Yvonne Kline, 30, began studying for a Ph.D. in communications. She quickly racked up $138,000 in student loan debt. She still hasn't finished her degree at the University of Southern Florida. And, while her doctoral dissertation is still pending, her loan payments start next month.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/10/survey-85-of-new-college-grads-moving-back-in-with-mom-and-dad/
Surprise, surprise: Thanks to a high unemployment rate for new grads, many of those with diplomas fresh off the press are making a return to Mom and Dad’s place. In fact, according to a poll conducted by consulting firm Twentysomething Inc., some 85% of graduates will soon remember what Mom’s cooking tastes like.
If Hank understood basic economics he'd understand that with more taxes and more goodies the economy as a whole expands due to the increasing velocity of money, and the multiplier effect. Conversely, tax cuts paid for with benefit cuts shrink the economy and reduce income for everyone more than the tax cuts save.
Covah - I do have a degree in Economics and I do understand basic economics. I understand the multiplier effect which I think you are alluding to. I just disagree with you and that the multiplier effect is greater when that money is in private hands vs. government bureaucrats. Taxes are a drag on the economy. We all are familiar with defense contractors charging $600 for toilet seats and the wasteful spending of the GSA Vegas conference spending. An extra $0.10/$1.00 of MY earnings would get spent in my local community rather than sending it Washington DC. I don't defend Bush as a deficit spender nor the cost of the wars that he started just as I don't defend BO's deficit spenders. They are both equal sinners in that respect. I just fundamentally disagree with you that Federal bureaucrats know better how to spend my money than myself.
No, you do not have a degree in that subject. If you did you would know economics is not capitalized unless it is the first word in a sentence or a proper noun.
In other words, you made it up.
Now you are lying.
Hank is unaware that tax cuts paid for with higher college tuition is a Republican idea. They think they are smart stealing from their own children.
Hank does himself an undeserved honor pretending to know what socialism is.
Hank in invited to supply facts to support his slogans. Still waiting.
Federal or federal? What's the difference, Hank?
Covah - whats your degree in? All you do is name call on this board. So now the argument goes to punctuation??? You are just showing how asinine you are. You obviously insecure and over-compensating.
Hank in invited to supply facts to support his slogans. Still waiting.
Covah - did you not see the two article links that I posted? From the Huffpost:
Using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Sum reports that as many as 50 percent of college graduates under the age of 25 are underutilized, meaning they’re either working no job at all, working a part-time job or working a job outside of the college labor market -- say, as a barista or a bartender.
Mark Kantrowitz, who came up with the $27,200 figure based on the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study and publishes the financial aid sites Fastweb.com and FinAid.org, is concerned that debt at graduation is outpacing starting salaries.
Covah must have been either a bully or was bullied as a child. I believe it was the latter.
Watch Hank deflect. No one denies college graduates are entering a tight labor market and with a lot of student loan debt. Now let's see if he knows the difference between Federal and federal, knows what socialism is, and can prove "Taxes are a drag on the economy".
Students could enter the labor market with 0 college debt by doing precisely what Maddow attempts to ridicule in the beginning of her article, joining the military and serving their country, perhaps the greatest honor one can take upon them. The GI Bill is a symbol of gratitude bestowed upon service men and women for answering the call to defend freedom and peace throughout the world. Of course Covah will vehemently disagree with me here and say that the military cannot possibly be for peace; to which I must humbly ask where would Tripoli be if we had not defeated the Berber Muslims, what about the V-Day invasion, the Korean War, Vietnam? Without equivocation, the Marine Corps has done more for peace in the world than the Peace Corps.
Today an uncontrolled American military is the greatest threat to world peace. No one is safe. The US spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined and has no enemies. Military spending accounts for all of the federal debt, which is driving the nation straight to bankruptcy. Newton's Third Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. As our military grows stronger our enemies coalesce against us.
The US spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined and has no enemies - Really???!!!
9/11???? Al Queda??? Put down the bong or needle Covah - you need to sober up.
