Obama to Women: ‘No Limits on Their Dreams’

“…develop policies to establish a balance between work and family.”
Oh, I can hardly wait. And here I always thought it was the individual’s responsibility to create his/her own balance between work and family. I had no idea it was a matter for government to decide. How progressive.

obama , who saying the taliban has moderates , now says he’s “for” women…
after all he married one,sweetie………………….

I think I’m going to throw up

No limits on their dreams except for the taxes they will pay because of BO’s massive spending.
Keep your ambitions and dreams low girls because Obama is coming for your money if you are too successful.
Better watch how you invest too.

Is there anybody on this panel concerned with women or men that want to stay home and raise their children?
Or is this all about getting women out into the workplace?
Is being a good earner the only acceptable option for women (or men) these days?

“Sweetie” Obama is a phony. He has completly disrespected women. Especially the woman who should be our President, Hillary Rodham Clinton. She’s the ONLY bright spot in his sorry administration.
Obama is also a liar. He made “no earmarks” a hallmark of his campaign promises..and today he’s signed a bill including nearly 9,000 earmarks, including his OWN earmarks stuffed into the bloated bill last year. Disgusting hypocrite!
Kudos to Sen. Russ Feingold, Sen. Evan Bayh and Sen. John McCain who stood strong against earmarks.
That’s why this Hillary supporting Democrat voted for John McCain. At least you can respect the man. I am one very disappointed centrist Democrat. Obama is leading us down a very dangerous spending path burdening our children with massive debt. It’s outrageously unfair.
Wake up America! Despite what Newsweek mag rag claims, socialism is very bad for America. Capitalism is what made America great! Let’s fight to keep it!
(The author of the Newsweek rag cover story on socialism is Evan Thomas, grandson of 6 time National Socialist Party candidate for President of the U.S., from 1928-1948 none other than Norman Thomas!) Surprised? Sickened? You should be!

Window dressing to try and bring the PUMA women back on board. Hey women, isn’t it nice to know that O doesn’t think you are permanent victims, and cannot acheive success on your own? That you must have a big government nanny-state agency to help you, because you are incapable of helping yourselves?
Liberals love to divide us all up into victim classes. Divide, in order to conquer! That’s the “progressive” way.

Liberals love to divide us all up into victim classes.
Posted by: JD
=======================================
And you want to control their bodies, especially their reproductive organs.

“Obama has a poor record so far in naming women to top posts in his administration.”
He has more women in his cabinet than any previous President.
“His past record indicates he pays lower wages to women and hires fewer of them. WHY?”
That was a made up right wing talking point.

T
Hillary was your candidate but when she lost, you supported somebody who choose Palin who wanted to take control over your uterus, because she believes she knows better what to do with it than you? How much sense makes that?

“Speaking of liars, Obama never said no earmarks.”
I have to correct myself here.
Obama said no earmarks in the stim bill.
And there were no earmarks in the stim bill.

Obama….”When women make less than men for the same work”.
This is a gross distortion of the reality and Obama knows it. This like saying “women business owners earn less than men business owners”. Show me one company that has a pay scale different for men and women.
Consider this:
According to a report by the General Accountability Office (GAO), many factors account for the difference in pay between men and women, but work patterns are key:
Women have fewer years of work experience
Women work fewer hours per year
Women are less likely to work a fulltime schedule
Women leave the labor force for longer periods of time
Some women give up job advancement or higher earnings for a job that offers more flexibility to manage work and family responsibilities

“According to a report by the General Accountability Office (GAO), many factors account for the difference in pay between men and women, but work patterns are key:”
Of the many factors that account for differences in earnings between men and women, our model indicated that work patterns are key. Specifically, women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men. Other factors that account for earnings differences include industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure. When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000. While the difference fluctuated in each year we studied, there was a small but statistically significant decline in the earnings difference over the time period. Even after accounting for key factors that affect earnings, our model could not explain all of the difference in earnings between men and women.

And you voted for that guy? How silly can you be. Why should we have to take seriously what you think?
Posted by: Willem van Oranje | Mar 11, 2009 6:35:19 PM
====
Some voted against B0, for his lack of experience, as exhibited by his phony stimulus of money giveaways that will bankrupt this economy, his hypocrisy, as exhibited by his LInE by LInE veto of earmarks, his lies, as exhibited by his selection of tax cheaters and lobbists into his service.
Besides, shouldn’t the question be: Why should we take you seriously for voting another unqualified, unfit person to be your president after you have witnessed 8 years of disasters under Bush?
Perhaps you have nothing invested in the economy, in the market. The disaster that PB0 already brought to this economy – the lack of confidence in him – is already greater than numbers.

