Shared publicly  - 
 
President Obama: entitled to his own spin, but not his own facts. Women account for 92.3% of jobs lost under him http://mi.tt/HZafYD
58
3
Ryan Garmon's profile phototim h lin's profile photoBrad Boothby's profile photoSterling Emmal's profile photo
117 comments
 
to claim that the president somehow has control over this is idiotic.
 
it seems a stretch to blame #barackobama for the recession that he inherited.... and 92.3% does not seem very likely. and he didn't say, "Oh, you, you, and you are going to be laid off because you're all women."
 
I think you guys watch to much MSNBC.
 
Although you may be right in some regard, that the President has little to do with job loss. The President has the responsibility in rectifying the problem and making his voice and actions known as to how he is fixing this mess. His discussions must be focused on the top economic issues at hand and not by entertaining such silly discussions to decriminalize cannabis. This is not a priority. People want solutions and Bills passed on the White House toilet paper. Get it done!
Greg B
+
6
7
6
 
Only the financial industry is to blame for the crisis that insued... But Presidential Obama has had over 3 years and billions of American dollars to fix it and bring his economic promises home. There were high hopes for him, but it's clear he's more interested in creating more entitlements our kids will have to pay for than fulfilling his promises. It's clear we now need a qualified leader speed up the recovery and represent ALL of the people, not just his core constituency.
 
The Conservacrats are trying to push their right-wing agenda down our necks under the guise of Freedom and Liberalism. They really want woman back in the home to do various House Chores.
 
Romney, you're trailing Obama by 19 points amongst women's voters. So obviously they don't think you're the guy who can put them back to work.
 
Wait...what...you cant be serious. Mitt
Greg B
+
1
2
1
 
+Manuel Käppler no, I'm not excited about his tax plan. But he's the most qualified candidate the US has had in years. It's better to have a qualified person executing a flawed plan than an unqualified one... They can quickly adapt and change course with better outcomes than was originally intended.. He should really be looking to simplify the tax code and broaden the base.
 
The article states, ..."while technically true, it is also misleading." If it's true than it's true. Statistics don't lie. People do. Misleading is a whole other topic that all candidates are guilty of. So, look at the technically true point and examine the statistics for yourself. Then form your opinion based on the actual facts.
 
+Greg Blaire he is according to his stint at Gov, Obama light. I Can't wait to see them debate.
 
This is true.. I've fallen deeper into poverty during the O years... Awful!
 
+Brian Yacono has perhaps never heard the phrase: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. This statistic here is: if you ignore the start of the recession, which went like all recessions have, and then focus only on the later stages after the most damage is done, which also went like all recessions, then you can extract a meaningless factoid like the one that Mitt is hanging his hat on now. If that's the best that your guy has, you should quit now :-) Considering the full truth, women account for only 39.7% of jobs lost in during this Republican-created recession
 
You libtards are hilarious! Obama could light a match to the constitution and you would blame Bush for leaving the matches in a place Obummer could get to and say it was all Bush's fault! LOL! Only 8 more months of this train wreck of a presidency. This is what we get for electing a president based on skin color rather than experience and qualifications.
 
+Nate Cook actually he did lol with the help of the USA PATRIOT BILL ACT. so yeah Bush did give him the matches...
 
So you mean to tell me that every mistake Obama makes is Bush's fault and every accomplishment (for example killing Osama via intelligence obtained via torture that Obama is against and never would have used himself) is all Obama and no credit to Bush? You can't have it both ways...but then again you're a liberal so I guess you can have it both ways. Ignoring facts and taking partial truths is all liberals know.
 
+Nate Cook no just thought it was funny seeing how Obama is taking the USA patriot bill up a notch...and the whole burning of the constitution comment you made. And im no liberal when u make an assumption u make an ass of you and umption.
 
+Nate Cook You don't understand leading and lagging indicators?

Leading indicator: Immediately when the housing bubble burst, there was a depression in (male) construction jobs. When home values drop, construction companies suspend new construction and investors rent their properties instead of improving them for sale.

Lagging indicator: Depression in service jobs. Public service and healthcare jobs are also depressed: Let's not forget the Obama Jobs bill that the Republicans blocked. That would have kept nurses and teachers (female) employed instead of laid off, like states are doing now.

The only real blame here is on financial sector deregulation, which is the fault of both parties. But only one party is trying to fix it -- the Democrats.
 
