“But, I also want to make sure that women are making the money that we deserve to make.”
Not a very Wall Street-friendly comment. Why can’t she just accept that baby steps are needed… women already spend most of the personal income, so then we put pictures of women on the money… perhaps in another 30-50 years when all the hubbub about Harriet Tubman on a $20 calms down, we can hold a Congressional Hearing or two.
Really though Tubman should be on the $15 bill…
Hardly anyone makes what s/he deserves to make. A few make much more than they deserve. Most make much less.
Still, a noble sentiment!
How about tying the value of the bill to women’s pay inequity–face amount $20, but now worth only 79/100 of that amount. Then, everyone who holds a bill will be motivated to get that equity closer to 100/100, and the money in one’s wallet becomes more valuable.
So who says Hillary’s only about the status quo? That she doesn’t shoot for big goals?
This is great, and it’s exactly the kind of thing that put me squarely in her camp. She understands the importance of talking about many different issues and then tying them together. Putting Tubman on the $20 is brilliant, but it’s important to point out that this doesn’t somehow placate women. I’m sure pig GOPers think it does and should.
Mostly sycophants, fools, the intellectually dishonest, and the hilariously naive think she isn’t about shooting for big goals.
Yep. Until women have as many Tubmans in their wallets as men, America still has work to do.
Yeah, Joe Biden is totally all those things…
“But, I also want to make sure that women are making the money that we deserve to make.”
***"That glass ceiling just got ten feet higher!!"***
Donald TrumpJoe Biden talks too much and the best thing he’s done lately was decide not to run for the nomination.
Then why won´t she support a carbon tax? I´m sure it´s not because of the contributions she´s received from oil and gas industry allied sources, because she´s incorruptible, personally.
Maybe because it’s not a simple solution, carlos?
- How might changes in energy prices affect low-income households?
A tax on carbon would increase the price of energy. Low-income households spend less on energy in total (relative to high-income households), but they spend a relatively larger share of their household budget on energy. Consequently, a carbon tax is regressive in that it would have a relatively larger impact on low-income households than on high-income households. How the revenues from the carbon tax are used could mitigate this regressivity.
Issues are not black and white. Just because we all agree that we need to reduce fossil fuels, it doesn’t mean that we can snap our fingers and make it so without causing other problems. Serious problems.
Then why won´t she support a carbon tax?
From just a quick Google, here is one set of rational reasons.
I´m sure it´s not because of the contributions she´s received from oil and gas industry allied sources.
So am I; the difference is that I mean it and you’re just indulging in hebephrenic sarcasm.
There are all sorts of ways to eliminate any regressivity of the tax, by reinvesting in public transportation, tax credits, etc… One shouldn´t hide behind the poor while scuttling what´s probably the most important way to reduce greenhouse gases. http://www.carbontax.org/
Oh, and Happy Earth Day to you, too! Too bad you and HRC find a carbon tax so complicated.
Oh, and from the very website you link to:
In some circles, a tax on carbon dioxide emissions is presented as a bogeyman that will make poor people even poorer. As quiet discussions continue about the viability of carbon taxes to help address the nation’s fiscal issues, the potential impacts to low-income groups from higher energy prices will no doubt be used to fight against progress. Economic research from the past few years, however, suggests the negative effects of carbon taxes on these groups are not as extensive as politicians would tell us. - See more at: Designing a Fair Carbon Tax
Happy Earth Day to you, too! But perhaps you shouldn´t accuse people of mental illness just because they disagree with you politically? It´s rude, as well as being non-responsive.* Va te faire enculer par un ourson, as they say in Gay Paree.
But so as there´s no hard feelings, here´s the latest from the NYT on HRC´s view on the uses of America´s military might.
-
Not to mention that it´s a slam on people who really are mentally ill.
It’s not simple, carlos. Don’t pretend otherwise.
Yes, issues are complicated. Therefore, let´s not take positions. Do I have that right?
Let’s not smear a candidate who understands issues and will have a better chance to advance them.
Climate change is a no-brainer. She gets it.