“What companies today have separate pay scales for men and women?”
Its never that obvious.
“It seems logical that the statistics and reasons published by the GAO reflect more accurately the pay disparity than the statement implying – “When women make less than men for the same work..” Wouldn’t you agree?”
That we have made progress does not mean the issue is resolved.
There are still women who make less than men for the same work and they should have access to legal remedies for that.
There is nothing wrong with his statement.

Obama just used one of his “rarely used” signing statements to sign the Omnibus Bill..lol…Good thing he’s only going to do that “rarely”, huh?

“Obama just used one of his “rarely used” signing statements to sign the Omnibus Bill..lol…Good thing he’s only going to do that “rarely”, huh?”
The Cuba thing, correct?
Would you prefer he let that one thru?

“Why are you freaking out over it like its some great insult? ”
I’m not insulted. His statement is simply misleading and disingenuous. Obama is a smart man. He knows it, too.

“Would you prefer he let that one thru?’
No. My preference is that he be transparent with Americans. My preference was that he veto the bill, have congress change that if he didn’t want it there or just veto it. Trying to hide this action out of public eyes only raises questions about his “transparency”.. You know, like “the most transparent administration in history”. lol

No. My preference is that he be transparent with Americans. My preference was that he veto the bill, have congress change that if he didn’t want it there or just veto it. Trying to hide this action out of public eyes only raises questions about his “transparency”.. You know, like “the most transparent administration in history”. lol
Posted by: Sigmonde
=======================================
He was transparent with Americans. He explained it a hundred times to you and everybody else that now is not the time to overhaul the proces, which costs a lot of time. Even the Republicans are not going to let earmarks-proces disappear, despite their grandstanding now, and meanwhile taking huge chunks of taxpayer dollars home to their districts. Didn’t you see L Graham last Sunday? What a hypocrite. Everybody else’s earmark was “porkbarrel spending”, but his own earmarks …. Well, that was something completely different.
You guys are claiming that POTUS is taking *too much* on his plate. But at the same time you’re whining he’s not not doing enough of this, or that, or whatever your whine of the day is.
You controlled Congress for 14 years and the WH for the last 8 years. You did nothing to overhaul the proces.
But now, when Dems control the budget, that 0.8% of the total annual budget suddenly is a HUGE issue.
Hypocrites.

“He was transparent with Americans.”
Why didn’t sign the Omnibus Bill in public? And why did he exercise a “signing statement” after the fact?
This is not transparency.

CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES., MARCH 10, 2009
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,212,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,376,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,331,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,274,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,044,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,965,000
CNN COOPER 1,214,000
CNN KING 1,185,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,041,000
CNNHN GRACE 986,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 928,000
Yep Olbermann sucks

“Would you go see a female surgeon or for that matter any doctor who most likely only received their degree because…”
Female physicians working for the government, such as for the VA, are paid the same as men.
Physicians in sole private practice are paid according to their retail fee schedule and reimbursed by insurance companies and the government at the same rates, male or female.
Physicians employed in groups are paid the same, whether male or female.
The same applies to other professionals such as attorneys, researchers, etc.
The disparity in the statistics lies with the reasons outlined by the GAO.
What does – “who only received their degree because of some government program forced the college to push them through.”- have to do with anything?
You should stick with subjects you know something about.

“Why don’t you go and teach the people in Tennessee how to pay their physicians”
I assume by your comment you want to demonize physicians as causing the high cost of health care that is unaffordable to many people. Look more towards the insurance companies if that is what trouble you.

Sweetie” Obama is a phony. He has completly disrespected women. Especially the woman who should be our President, Hillary Rodham Clinton. She’s the ONLY bright spot in his sorry administration.
Obama is also a liar. He made “no earmarks” a hallmark of his campaign promises..and today he’s signed a bill including nearly 9,000 earmarks, including his OWN earmarks stuffed into the bloated bill last year. Disgusting hypocrite!
Kudos to Sen. Russ Feingold, Sen. Evan Bayh and Sen. John McCain who stood strong against earmarks.
That’s why this Hillary supporting Democrat voted for John McCain. At least you can respect the man. I am one very disappointed centrist Democrat. Obama is leading us down a very dangerous spending path burdening our children with massive debt. It’s outrageously unfair.
Wake up America! Despite what Newsweek mag rag claims, socialism is very bad for America. Capitalism is what made America great! Let’s fight to keep it!
(The author of the Newsweek rag cover story on socialism is Evan Thomas, grandson of 6 time National Socialist Party candidate for President of the U.S., from 1928-1948 none other than Norman Thomas!) Surprised? Sickened? You should be

Obama killed the dream for women by cheating his way through the very un-Democratic caucus process. It’s too little too late. He disrespects women and he especially disrespected Hillary Rodham Clinton who has earned the right to respect from ALL of us. Thank you Hillary for your lifetime of public service. Thanks to all women who fight to make the world a better place for all of us. Thanks to the men who support them and join them in the fight.