Only a liberal would blame Bush for Obama's failure. Just saying...
Bud
 
One must recognize that Mitt does have a hard time with logic, so his conclusion that Obama is responsible for the women's unemployment need to be understood in that light. I have three questions I think relevant. Which companies laid off the women? Why were women laid off and not men? And who terminated their employment, Obama or company management? Alternatively, you could understand his remarks this way. This is a political statement. To politicians words are tools, and like tools they are used to achieve an objective. The concepts of "truth" and "lies" are "inoperative."
 
I wonder how many of those women were laid off by Bain Capital?
 
Again, all presidents blame the previous administration. There is no one out there that can deny that, regardless of your party. However, the country is in a way bigger mess than what Obama began with now at 15 trillion dollars and the "semi" socialized healthcare law adding to that number. We need someone with business knowledge who knows what they are doing as opposed to a President that just throws punches in the air.
 
They should stop the blame games and start on focussing on figuring out a solution.
 
+Greg Blaire, what exactly does make you think that Romney is the most qualified? I'm sure you'll be able to list a few very reasonable points that most can agree qualifies a person to be president.
Greg B
+
2
3
2
 
+Manuel Käppler sure.. At the risk of anything I list as being consumed with partisan intent I will but won't continue to debate over G+ ; he is a staunch federalist, he was a state CEO, CEO of a major private sector investment firm, and sought out for his leadership to solve big business problems. There is some other good information here : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

The US is a very large corporations unique mainly by a requirement to be stewards, beyond reproach, of the All American people's money..Not just those of one core constituency.. I think his experiences make him the most qualified person to run in years.
 
+Greg Blaire You make very good points about how the US government could be viewed and certain ideas of how it should be approached. One thing that you missed is marketing. Something that Bush was continually very bad at and Obama did a lot to improve. In his first year domestically, his policy changes were high in the news. Internationally, we can all understand how the world's view of the U.S. changed. After that, his "marketing" slumped off - IMO likely because of his health care plan backfiring. There may be a lot of perceived negativity vs actual toward him. The same with Gingrich, a very intelligent man, but a lot of negativity surrounding him because of a past scandal. My point is that Romney has done a very bad job of improving his reputation, his marketing, and that would likely translate to a presidency and confidence in him as this country's CEO.
 
Obama had more than 3 years to fix that, but he done nothing!
 
If that statistics is wrong, why obama's campaing does not say anything?
 
It's funny how the left admits the fact and then sets up all sorts of straw men to fight against.
 
As a woman, I certainly can't understand any American women would approve Obama -- the first time was bad enough -- and now again to vote for Obama is OUTRAGEOUS! I am having nightmares ever since 2008.

Obama has been double tongue -- his motto from the beginning was -- "It's out time" -- i.e. running up trillions of debt on spending spree because of his inability to make right decisions. He was blaming "Bush" admin for 4 years since 2008 when in fact the economic nightmare of "Tech and housing bubbles" were because of "Clinton" repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.

Therefore, Obama is wrong on blaming the Bush Admin as well! Obama is nothing but "DEBT BUBBLE, MARKET HYPE BUBBLE, WAR BUBBLE" -- all financial bombs.
https://plus.google.com/108783162607093685253/posts/fB6pxSa7gap
~
 
+Ezekiel Palmer I believe the link you posted is incorrect. In an April 6 post, PolitiFact wrote that even though the figure, circulated by Saul last week, came from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the way the numbers were used was "quite misleading."
Romney's campaign sent a letter to PolitiFact Wednesday asking for a retraction."Putting aside the obvious problems with rating an accurate statement mostly false, your analysis in this instance was so inadequate that the piece ended up being little more than Obama for America spin," Chen wrote. "I hope you will consider the problems identified below, retract the piece, and replace it with one confirming the accuracy of what Ms. Saul said."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-04-11/romney-women-voters/54182664/1
 
Beware Politifacts! In two separate instances, Politifact has contradicted itself with its rating of the accurate claim made by the Romney campaign that women account for 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under President Obama.
The “fact checking” organization, which the mainstream media treats as an unbiased and neutral arbiter, showed how much it is willing to stretch the truth to support Obama and undermine Republicans.
Politifacts is no longer reliable for facts!
This isn't news to many of us as it has been proven to be untrustworthy.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/04/13/romney-puts-politifact-on-ropes
 
+Adam Miller I'm also tired of it. +Marty D'Arcy Really, quoting Brietbart on impartiality... lol. I'll ask once - what exactly are the Obama policies that are responsible for the job loss of women from the beginning of Jan 2009? Please explain and provide some reference. I understand and do not dispute the numbers, but every analysis I've seen is pretty clear that the job loss is driven by the dynamics of this recession, which was well under way when Obama took office. I've also seen analysis (which I don't trust entirely as it was presented by a left leaning organization) that shows the almost half the public sector job loss of women occurred in states with republican governors, and I haven't seen any rebuttal from the Romney camp. Finally, what specifically does Romney propose should've done and should be done going forward?
 
