Submitted by Username on October 21, 2008 - 8:37pm.
Seems to me like taxes in this country is like cell phone reception in Rancho Santa Fe. Everyone wants the benefit of the cell tower and the reception it brings but no one wants to "pay" for it by putting the tower on their property. Taxes have to be paid by someone and it doesn't hurt someone making 75K a year like it does someone making 25K a year. Of course most posters on this blog are in the first group so they complain about how unfair it is. Personally I'd rather earn more and pay the taxes than earn less and have less. Then again political views are often influenced by your parents and I had an affluent democrat for a mother who lived within her means, owns her house our right has zero debt and has assets/money in the bank and is now "working retired" collecting social security, retirement and a paycheck. My father is a broke republican who is still working at almost 80 years old and spent more than he earned his whole life. He has massive debts and can never retire. He jokes that "the longer I work the less I have to save for retirement". Sad truth is he will die working, just as many boomers today.
Submitted by kev374 on October 21, 2008 - 10:17pm.
Username wrote:
Taxes have to be paid by someone and it doesn't hurt someone making 75K a year like it does someone making 25K a year.
This is the most ludicrous thing ever. Someone making $75k/yr here in Southern California is hardly rich.
People who are single and make above this amount already pay a boatload in taxes. Your accusation that they don't pay their fair share is frankly quite egregious. It's the $75k-$250k segment that pays the most tax in this country as a percentage of their income.
Submitted by Aecetia on October 22, 2008 - 9:59am.
“The state cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.”
--William Graham Sumner (October 30, 1840 – April 12, 1910), American academic and professor at Yale College
The previously unreported study estimates that taxpayers whose true income was between $500,000 and $1 million a year understated their adjusted gross incomes by 21% overall in 2001, compared to an 8% underreporting rate for those earning $50,000 to $100,000 and even lower rates for those earning less. (The "net misreporting rate" as the IRS calls it, includes both underreported income and inflated deductions.)
Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.
The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.
Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.
Submitted by boomer on October 22, 2008 - 12:36pm.
arraya - did you read the article? Two Democrats call for this study just to whine about corps not paying taxes... S Corps don't pay corporate taxes. Could this be a simple answer to this stupid partisan study?
Submitted by lostcat92120 on October 22, 2008 - 12:48pm.
All this is stupid. Republican's are bailing out banks, the rich, and making the middle class pay for it. WTF is that.. let them take care of themselves. Anytime the middle class needs anything, the republican base bitches like little kids. If that's not a re-distribution of wealth, I don't know what is. I say divide America into two again. Let the republicans manage one side and the dems manage the other side. I’d put money on it that the country of Republican would be borrowing money from the country of Democrats in about two years to balance their budget and the keep their mismanaged banking system whole. In 10-years, the country of republicans would be headed for a great depression and the country of democrats would be prospering and buying cheap republican lands and failed business entities.
America is no longer a democracy because no one has enough real information to make a real decision.
As I've said may times before, taxes aren't about fairness, efficiency, etc. Taxes are about keeping the masses from revolting. I'd rather pay 40% of my income to the government and have the economic and social stability necessary to continue compounding wealth (albeit at a lower rate as a result of the taxes) as opposed to having a 10% income tax and having everything I own taken from me in a revolution. 100% of zero is still zero. Taxes are the price we pay for (relative) stability even though they're incredibly inefficient and generally "unfair" (whatever that means). I'm a small-l libertarian at heart, but I recognize that varying degrees of success in capitalism (even the watered-down kind we practice here) ultimately involve a fair amount of luck. To some extent, progressive taxes are in effect a tax on some of that luck to be redistributed to those less lucky. It ain't a perfect system, but at least we don't have revolutions (yet, at least).
Submitted by Omega Point on October 22, 2008 - 8:45pm.
Quote:
I'd rather pay 40% of my income to the government and have the economic and social stability necessary to continue compounding wealth (albeit at a lower rate as a result of the taxes) as opposed to having a 10% income tax and having everything I own taken from me in a revolution.
That's quite funny. The U.S. became the dominant and largest economy by the end of the 19th century decades before the income tax was in place permanently. There were'nt mobs of people trying to steal their neighbors' fortunes or demanding the gov't confiscate it and give it to them.