“…and he especially disrespected Hillary Rodham Clinton…”
How? By making her Secretary of State?

Willem van Oranje
/—–
He was transparent with Americans. He explained it a hundred times to you and everybody else that now is not the time to overhaul the proces, which costs a lot of time. Even the Republicans are not going to let earmarks-proces disappear, despite their grandstanding now, and meanwhile taking huge chunks of taxpayer dollars home to their districts. Didn’t you see L Graham last Sunday? What a hypocrite. Everybody else’s earmark was “porkbarrel spending”, but his own earmarks …. Well, that was something completely different. Hypocrites.
—–/
Indeed they are. Whining hypocrites.

Posted by: Ryan C | Mar 11, 2009 6:22:57 PM
You really do live on a fantasy world.

“This is what’s so screwed up with liberals. You can guarantee equal opportunity, but you cannot guarantee equal outcome.
That’s simply Communistic.”
Posted like a true male chauvinist.
Women’s median annual earnings were only $.77 for every $1.00 earned by men. For African American women the gap is even worse – only $.71 for every $1.00 earned by men and $.58 for Hispanics.

GetReal
“we are all over the work force” in some professions, but in many blue collar jobs women are not. Some places have signs posted stating “Women need not apply” when seeking applications and so forth.
Our government has been strong-armed by the religious right for many years and this Catholic policy is so inclusive: “that women who seek ordination and bishops who attempt to ordain women are automatically excommunicated, without any further action on the part of the Vatican being necessary.”
Don’t forget – women can’t be in combat either no matter what their expertise…..
Then you get back to that .77 on the $1.00 crap.
You’re right – GET REAL!

Ranger, I defy you to show me one example of the outrageous behavior you suggestion, that is, that “Some places have signs posted stating “Women need not apply” when seeking applications and so forth.” NO ONE does that. In places where there is discrimination against women (and I would not argue there is no such discrimination ever, any more than I would argue that there is no unspoken discrimination against people of color ever), it is not so blatantly and illegally stated.
And the old saw about women making 77 cents for every man’s dollar is a useless statistic, because there are so many factors that go into that fact– there’s so many variables involved and it is not because women and men doing identical work with identical experience are being paid at wildly divergent pay scales based on sex or gender. Surely you know that.
Example from my bailiwick– academia. Someone in another post earlier in the week cited some study that contended that female professors make 22% less than male professors. The study claimed to have factored in such things as experience and education levels. I call baloney. At my institution and every other academic institution I know (and in the course of committee work on merit pay, tenure and promotion, and hiring committees, I have had access to lots of info about other schools and their pay practices), a newly hired professor is going to be offered the same starting salary regardless of sex. Over time, that professor’s salary will hopefully rise, but that rise will not be based on sex, age, race, or any other factor irrelevant to his/her job performance. Each case will be unique and there are many reasons why, in the aggregate, the average salary of the total group of female professors at a given institution will be less than the average for their male counterparts. There are fewer women in the scientific and business departments, where salaries are higher. There are more women who take more time off to be at home with children for a number of years or otherwise prioritize other things over full-time employment without interruption.
Crucially, it is impossible to compare even the salaries of two professors in a given department who on the surface may appear to have only gender to distinguish between them. Merit pay is based in many cases on such things as teaching excellence and research production. Perhaps the female published fewer journal articles than the male or published in a less prestious journal. That has nothing to do with her sex. Perhaps the woman excels in teaching rather than research, and unfortunately, it is harder to quantify teaching excellence and teaching does not get the financial reward it deserves as often as research accomplishments do. Perhaps the woman
did not get elected to as many university-wide committees or done other service work to gain additional merit consideration. All those things will factor into that woman’s salary. It is impossible to simply say why any two professors of differing races, religions, or sexes who do not make identical salaries– it is a complex determination. Your statistic does not prove systemic discrimination against female workers.