It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Beanskinner
It is my opinion that if women could magically make as much as men overnight, our
economy would be better off.
So in your mind this IS the most important issue we face AND the cause of our economic troubles??
Seriously?
Women are beautiful and hard working just like the rest of us, I like women
Me too, and I’d like to see men and women paid equally but that’s not the most important issue we face. Let’s pull the bus back off the edge of the cliff and get back on the road before we worry about how comfortable the passengers are.
edit on 24-5-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Beanskinner
Just to point out, Obama is no friend to the auto industry or manufacturing industry.
He's looking out for unions.
Not the aspect that hiresand actually creates jobs.
Not neccesarily defending Obama because I frankly don't like him that much, he's just better than the alternative...but...
I prefer that the leaders look out for the people more than they look out for the corporations. At the same time, the corporations do need some attention in order to keep employing the people, but they shouldn't be making grand profits and paying their CEO's extravagant amounts while laying off the workers. That's how companies used to go out of business in the "good old days".
I'd prefer a president that took a hands off approach to business altogether.
Nothing good comes from the intervetion of government.
Originally posted by indigo21
If you believe in the betterment of women, then you should oppose regulatory attempts to increase their wages because in doing so you will hurt them.
Forcibly increasing the wages of woman guarantees an increase in the unemployment of woman.
The question is, why do woman earn less in the first place? It's because they cost more to employ. They can fall pregnant and statistically they become ill more often than men. They offer less of a return on investment.
So why would an employer ever invest in female staff? Because they earn less. So if you take that away from them, they lose the edge, they lose the job entirely.
The best thing we can do for woman is to deregulate labour laws. Allow woman to freely take on individual worker's contracts to give her the edge over male counterparts. Empower women by allowing her to sign contracts that ensure her not falling pregnant, and/or taking less sick leave then what a man may be offering. Only then will she earn the same as a man and have a job.
Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by seabag
So it's ok for women to be paid less than men for doing the same job?
This is only a non-issue if you think women should be home, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. If women only listened to the right then they would know their place.
Hey seabag ever hear of something called equal rights? You know it's that little thing the right hates.
Originally posted by LAKOTAWINS
reply to post by buster2010
I think you fail to realize Seabag's response. This is important but not the most critical. If you try to fix this the house of cards starts to tumble. I understand women deserve equal pay for the same work and some do get it. However, no one is holding her to a job. She can leave for more pay like any man does. If he or she is comfortable than it is their issue. Let the law makers focus on the more critical issues like security and commerce. We as a people are not paying attention to the signs of a failing systems. You are too wrapped up on your agendas or sheeple being sent to the slaughter. Focus on the major things and allow stuff like this to work itself out is all i see. This to me is just like gay rights. The gay friends i have could care less about the word marriage. They care about the basic need to be able to share with another legally the right to a union. Is that so hard? I welcome responses and keep it above the waist! LoL. God bless and be safe this holiday weekend!
Originally posted by LAKOTAWINS
Not one but a couple of these fine human beings that happen to be very close friends. I do not have statistics on the rest do you? I would love to see you analysis for my research. Kidding of course. I merely state what i encounter. Most straight couple do not even want to marry. They are happy being together. So again not a major issue and should be allowed to work itself out. However, gays should allowed to enter civil unions and have the same basic rights as straights like insurance and wills. It is a basic humane right. Just my 2 cents. God bless.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Beanskinner
You might be really surprised to find out how heavily laden the Obama administration is with former Goldman Sachs employees. Do you think it is a coincidence?
my.firedoglake.com...[ed itby]edit on 25-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by LAKOTAWINS
Interesting. You google it. Is that how you do research only? My methods are local to me. If i rely on google or websites then i am submitting myself to the very establishment that bogs down our mind. I would suggest in meeting a few of these fine human beings and ask them what is important to them. You will probably surprise yourself in the responses. They want the same basic needs all human beings want. Life, liberty amd the pursuit of happiness. You may have to step outside and listen. God bless and good luck.
Originally posted by LAKOTAWINS
reply to post by PurpleChiten
Roger that and thank you. I have thick skin already from being in the Marines. I welcome good debate. It helps us grow as human beings. Thank you my friend and God bless.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Beanskinner
Oh Soros is working alright. He is working toward collapsing the dollar and turning the USA into his vision of Socialist Utopia. Michael Savage explains in his book, "Trickle Up Poverty", how Soros and his band of fund managers raided the market after the elimination of the uptick rule. Soros is who made off with the money after that deregulation.
Obama is in the thick of it.
If you believe in the betterment of women, then you should oppose regulatory attempts to increase their wages because in doing so you will hurt them. Forcibly increasing the wages of woman guarantees an increase in the unemployment of woman.
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Beanskinner
Just to point out, Obama is no friend to the auto industry or manufacturing industry.
He's looking out for unions.
Not the aspect that hiresand actually creates jobs.
Not neccesarily defending Obama because I frankly don't like him that much, he's just better than the alternative...but...
I prefer that the leaders look out for the people more than they look out for the corporations. At the same time, the corporations do need some attention in order to keep employing the people, but they shouldn't be making grand profits and paying their CEO's extravagant amounts while laying off the workers. That's how companies used to go out of business in the "good old days".
I'd prefer a president that took a hands off approach to business altogether.
Nothing good comes from the intervetion of government.
Originally posted by Beanskinner