There is a revolution going on, it's just slow enough that you're not noticing it. Taxes, gov't fees, onerous regulations are everywhere and continue to grow. Give it time and there won't be a violent "revolution" to take everything you have, you'll be so brainwashed you'll just hand it over to them.
Submitted by Omega Point on October 22, 2008 - 8:53pm.
Quote:
Here's a ridiculous idea: the Government should actually have to cut spending to make thier out-go smaller than their in-come.
I agree with you but that's like asking a crack addict to stop using crack if they want to lose their dependence on it.
The fundamental problem is that we now have a generation and half of voters who now believe they can vote themselves money and "free" services. Of course those in power who promised them this are only too eager to keep providing it since it keeps them in power. It just reinforces itself.
Benjamin Franklin once said "when people learn they can vote themselves money, the Republic will end" or something along those lines.
Submitted by Omega Point on October 22, 2008 - 9:03pm.
Quote:
Seems to me like taxes in this country is like cell phone reception in Rancho Santa Fe. Everyone wants the benefit of the cell tower and the reception it brings but no one wants to "pay" for it by putting the tower on their property.
Here's where you're wrong. Not everyone wants the "benefits" that gov't provides but we are forced into paying for them. In fact, 95% of all services that gov't provides can be better handled by the private sector. Imagine you walk into a store and only want to buy milk but the store forces you to load up the grocery cart because it claims you "need them". You would cry foul, why should the gov't be any different?
When I read gov't programs and services, to me it means malinvestments. Gov't programs are like someone who has a garage and attic full of "stuff" who claims they can't live without them even though they've never looked at them soon after they were acquired. However, if you could secretly take away most of the "stuff" away, the person would never notice any difference. I feel the same way about gov't programs.
That's quite funny. The U.S. became the dominant and largest economy by the end of the 19th century decades before the income tax was in place permanently. There were'nt mobs of people trying to steal their neighbors' fortunes or demanding the gov't confiscate it and give it to them.
Davelj is right. Taxes are the price we pay for a stable society. A fat lot of good your extra income will do you if are murdered for your shoes or you catch tuberculosis when an unemployed guy spits in your face.
Taxes are a great form of wealth redistribution as everyone gets something from them. I get a job, you get a road, for example. If you run a local business, heck maybe I'll even buy something from you. Or your customers might use that new road to drive to your business.
All this is stupid. Republican's are bailing out banks, the rich, and making the middle class pay for it. WTF is that.. let them take care of themselves. Anytime the middle class needs anything, the republican base bitches like little kids. If that's not a re-distribution of wealth, I don't know what is. I say divide America into two again. Let the republicans manage one side and the dems manage the other side. I’d put money on it that the country of Republican would be borrowing money from the country of Democrats in about two years to balance their budget and the keep their mismanaged banking system whole. In 10-years, the country of republicans would be headed for a great depression and the country of democrats would be prospering and buying cheap republican lands and failed business entities.
America is no longer a democracy because no one has enough real information to make a real decision.
Ummmm...which party is bailing out the banks??? Were not the majority of the votes for this almost a trillion dollar bailout Dems? I would love to find out which party tacked on all the pork to a $700 BILLION package!
Did not Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters, along with other Dems, block further regulation of Freddie and Fannie.
Was it not Barney Frank who assured everybody that Freddie and Fannie were in good shape?
The corruption and blame fall on BOTH parties. Half the problem with this country is the blind partison voters that have thier heads so firmly up the ass of their party of choice and refuse to see the problems festering in thier own party.
Imagine how different each party would be if thier supporters put as much time into making sure they stayed on the straight and narrow as they did crapping on the other!
If we really want change in this country it is going to be a result of voters keeping thier house clean, not some slick talking politician cut from the same cloth as all the rest,
Submitted by Aecetia on October 23, 2008 - 9:03am.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Animal Farm
“Equality is not good”
Barney Frank and the putrefaction of American liberalism
By Bill Van Auken
18 July 2008 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul200...
“‘No one expects equality, equality is not a good thing, you can’t have an economy that works if everything’s equal,” said Frank. “But too much inequality also has negative consequences.’”
“Frank made the comment after noting that, given a continuation of the present rate of layoffs and downsizing, the US economy will lose a million jobs this year. He also drew attention to a section in the Federal Reserve Board’s own monetary policy report which noted that real wages are falling significantly as a result of spiraling prices, while labor productivity is rising.”
