<p>Not because it is conservative, but because it is dishonest.</p>
<p>*And facts are facts, truth is truth, regardless of the source. *</p>
<p>That is hilarious! As if that source were trustworthy!</p>
<p>We believe what we want to believe.</p>
<p>This is the source of the data:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you dispute the data?</p>
<p>I’m sure it’s easily verifiable Here:</p>
<p>[U.S</a>. Senate: Reference Home > Virtual Reference Desk](<a href=“U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page”>http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/b_three_sections_with_teasers/virtual.htm)</p>
<p>or here:</p>
<p>[LegiStorm:</a> Transparency’s Sidekick - Congressional Staff Salaries and More](<a href=“http://www.legistorm.com/]LegiStorm:”>http://www.legistorm.com/)</p>
<p>I’ve used the latter source to look up staff salaries myself, so I know it has a lot of info.</p>
<p>bz–LegiStorm looks like a very interesting site, but so far I’ve not been able to find anything specific there that lists staff salaries for individual candidates. (I’m not too swift, navigating these sites!) … Nothing that actually verified the CNS report about Obama’s female staffers making lower salaries than male staffers. If you find it, can you send a direct link to the info? Thanks!</p>
<p>Hindoo - there’s a tab at the top of the page that says “Salaries”. When you click on that, a screen comes up that includes the option “Browse staff salaries by…”. click on “Senator” and then you can choose which senator you want to investigate, then choose the Fiscal Yr.</p>
<p>Here’s the link for Obama’s most recent staff salaries:</p>
<p>[Senator</a> Barack Obama (Illinois) - Staff salaries from LegiStorm](<a href=“http://www.legistorm.com/member/76/Sen_Barack_Obama/37.html]Senator”>http://www.legistorm.com/member/76/Sen_Barack_Obama/37.html)</p>
<p>And McCain:</p>
<p>[Senator</a> John McCain (Arizona) - Staff salaries from LegiStorm](<a href=“http://www.legistorm.com/member/69/Sen_John_McCain/37.html]Senator”>http://www.legistorm.com/member/69/Sen_John_McCain/37.html)</p>
<p>You can also look at lots more data such as trips, gifts received & personal finances (tax returns). Very interesting site for sure.</p>
<p>Very interesting, bz. In my opinion, Obama’s voting record has shown him to be a far stronger advocate for women than McCain has been (certainly, on issues important to me). But from the lists you sent in #244, he’s not “walking the walk” nearly as well as he ought to be in the hiring/salary department. As Hillary Clinton once said: “Shame on you, Barak Obama!” (I wonder if he’s even aware of this?) :(</p>
<p>Good for McCain, he does not have to say much, his records speak for themselves. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you please name some of those records? A lot of Obama female supporters have been making this argument.</p>
<p>Vote McCain</p>
<p>Hindoo - without knowing anything about the hours worked by, the duties of and the travel expected of each staff member, it is impossible to compare the salaries.</p>
<p>There are more females on McCain’s staff, I am really impressed .</p>
<p>Do you think that McCain used affirmative action in his hiring practices?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would he use affirmative action? Are you implying that he turned away QUALIFIED males to employ unqualified females? Or are you implying that Obama has more males because males are more qualified than women, so there should be more males working for him, and equality can only be achieved if affirmative action is used?</p>
<p>Could it be that McCain created an atmosphere where women are respected and feel comfortable working for him? Or He paid qualified men and women the same salary when they do the same job?</p>
<p>McCain, urging us to serve a cause greater than our self interest.</p>
<p>I surely hope he didn’t. I hope he hired the best person he could.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps. But I’d be happier if he had a more pro-woman voting record!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What issues would be most satisfying to you?</p>
<p>Obama of course. It’s time for change. Change the energy plan, Change the education plan, Change the tax plan. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s address these points:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Energy plan…Obama does not want to drill in the US and has no plans of opening more refineries. He is for taking the gas companies and windfall taxes to task. However, Oil companies pay billions in taxes per yr…the minute you remove their R & D tax break is the minute they cut their R & D (can we all say more unemployment?) Second, Exxon is in the oil business not the energy business. Third, if oil companies do not post profits, the stock market will be hit harder, which means your 401 K or mutual fund is going to take a hit!</p></li>