What is creepy (remember CREEP and Nixon scandals and jail) is that so many Americans are playing along with Mitt and the rest who rewrite history and ignore 8yrs of GWB. I served in Vietnam, used the GI bill and VA loan for my first home, am on Soc. Sec. and go the VA until eligible for medicare so I relate to Julia. I lost most of my retirement as my 401k was devastated under GWB, and was forced out of my job after a back injury in a right to work state. I have succeeded under positive gov't intervention and suffered under conservative administrations. I will not forget which side cares.
When conservatives run for office under the banner of Constitutionalism in which they mistakenly believe the Constitution guarantees them the right to no govenment, they neglect to take account of the Preamble where it is noted, by our "Founding Fathers" no less, that ours is a nation that needs government simply to ensure "the blessings of liberty."
The story of Julia, above, freaks them out because it makes sense, is real for middle and working class citizens, and lays bare for all to see just how they would deny the instrument of government which is so vital to the hoi polloi!
Ryan in particular is upset because he is attempting to script the Grand Narrative for some time now! -Kevo
Exactly they do not want anything to counter their perfect narrative, but with President Obama not playing nice, they actually have to defend their policies to the public. But that is too much of an effort, so they just attack & lie instead!
This ad, like the one about Osama, just shows how into himself PBO is. The never ending "I" in the Osama ad. And claiming credit for programs he had nothing to do with. This pictured frame is also somewhat factually incorrect. Many insurance policies covered children in college even before ACA
Hey fromnytosc - you're sounding a bit whiny and weak in your picky-uni complaint! -Kevo
"It doesn't show a model in which the government controls anyone's life; it shows public institutions that offer everyone opportunities to succeed."
And therein is the problem, the American people have had 30 years of "free-market, laissez faire, unfunctional government policies" shoved down their throats. We have taken "civics and basic history" out of public education, and for the last decade we have had a Mafia style government - I submit that the people have forgotten not just what government is for, but also how it is supposed to function for US all.
To go along with that , is the gop mentality that we need to cut off gov services to THOSE PEOPLE , but your not going to touch MY BENNIES , the gop voters and reps can not connect the dots literally , they feel they can gut all these institutions that make us a strong nation , and it will not effect them , or their families at all , a lack of civics and common sense indeed
All these programs are New Deal Democratic programs which in turn created the middle class as we know it. The people who benefited from those programs are called the Greatest Generation or the Silent Majority. The education, prosperity, and legal rights and freedoms created by the New Deal caused a social revolution in the '60s when blacks, women, youth, families "just said no" to the restrictions of the past in the form of "conscious raising" and active revolt. Republicans beginning with Nixon reversed the cause/effect relationship, pointing at the revolt and promising to turn back the clock, which is absurd but fooled millions of Americans who were threatened by the 1960s rebellions into supporting Republicans whose intent is no more than lying for votes and robbing the treasury.
The main observation is that the New Deal produced a new generation of modern people, many of whom did not understand their benefits and bit the hand that fed them, believing Republican lies and opposing their own self interest. The same process continues today with voters electing Republicans whose only intent is to destroy the country.
> All these programs are New Deal Democratic programs which in turn created the middle class as we know it.
They were also the beneficiaries of a historically unique economic situation. The entire world's infrastructure had been literally blown to pieces by World War 2, and the undamaged US manufacturing base was the only one available to rebuild it. I suspect that the US of the 1950's and early 1960's could have been run by a monkey rolling dice and would still have seen amazing economic success. Now, in a much more competitive economic environment, we may not have the resources to continually expand the role of government.
Walt Smith - Then you would be wrong. While it's true that there was a lot of money to be made rebuilding Europe, a "monkey rolling dice" would not have produced the greatest expansion of the middle class the world has ever seen. With the income distribution produced by post-Reagan policies, the vast majority of that money would have gone to CEOs and only a trickle would have gone to the workers, and we would have been a very different country.
Walt needs to read history. New Deal programs date from the 1930s, before the war. The GI Bill was after the war and was intended to keep returning GIs busy so they would not flood the labor market and cause unemployment and reduction in wages. The vast improvement in education of the American people caused by the GI Bill led directly to the social revolution of the 1960s.
The war itself was nothing, a non-event economically. "The entire world's infrastructure had been literally blown to pieces by World War 2, and the undamaged US manufacturing base was the only one available to rebuild it" is complete hooey. The US grew rich after the war feeding its domestic market, the rest of the world had nothing to do with anything.