Submitted by jficquette on October 23, 2008 - 9:25am.
lostcat92120 wrote:
All this is stupid. Republican's are bailing out banks, the rich, and making the middle class pay for it. WTF is that.. let them take care of themselves. Anytime the middle class needs anything, the republican base bitches like little kids. If that's not a re-distribution of wealth, I don't know what is. I say divide America into two again. Let the republicans manage one side and the dems manage the other side. I’d put money on it that the country of Republican would be borrowing money from the country of Democrats in about two years to balance their budget and the keep their mismanaged banking system whole. In 10-years, the country of republicans would be headed for a great depression and the country of democrats would be prospering and buying cheap republican lands and failed business entities.
America is no longer a democracy because no one has enough real information to make a real decision.
MSM probably didn't tell you but more Democrats voted for the bailout then Reps and they probably didn't tell you that Bush tried to fix it years ago but Franks, Dodd et. al needed the bribes too much.
Submitted by Omega Point on October 23, 2008 - 9:28am.
Quote:
Uh, dude, ever heard of the Civil War?
uhhhhhh, duuude... of course I have heard of the Civil War but what is your point? This war wasn't about taxes and if you were referring to income taxes, yes there were income taxes but they were only temporary and they did nothing to build the U.S. into the largest economy in the world during that century.
High taxes are most often the causes of revolutions or haven't you heard of the American and French Revolutions.
Anything I "get" from taxes is mostly outweighed by things that are taken away from me by force. Hardly a bargain.
A stable society is ensured by the morals of the people. If people believe they can legally steal from others, you'll soon not have a functioning society.
Submitted by jficquette on October 23, 2008 - 9:40am.
Username wrote:
Seems to me like taxes in this country is like cell phone reception in Rancho Santa Fe. Everyone wants the benefit of the cell tower and the reception it brings but no one wants to "pay" for it by putting the tower on their property. Taxes have to be paid by someone and it doesn't hurt someone making 75K a year like it does someone making 25K a year. Of course most posters on this blog are in the first group so they complain about how unfair it is. Personally I'd rather earn more and pay the taxes than earn less and have less. Then again political views are often influenced by your parents and I had an affluent democrat for a mother who lived within her means, owns her house our right has zero debt and has assets/money in the bank and is now "working retired" collecting social security, retirement and a paycheck. My father is a broke republican who is still working at almost 80 years old and spent more than he earned his whole life. He has massive debts and can never retire. He jokes that "the longer I work the less I have to save for retirement". Sad truth is he will die working, just as many boomers today.
Thats only because half the people have bought into the lie that we need $4 Trillion a year in government spending including states, cities etc.
Submitted by jficquette on October 23, 2008 - 1:22pm.
Omega Point wrote:
Quote:
Uh, dude, ever heard of the Civil War?
uhhhhhh, duuude... of course I have heard of the Civil War but what is your point? This war wasn't about taxes and if you were referring to income taxes, yes there were income taxes but they were only temporary and they did nothing to build the U.S. into the largest economy in the world during that century.
High taxes are most often the causes of revolutions or haven't you heard of the American and French Revolutions.
Anything I "get" from taxes is mostly outweighed by things that are taken away from me by force. Hardly a bargain.
A stable society is ensured by the morals of the people. If people believe they can legally steal from others, you'll soon not have a functioning society.
Submitted by yojimbo on October 23, 2008 - 1:48pm.
BY GARY WISBY STAFF REPORTER
When 17-year-old Steve Terrett was found shot to death and shoeless in a South Side alley last week, his mother feared he was killed for his new $110 Nike Air Jordan shoes.
Sunday it turned out she was right, Chicago Police said.
A stable society is ensured by the morals of the people. If people believe they can legally steal from others, you'll soon not have a functioning society.
Ok, so hypothetically speaking, if people were allowed to borrow money they had no hope of ever paying back, it might cause instability?
Is McCain's Senate Office a More Lucrative Workplace for Women Than Obama's?
September 12, 2008 3:24 PM
"Conservative columnist Deroy Murdock has an interesting piece today that takes a look at what Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and John McCain, R-Ariz., pay their Senate staffers.
Using the public information compiled on the Web site of the non-partisan group Legistorm, Murdock concludes that, on average, women in McCain's office are paid more than the men in McCain's office -- $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. Men in Obama's office make more than women do; female employees make 83 cents for every dollar made by male employees.