<li><p>Education plan: Bill Clinton had Goals 2000, everyone is rewarded and praised, teachers had to grade with purple pens because red was scary!. Bush had No Child Left Behind with gateways and charters. The big problem was the NEA figured how to get around…if they failed 2 yrs in a row, the school could lose students and be given vouchers, but if the school brings in all new teachers, then they are given a pass! I have been a teacher the true issues aren’t about books and teachers, but about the parents. When parents stop saying you are ganging up against my kid and start saying what do we need to do it will turn. I have always said, we should mandate that every parent must volunteer 8 hrs a yr in the school it would change our system…parents would now see that the teachers are over worked and under paid. They would also be able to see that yes, their little one is having problems compared to the rest of the class. Thirdly, every class would have additional help at least 1 day a week, teacher pupil ratio makes a difference. Volunteer parents does not cost a dime. Please do not say well that would be hard for the lower paying income…taking 2 hrs off every other month should be manageable.</p></li>
<li><p>Tax Plan…Obama wants to hit those who make over 250K, and credit those below 75K. How many people who make over 250K employ cleaning people and personal day care givers that make under 75K? If they have to cut costs, it will not be on the car they drive, or the home they own, instead, they will have the house professionally cleaned 3 x a month instead of 4 and lower the amount of hours the child is in day care, domino efffect the 75K earner is hit harder than the 250K.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>YOU WANT CHANGE, THEN DEMAND YOUR MOC TO SPEND MORE TIME ON THE HILL DOING THEIR JOB THAN GOING ON JUNKETS!</p>
<p>bulletandpima
thanks for the well thought out post. you are absolutely correct on all points.</p>
<p>only if you subscribe to the outdated trickle-down theory of wealth. </p>
<p>Which has failed any time anyone has believed in it.</p>
<p>I am a strong believer in the trickle down theory. </p>
<p>Let’s expound on the trickle down. We make in the 6 figures, but not very high over it. Before the gas prices went up, we would eat out 1 night every weekend, now I have had to tighten the belt it is 1x a month. Is our lifestyle changed, yes! Am I effected besides not going to the movies as often or eating out as often, No! Now let’s believe I am the norm on tightening the belt, which I am sure I am…no longer waiting at the restaurant 30 min, but immediately seated is a clear sign…no longer sold out movie theatres 30 min prior. That means the restaurants will lay off, the movie theatres will too, just to make profits. Does that effect me at all? No, but I am sure it effects the person making less than 75K. Look at homeowners, they too will not renovate their home as quickly, thus Lowes or Home Depot will leave the vacancy open instead of filling it. How about the person who is making 250K, if they tighten their belt, well it is one less Kate Spade bag a yr, which means Macy’s will also leave the opening vacant to cut costs. All of tese people are making less than 75K and now have less hrs and less pay, the person making 125K will eat out less or not go to Cold Stone Creamery for the heck of it (again the person under 75K is effected), the person making 150K will have to re-use their 07 Prada bag instead of getting a new one in 08. The person making 75K has less hours, thus less pay and they will no longer be ordering in Pizza for a family of 4 from Papa Johns (35 bucks), instead they will buy frozen pizza (10 bucks), which means Papa Johns will have to not hire someone so their profits remain high enough…again someone making under 75K will lose money.</p>
<p>75K doesn’t have the disposable income that someone at 250K does…money makes the world keep going round.</p>
<p>When Bullet and I married 20 yrs ago, he made @25K a yr and I kept saying when he gets his next promotion we will have money, eventually you learn the more money you make the more you spend</p>
<p>
Go see the movie Charlie Wilson’s war… and then think carefully about what a gender ratio may signify, especially for a man with a reputation for [url=<a href=“http://voteforbreakfast.com/archive/major_candidates/flashback_john_mccain_my_cheat.php]womanizing.[/url”>http://voteforbreakfast.com/archive/major_candidates/flashback_john_mccain_my_cheat.php]womanizing.[/url</a>]</p>
<p>BTW, my son interned in Congress last fall and I saw the move with him in December after he had finished the internship – he really enjoyed the movie and also confirmed that the particular hiring practice featured in the movie seems to still exist on Capitol Hill.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The wealthy are the ones still buying things right now. Everyone else is scared to death. I am one of those under 75k’ers and happen to be employed by a group of the 250k’ers. As soon as they start to feel the pinch I could be on the block. Don’t delude yourself. The “middle class” (whatever that is) spends more money but in times like these it’s all on necessities, they don’t have the disposable income to spend. The whole economy is going to teeter on the backs of those who have, not those who do not.</p>