"I suspect that the US of the 1950's and early 1960's could have been run by a monkey rolling dice and would still have seen amazing economic success." Walt can suspect what he likes but basic economics is known. Twenty years of high taxes (1945-1965) returned the productivity of the American worker to the American worker and created the mass market mass production and mass employment depend on. Reducing taxes after 1964 and 1981 let the rich keep the money, making the rich richer and everyone else poorer by NOT returning the increasing productivity to the worker, shrinking the market, which became funded by debt, and leading to economic collapse and high unemployment.
OK, so I'm a programmer.
I keep thinking of the same "Story of Julia" where you get to choose at each step between Obama's world and Romney's.
As in, "no Head Start for Julia" => her grades for the rest of her public schooling are worse by known amounts, putting her in remedial rather than AP classes, which has her missing out on college. On the way home from the only job she can get as a night clerk while attending community college part-time, she is attacked and raped. No coverage for the medical bills, and she's forced to carry the pregnancy to term. So much for even community college as she tries to support a baby on minimum wage ...
Or maybe that surgery at 22 doesn't happen and as a result ...
Just like the "choose your own adventure" books from when I was a kid! And just like back then, we'd get to learn how making bad choices (picking Romney, eliminating social programs) has consequences.
You'll never get that, except when they make stuff up. The whole criticism is just an extended "government baaaaad!" bleat and nothing more.
Every Republican knows any money not given to the rich is wasted.
Today I voted in North Carolina. I am so depressed. There were lots of people representing various candidates handing out flyers as we all stood in a really long line. They were all republicans it seems. This woman behind me a few spaces in line said she would never vote Democrat because she wanted to "keep her money and not have it all given away to THOSE people who did not want to work."
There was no consideration for people who wanted to work but could not find a job or the cost of college loans doubling not to mention all of the other "spending cuts" that are making this country such a hard place to live right now.
I won't even start about all the signs around here supporting that evil amendment one, allowing the common and I do mean common people to take away the rights of others.
There is no compassion left in this country.
Sigh,
Hard evidence shows that woman to be entirely mistaken. Only a few years ago unemployment was 4.5% and then it doubled. Did American workers suddenly become lazy? Of course not. Also, the unemployment rate under Clinton reached 4%. Were workers harder-working under Clinton? Of course not. Point is, workers take jobs when there are jobs and anyone who blames workers for unemployment is lying.
It's easy for Republicans to fill the heads of ignorant people with lies.
The problem with the graphics in general is that they presuppose that all of the government programs will work exactly the way they should. With Pell Grants, that may well be the case. But strictly speaking, Obamacare's yet untested. We know what it promises, but we don't know how effective it will actually be. And I'm sorry: Race To The Top is an abject failure of a program. To assume Julia's education will be better for it is the single most fictional part of her story.
*sigh* I'll probably end up voting Obama as a lesser-of-two-evils this November, because I'm not crazy enough to ignore that Republicans' answers to all these problems are far worse. At least Democrats are trying to make things better, and not bring us back to the 1950's. I have to give them at least that.
Re: "the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act protects her at 23"
Hardly.
Women's “77 cents to men's dollar” doesn't mean, as pay-equity advocates want us to believe, women are paid less than men in the same jobs everywhere in the country. Nor does it mean that, even more incredibly in the vein of the stereotype “men are stronger than women,” every woman earns 23% less than every man, perhaps leading some of the more benighted to think Diane Sawyer of ABC News earns less than the young man walking back and forth on the street wearing a “Pizzas $5” sign.
The figures are arrived at by comparing the sexes' median incomes. They refer to the point at which 50% of workers earn above the figures and 50% below (which means that a lot of women earning above their median make more than a lot of men earning below theirs). They don't account for the number of hours worked each week, experience, seniority, training, education or even the job description itself. They compare all women to all men, not people in the same job with the same experience. So a veteran male software designer's salary is weighed against a first-year female teacher's income.
Strategically ignoring this over the decades has been less than productive:
No law yet has closed the gender wage gap — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap - http://tinyurl.com/74cooen), not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.... Nor will a "paycheck fairness" law work.