Murdock frames this as an issue of pay equity, but it's not really -- if anything, it's more a matter of a "glass ceiling."
(Or, at least, that's what feminist groups would likely be saying if the situations were reversed.)
Only one of Obama's five best-paid Senate staffers is a woman. Of McCain's five best-paid Senate staffers, three are women.
Of Obama's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, seven are women. Of McCain's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, 13 are women.
The Obama campaign does not dispute Murdock's figures (and neither does the McCain campaign), but Obama campaign spox Ben LaBolt argues that it's a much different situation on Obama's presidential campaign.
Obama's campaign is jam-packed with high-ranking women, LaBolt says, citing Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor Michelle Obama, Chief of Staff Stephanie Cutter, Senior Advisor Linda Douglass, VP Chief of Staff Patti Solis Doyle, VP Communications Director Ricki Seidman, National Finance Chair Penny Pritzker, Policy Director Heather Higginbottom, Domestic Policy Director Neera Tanden, Director of Rapid Response Christina Reynolds, Senior Adviser Anita Dunn, Senior Speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz, Battleground States Director Jen O’Malley, Research Director Devorah Adler, Director of Scheduling and Advance Alyssa Mastromonaco, Chief Financial Officer Marianne Markowitz, Chief Operations Officer Betsy Myers, and the woman whom LaBolt says is the campaign's highest-paid official, Finance Director Julianna Smoot. (Nice work, Jules.)
How many employees total does Obama consider "senior staffers"? How do the numbers of high-ranking women on the Obama campaign -- and their salaries -- stack up?
These questions are as yet unanswered."
by rich he means singles making over $75,000 and couples making over $150,000. That is the democrat definition of "rich"
Seems to me like taxes in this country is like cell phone reception in Rancho Santa Fe. Everyone wants the benefit of the cell tower and the reception it brings but no one wants to "pay" for it by putting the tower on their property. Taxes have to be paid by someone and it doesn't hurt someone making 75K a year like it does someone making 25K a year. Of course most posters on this blog are in the first group so they complain about how unfair it is. Personally I'd rather earn more and pay the taxes than earn less and have less. Then again political views are often influenced by your parents and I had an affluent democrat for a mother who lived within her means, owns her house our right has zero debt and has assets/money in the bank and is now "working retired" collecting social security, retirement and a paycheck. My father is a broke republican who is still working at almost 80 years old and spent more than he earned his whole life. He has massive debts and can never retire. He jokes that "the longer I work the less I have to save for retirement". Sad truth is he will die working, just as many boomers today.
This is the most ludicrous thing ever. Someone making $75k/yr here in Southern California is hardly rich.
People who are single and make above this amount already pay a boatload in taxes. Your accusation that they don't pay their fair share is frankly quite egregious. It's the $75k-$250k segment that pays the most tax in this country as a percentage of their income.
So please QUIT your Marxist agenda!
did they even have taxes in the old communist bloc?
“The state cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.”
--William Graham Sumner (October 30, 1840 – April 12, 1910), American academic and professor at Yale College
Frank is a well known socialist, so why is this news?
Besides, he was probably refering to all of the rich who don't pay their taxes anyway:
Rich Cheat More On Taxes, New Study Shows - http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/21/taxes-i...
I'm a dinc family, and I get bent over during tax season..
Here's a ridiculous idea: the Government should actually have to cut spending to make thier out-go smaller than their in-come.
It doesn't matter who pays more taxes, it won't solve the fundamental problem that our Government can't manage a budget.
If they tax more, they'll just spend more. If they tax less, they'll spend more. See the problem?
Besides, he was probably refering to all of the rich who don't pay their taxes anyway:
Or maybe businesses..
arraya - did you read the article? Two Democrats call for this study just to whine about corps not paying taxes... S Corps don't pay corporate taxes. Could this be a simple answer to this stupid partisan study?
All this is stupid. Republican's are bailing out banks, the rich, and making the middle class pay for it. WTF is that.. let them take care of themselves. Anytime the middle class needs anything, the republican base bitches like little kids. If that's not a re-distribution of wealth, I don't know what is. I say divide America into two again. Let the republicans manage one side and the dems manage the other side. I’d put money on it that the country of Republican would be borrowing money from the country of Democrats in about two years to balance their budget and the keep their mismanaged banking system whole. In 10-years, the country of republicans would be headed for a great depression and the country of democrats would be prospering and buying cheap republican lands and failed business entities.
