I'm curious what the outcome will be, what are your thoughts?
Because it is unfair to employers. Our poor employers already are overburdened with too many taxes and job killing regulations. They need to keep all the money they can so they can reinvest in jobs and help our country cut its debt.
lmao @ so they can reinvest in jobs and help our country cut it debt! lol
I do not think it will pass, to many interpretaions in the bill.
Now whether many know this or not, union jobs, federal jobs and the like already pay equal. A FDNY firefighter whether a man or woman make the same salary despite the lower standard for woman to get hired
But lest say a warehouse is hiring two positions, they hire one man one woman. They get paid the same under this bill. 30 days later it is quite clear the woman is doing a great job and deserves a raise, but under this bill, she cannot get one.
What about if you are working in your job for 15 years, do you think the new hire with no experience should get paid the same as you?
No there is a lot more to the bill the the simple equal pay slogan once you cut deep into it
"Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted against EqualPay for equal work and blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act."
of course they did.
They should have named it "Tax breaks for millionaires every time someone gets a raise"..that would have done it.
You said you have been on your job for 11 years, I am going to be hired to do the same job as you, no experience, no idea what to do, no seniority, but I will be making the same as you. Does that make you happy? It should, you want equal pay
With all that the Republican congress has blocked or voted against, I truly wonder why anyone would vote Republican.
Noooo--this is the correct scenario:
I and a man started together. We do the same job. He is supporting a family, I am supporting a family.
He makes more money than I do, because he's a man.
That is the scenario this is attempting to fix.
I just read the text of the bill... beyond the weird wording where they kept saying "girls and women" (I kept envisioning some poor little girl in an early twentieth century sweat shop) I didn't see any problems, but maybe I didn't understand the legalese.
Why was this not passed?
Because it came from Obama....NOT allowed to agree with him, no matter what!
MUST destroy destroy destroy.
at all and any cost. 400 families demand it.
Forget the partisan stuff for a second-- what did they cite as the actual reasons for blocking the bill? Chalk it up to my naivete (I chalk almost everything up to that) but I just don't see the majority of Republicans blocking a bill JUST because it came from Obama, any more than I would see Democrats blocking a good bill JUST because it came from a Republican.
Who better to report the Republican rationale than Fox News? Apparently, it has something to do with rewarding litigators. Seriously. That is what they say.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06 … -fairness/
Hmm, yeah... in my opinion that is not a substantial reason to block the bill at all. I can only shake my head in bewilderment here....
The Repubs did not block it. Time for LMC to get real
This bill was introduced by Senator Hillary Clinton. Who was President then??? It was not Obama therfore it was not his bill as LMC wants you to think. Next if was around when the Dems controlled the Senate and could pass it with not problem, yet this is the Republicans fault.
Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 15.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z … 00182:@@@X
So why did the Dems let this bill sit for so long and not address it??
It was a straight party -line vote.
All Dems for it. All R's against it.
I think Shanna was asking why the R's voted against it. Can you tell her?
Or will you keep changing the subject? Mis-placing blame?
They took the vote--this is the result: answer if you can.
I have several times without changing the subject to which you are the queen of doing. Perhaps you should go back reread and retain this time.
Why did you not answer why it took all theses years for the Dems to bring it to the floor for a vote??
They blocked it JUST because it came from Obama...you are going to have to face it.
This is what this whole 3 and 1/2 years has been about.
"Mitch McConnell said in October 2010 that his party's primary goal in the next Congress was to make Obama a one-term president"
Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration
Posted: 04/25/2012 2:53 pm Updated: 04/26/2012 10:09 am
WASHINGTON -- As President Barack Obama was celebrating his inauguration at various balls, top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington.
The event -- which provides a telling revelation for how quickly the post-election climate soured -- serves as the prologue of Robert Draper's much-discussed and heavily-reported new book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives."
According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz.
For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama's legislative platform.
"If you act like you're the minority, you're going to stay in the minority," Draper quotes McCarthy as saying. "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."
The dinner lasted nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward:
Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: ‘Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it—please?’)
Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama’s economic stimulus plan.)
Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.)
Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012.
"You will remember this day," Draper reports Newt Gingrich as saying on the way out. "You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown."
Their seeds are going to sprout poison trees.....for them.
I'm starting to see your views more plausibly than I did before.....
...what a strange new feeling.....
It's not the GOP Shanna..it's this Cult that has taken over.
Even Simpson and Hagel say so....old school Republicans.
Even Jeb Bush! said don't give up your principles by signing that no tax pledge.
They have iron grip on the R's.
And bleeding into the Dems too.
They are going to be stopped, because as we are seeing in Wisconsin....people don't like to be played with and lied to. It makes us furious! And we cannot be bought.
WE still maintain the American values.
This is the second question that will never be answered.
the 1st is How is Romney any different than Bush?
and now this: Why did every single Repub vota against the fair pay bill?
Easy enough to answer...but no one will.
It's obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.