That's because pay-equity advocates continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:
Despite the 40-year-old demand for women's equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of "The Secrets of Happily Married Women," stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. "In the past few years,” he says in a CNN report at http://tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier....” at http://tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If indeed more women are staying at home, perhaps it's because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs — so why bother working if they're going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman. Yet, if "greedy, profit-obsessed" employers could get away with paying women less than men for the same work, they would not hire a man – ever.)
As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Because they're supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home.
The implication of this is probably obvious to 10-year-olds but seems incomprehensible to or is ignored by feminists and the liberal media: If millions of wives are able to accept NO wages, millions of other wives, whose husbands' incomes range from moderate to high, are able to:
-accept low wages
-refuse overtime and promotions
-choose jobs based on interest first, wages second — the reverse of what men tend to do
-take more unpaid days off
-avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (http://tinyurl.com/3a5nlay)
-work part-time instead of full-time (“According to a 2009 UK study for the Centre for Policy Studies, only 12 percent of the 4,690 women surveyed wanted to work full time”: http://bit.ly/ihc0tl See also an Australian report at http://tinyurl.com/862kzes)
All of which LOWER WOMEN'S AVERAGE AND MEDIAN PAY.
Women are able to make these choices because they are supported — or anticipate being supported — by a husband who must earn more than if he'd chosen never to marry. (Still, even many men who shun marriage, unlike their female counterparts, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap: as a group they pass up jobs that interest them for ones that pay well. If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.
Afterword: The power in money is not in earning it (there is only responsibility, sweat, and stress in earning money). The power in money is in SPENDING it. And, Warren Farrell says in The Myth of Male Power at http://www.warrenfarrell.org/TheBook/index.html, "Women control consumer spending by a wide margin in virtually every consumer category." (Women's control over spending, adds Farrell, gives women control over TV programs.)
Excerpted from "Will the Ledbetter Act Help Women?" at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/
the "sad fact" is that women earn less because in general, they work fewer hours (outside the home)
Please show me reputable untainted statistics that prove anything else
I assume by 'untainted statistics' you mean statistics that have been massaged to show what you want them to show.
The reality is that the data that prove the wage gap already include every objection people like you have come up with.
Ballocks, Male Matters. While we do not yet have pay parity, the situation has improved over the years and it didn't happen because employers just decided to pay women as much as they pay men. If there had been no equal pay laws, women would still be making the $.58 to the dollar that women made when I graduated from college more than thirty years ago.
So, as frightening as it is for you, women are in the work force to stay and we will continue to press for laws that ensure that our labor is valued as much as men's labor.
to the person who found ayn rand "creepy"
I'll bet that whole "individual responsibility" thing is not only creepy, but probably terrifies you to death. Just imagine how scared you'd be over the prospect of paying more taxes to support someone like you
That whole "individual responsibility" thing is not only creepy, but an excuse for crime. "Personal freedom" means freedom to commit crime, "individual responsibility" is a euphemism for "blame the victim" after a Republican gives him a good fleecing. Every Republican arrogates the freedom to steal your pension and when it's gone it's your fault for being so irresponsible as to lose it, get a job you bum.
Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States; Mitt Romney!
The Tea Party will see to that...
The Tea Party will see to the destruction of the Republican Party. Just today Dick Luger was primaried out. What are they thinking? Must be trying to hand another seat to the Democrats.
Yes, and that would be a very positive outcome. The Republican party, has in the past, been considered the "conservative" party. They have, in recent years moved so far from a conservative movement that they're unrecognizable. That's where the Tea Party will thrive, in the void that was created by Republican Party moving too far left. The Tea Party is a true conservative movement, and thereby has a huge influence and following.
.
Whoever created Julia needs a serious lesson in economics.
I am not republican or democrat. I never received government aid. I served in the military, paid off my own loans, saved for my own retirement.
Since I've committed no crime against any of you (or Julia for that matter) what right do you have to any of my property?
Freedom includes freedom from you
I don't see any prolbem with this helpping women help is the same the goverment been doing for big bussiness for ever or other countrys so why are the GOP so up set?