America is no longer a democracy because no one has enough real information to make a real decision.
As I've said may times before, taxes aren't about fairness, efficiency, etc. Taxes are about keeping the masses from revolting. I'd rather pay 40% of my income to the government and have the economic and social stability necessary to continue compounding wealth (albeit at a lower rate as a result of the taxes) as opposed to having a 10% income tax and having everything I own taken from me in a revolution. 100% of zero is still zero. Taxes are the price we pay for (relative) stability even though they're incredibly inefficient and generally "unfair" (whatever that means). I'm a small-l libertarian at heart, but I recognize that varying degrees of success in capitalism (even the watered-down kind we practice here) ultimately involve a fair amount of luck. To some extent, progressive taxes are in effect a tax on some of that luck to be redistributed to those less lucky. It ain't a perfect system, but at least we don't have revolutions (yet, at least).
That's quite funny. The U.S. became the dominant and largest economy by the end of the 19th century decades before the income tax was in place permanently. There were'nt mobs of people trying to steal their neighbors' fortunes or demanding the gov't confiscate it and give it to them.
There is a revolution going on, it's just slow enough that you're not noticing it. Taxes, gov't fees, onerous regulations are everywhere and continue to grow. Give it time and there won't be a violent "revolution" to take everything you have, you'll be so brainwashed you'll just hand it over to them.
I agree with you but that's like asking a crack addict to stop using crack if they want to lose their dependence on it.
The fundamental problem is that we now have a generation and half of voters who now believe they can vote themselves money and "free" services. Of course those in power who promised them this are only too eager to keep providing it since it keeps them in power. It just reinforces itself.
Benjamin Franklin once said "when people learn they can vote themselves money, the Republic will end" or something along those lines.
Here's where you're wrong. Not everyone wants the "benefits" that gov't provides but we are forced into paying for them. In fact, 95% of all services that gov't provides can be better handled by the private sector. Imagine you walk into a store and only want to buy milk but the store forces you to load up the grocery cart because it claims you "need them". You would cry foul, why should the gov't be any different?
When I read gov't programs and services, to me it means malinvestments. Gov't programs are like someone who has a garage and attic full of "stuff" who claims they can't live without them even though they've never looked at them soon after they were acquired. However, if you could secretly take away most of the "stuff" away, the person would never notice any difference. I feel the same way about gov't programs.
That's quite funny. The U.S. became the dominant and largest economy by the end of the 19th century decades before the income tax was in place permanently. There were'nt mobs of people trying to steal their neighbors' fortunes or demanding the gov't confiscate it and give it to them.
Uh, dude, ever heard of the Civil War?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War
or the long depression?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depres...
Davelj is right. Taxes are the price we pay for a stable society. A fat lot of good your extra income will do you if are murdered for your shoes or you catch tuberculosis when an unemployed guy spits in your face.
Taxes are a great form of wealth redistribution as everyone gets something from them. I get a job, you get a road, for example. If you run a local business, heck maybe I'll even buy something from you. Or your customers might use that new road to drive to your business.
America is no longer a democracy because no one has enough real information to make a real decision.
Ummmm...which party is bailing out the banks??? Were not the majority of the votes for this almost a trillion dollar bailout Dems? I would love to find out which party tacked on all the pork to a $700 BILLION package!
Did not Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters, along with other Dems, block further regulation of Freddie and Fannie.
Was it not Barney Frank who assured everybody that Freddie and Fannie were in good shape?
The corruption and blame fall on BOTH parties. Half the problem with this country is the blind partison voters that have thier heads so firmly up the ass of their party of choice and refuse to see the problems festering in thier own party.
Imagine how different each party would be if thier supporters put as much time into making sure they stayed on the straight and narrow as they did crapping on the other!
If we really want change in this country it is going to be a result of voters keeping thier house clean, not some slick talking politician cut from the same cloth as all the rest,
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Animal Farm
“Equality is not good”
Barney Frank and the putrefaction of American liberalism
By Bill Van Auken
18 July 2008
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul200...
“‘No one expects equality, equality is not a good thing, you can’t have an economy that works if everything’s equal,” said Frank. “But too much inequality also has negative consequences.’”