A little history of the Paycheck Fairness Act:
http://www.napequity.org/public-policy/ … rness-act/
AV is trying to distract from a straight party line vote in the Senate. The Senate Republicans have explained why they voted against it. They don't want to encourage more litigation. Seriously, that is the reason they are giving.
Yes, the bill sat for a long time while Congress addressed workplace inequality with the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Yes, the timing of this vote is good for Democrats, because it highlights the ridiculous lengths Republicans will go to oppose everything. It was a calculated move by the Democrats, no doubt about it. However, it doesn't change anything about the vote. The Republicans have made it clear, by their words and their actions, that they are more worried about the cost of litigation for those who fund their campaigns than they are about equality in the workplace for women.
I am not distracting from anything, did I say anywhere about what Republicans did or did not do on a vote? Time has come for you guys on the left to quit spending and changing the subject and making stuff up as you go.
The question is why would Democrats bring up a bill to a vote that has been sitting with dust on it since it was introduced by Sen. Clinton? Why would they need a fairness paycheck law when one has been on the books since 1963? Does it not raise your curiosity as to why create a law that already exists?
The timing of this vote was for one reason and one reason only, so the Democrats can continue to fabricate this war on women. One of many wars that they will fabricate during this election cycle since they cannot run on the issues, they would just continue to drive wedges between people. Shame on them.
If you don't think that this was strictly a political move than how do you react to something that was in your article you linked to
"On May 23, 2012, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) reintroduced the Paycheck Fairness Act with a new bill number (S. 3220) to bypass the committee process and go straight to the Senate floor."
Reintroduced to bypass the committee and go straight to the Senate floor. In other words we don't want to talk about it we don't want you to debate it just vote on it and find out what's in it later. Have we not learned over the last three and half years what happens when that approach is taken? It's the same game over and over yet I am trying to distract, please.
The reason that those set for so long is because the Democrats who controlled the House and the Senate and had the amount of possible votes needed to pass that bill at that time, did not have enough votes to pass it. I guess the Dems don't want you to know that.
Believe me, If the Democrats thought that the Republicans would have voted for that bill in its current form, that bill never would've come to the floor. It was only brought up for vote to make the Republicans look bad, it's a great political strategy to which you have to credit the Democrats.
I already conceded that the timing was good for Democrats and that it was a calculated move by the Democrats. You really didn't need to write several paragraphs to explain what I already said in a couple of sentences.
"Why would they need a fairness paycheck law when one has been on the books since 1963? Does it not raise your curiosity as to why create a law that already exists?"
The law was drafted to make it easier for employees to determine if pay discrimination is occurring by allowing workers to discuss their pay to their coworkers without repercussion, for example. That provision and others are not included in current law.
If you think the Republicans rightly voted no on this bill, then why do you say it made them look bad? Just wondering, because that make no sense. If you think the bill is bad, then their unanimous no vote must look great to you.
It was a setup to make the Republicans look bad by Democrats continuing to say the Republicans are having a war on women. In reality because of the way it was brought to the floor the Republicans did not say much about the Bill, so lack of explanation makes them look bad. Just like with the student loan rate hike, it was brought to the floor in a way that it would make Republicans look bad when they voted no as if they were not for keeping interest rates low, but in reality they voted no because they were tax hikes on small businesses in the Bill. Did hear much about that did you?
That's the one thing I constantly give the Democrats credit for, they have a great way of spinning an issue and making the Democrats look bad. They also get out front in the media and criticize the Republicans, and the Republicans don't seem to have a response team to address these things. If a Republican said something, Wasserman Schultz is responding in minutes, she may not be correct, but she is responding. Advantage Democrats.
Actually you're partly right as to why the law was drafted. It was mainly drafted to allow a person who believes they are not getting equal pay the ability to adjudicate a solution. The 1963 law does not allow that, it only fines the employer without addressing back pay and damages. That was the part the Republicans were against.
Yoko Ono was right.
by Ralph Deeds 12 years ago
Paul Krugman's column in the NYTimes today 1-5-08 is entitled "Fighting Off Depression." In it he called the recent economic numbers "terrifying," not just in the U.S. but around the world. Manufacturing in particular is plunging everywhere; banks aren't lending; businesses and...
by Credence2 3 weeks ago
A little backgroundhttps://news.yahoo.com/gop-warns-hr-1-c … 43930.htmlI find this more than a bit irritating about Republicans and conservatives generally.If you can't win the hearts and minds of the electorate with your ideas and policies, then your usefulness has come to an end."In...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that...
by T_Augustus 10 years ago
If Barack Obama was the Republican candidate, would you have voted for him?Very curious what an HONEST answer would be from both Republicans and Democrats alike...the operative word is "honest".
by JOC 6 days ago
According to John Boehner, some in the GOP have become political terrorists. In his words, they are people "...who spent more time tearing things apart -- never building anything, never putting anything together,” he said.Was there not just a perfect example of this with the latest...
by LucidDreams 7 years ago
I am not saying ALL Republicans are, I am just wondering why anyone would actually stay with a party that is clearly not on the same page as most of America? Most (not all) but most who are die hard right Republicans watch Fox news. Not sure if you have noticed, they can't even get along with each...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|