“Frank made the comment after noting that, given a continuation of the present rate of layoffs and downsizing, the US economy will lose a million jobs this year. He also drew attention to a section in the Federal Reserve Board’s own monetary policy report which noted that real wages are falling significantly as a result of spiraling prices, while labor productivity is rising.”
America is no longer a democracy because no one has enough real information to make a real decision.
MSM probably didn't tell you but more Democrats voted for the bailout then Reps and they probably didn't tell you that Bush tried to fix it years ago but Franks, Dodd et. al needed the bribes too much.
John
uhhhhhh, duuude... of course I have heard of the Civil War but what is your point? This war wasn't about taxes and if you were referring to income taxes, yes there were income taxes but they were only temporary and they did nothing to build the U.S. into the largest economy in the world during that century.
High taxes are most often the causes of revolutions or haven't you heard of the American and French Revolutions.
Anything I "get" from taxes is mostly outweighed by things that are taken away from me by force. Hardly a bargain.
A stable society is ensured by the morals of the people. If people believe they can legally steal from others, you'll soon not have a functioning society.
Thats only because half the people have bought into the lie that we need $4 Trillion a year in government spending including states, cities etc.
The government is the problem.
John
uhhhhhh, duuude... of course I have heard of the Civil War but what is your point? This war wasn't about taxes and if you were referring to income taxes, yes there were income taxes but they were only temporary and they did nothing to build the U.S. into the largest economy in the world during that century.
High taxes are most often the causes of revolutions or haven't you heard of the American and French Revolutions.
Anything I "get" from taxes is mostly outweighed by things that are taken away from me by force. Hardly a bargain.
A stable society is ensured by the morals of the people. If people believe they can legally steal from others, you'll soon not have a functioning society.
Good post.
BY GARY WISBY STAFF REPORTER
When 17-year-old Steve Terrett was found shot to death and shoeless in a South Side alley last week, his mother feared he was killed for his new $110 Nike Air Jordan shoes.
Sunday it turned out she was right, Chicago Police said.
A stable society is ensured by the morals of the people. If people believe they can legally steal from others, you'll soon not have a functioning society.
Ok, so hypothetically speaking, if people were allowed to borrow money they had no hope of ever paying back, it might cause instability?
Phew! Coast is clear.
Wow. Some animals are really way more equal than others especially those with the female gender:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/...
Is McCain's Senate Office a More Lucrative Workplace for Women Than Obama's?
September 12, 2008 3:24 PM
"Conservative columnist Deroy Murdock has an interesting piece today that takes a look at what Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and John McCain, R-Ariz., pay their Senate staffers.
Using the public information compiled on the Web site of the non-partisan group Legistorm, Murdock concludes that, on average, women in McCain's office are paid more than the men in McCain's office -- $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. Men in Obama's office make more than women do; female employees make 83 cents for every dollar made by male employees.
Murdock frames this as an issue of pay equity, but it's not really -- if anything, it's more a matter of a "glass ceiling."
(Or, at least, that's what feminist groups would likely be saying if the situations were reversed.)
Only one of Obama's five best-paid Senate staffers is a woman. Of McCain's five best-paid Senate staffers, three are women.
Of Obama's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, seven are women. Of McCain's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, 13 are women.
The Obama campaign does not dispute Murdock's figures (and neither does the McCain campaign), but Obama campaign spox Ben LaBolt argues that it's a much different situation on Obama's presidential campaign.
Obama's campaign is jam-packed with high-ranking women, LaBolt says, citing Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor Michelle Obama, Chief of Staff Stephanie Cutter, Senior Advisor Linda Douglass, VP Chief of Staff Patti Solis Doyle, VP Communications Director Ricki Seidman, National Finance Chair Penny Pritzker, Policy Director Heather Higginbottom, Domestic Policy Director Neera Tanden, Director of Rapid Response Christina Reynolds, Senior Adviser Anita Dunn, Senior Speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz, Battleground States Director Jen O’Malley, Research Director Devorah Adler, Director of Scheduling and Advance Alyssa Mastromonaco, Chief Financial Officer Marianne Markowitz, Chief Operations Officer Betsy Myers, and the woman whom LaBolt says is the campaign's highest-paid official, Finance Director Julianna Smoot. (Nice work, Jules.)
How many employees total does Obama consider "senior staffers"? How do the numbers of high-ranking women on the Obama campaign -- and their salaries -- stack up?
These questions are as yet unanswered."