+Marty D'Arcy The Politifact article isn't just incorrect, it's pure political spin - that's what Politifact is, "politicized factoids".

Take, for example, Politifact's criticism of starting one's analysis in Obama's "first month". When should it start? Well, Obama signed his huge "stimulus" bill into law less than a month after he took office. So in fact, counting from Obama's first month, far from being unfair, seems the only fair way to do things.

Or take Politifact's statement that while women's private sector job losses were more than triple men's total job losses, women's public sector job losses were even bigger. That statistic actually backs Romney up, because Obama's "stimulus" bill focused on construction projects using high priced and mostly male union labor, and Obama expressly prohibited states from using the money to make up what should have been temporary gaps in state budgets.

The result was that states had to lay off women who did work that was useful, while hiring more expensive unionized men to work on make work projects. A more sensible stimulus bill, such as the Republicans proposed, would have allowed an earlier recovery, restoring state tax revenues and reducing the necessity to lay women off.

The truth is, Romney's facts are correct, and Politifact's assessment is a pathetic attempt to spin things in Obama's favor that turns out, when you look at it carefully, to make the case against Obama even more damning. Romney's political campaign seems to be a better source of accurate information than is the press - a sad commentary on the state of the press, but that seems to be the situation we're in.
 
+Scott Saige Sorry I don't have a lot of time to do the homework you wanted Scott, but....
But while it might be unfair to say Obama’s policies are fully responsible for the disproportionate impact the recession has had on women, there’s no denying that fact that women have been hit hardest. Even WaPo fact-checker Glenn Kessler notes this in his analysis:In other words, men did lose more jobs in the recession. Now that the economy is growing again, men are recovering jobs at a faster pace than women. In fact, the latest employment report shows that male participation in the work force was up 14,000 while female participation fell 177,000, in part because women tend to work in retail or government jobs (such as teaching), which have been cut in recent months.They’ve been cut in recent months because they were either temporary jobs (retail) or because stimulus money that once shielded certain jobs is now running out (education). This was an outcome many warned about and will likely continue as the year goes on.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/11/women-and-job-loss/ It's that good ole "stimulus" and spending again!
 
+Warren Dew I find it ironic that Brietbart is unbelievable but politifacts is all truth! Guess that depends on whose shoes you are wearing.
 
My simple statement; $25.00/hr during Bush, $18.00/hr under Obama. Add inflation and I wonder why I'm not considered at poverty level.
 
+Veronica Cawelti Also note, Veronica, that Obama’s own White House is Paying Women 18% Less Than Men On Average. Where is the equality?
 
Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign clarified on Wednesday that the former Massachusetts governor supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill signed into law by President Obama that was opposed by many Republicans at the time.“He supports pay equity and is not looking to change current law,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told Talking Points Memo.The law — signed by Obama in 2009 and meant to stop women from getting paid less than men — gives more flexibility for workers to sue employees for wage discrimination
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/11/under-fire-from-democrats-romney-campaign-says-he-actually-supports-obama-signed-lilly-ledbetter-law/#ixzz1sAFHLmjA

I have to assume Obama has forgotten he signed that bill into law.
 
Anyone that claims that 92.3% is worng, please correct it with the right numbers! If you say that it is a lie, you should know the correct number, right?
 
And Obama's crew is not giving us the correct number! But they keep saying that it was not 92.3% WAKE UP guys!
 
+George Coelho LOL George, and don't forget to ask for verifying links from the net. The homework they give you here is time consuming as if we have nothing better to do than their googling for the facts! *wink
 
+Marty D'Arcy It's actually unfair to say that the recession has had a disproportionate impact on women period - men lost 5.5M jobs, Women 2.1M. Again, the timing of when different areas have been hit is such that the tail end has had a more significant impact on women, but if you are going to lay the blame you shouldn't have to do "homework" - you should already be in possession of the facts behind your judgement.
Regarding Brietbart vs. Politifact - politifact has ruled against Obama more often than for him. It has also supported many of Romney's statements. Looks like some semblance of balance - or at least an attempt to be fair. Breitbart is rhetoric with a very clear conservative agenda - seriously, show me one instance of balanced journalism. We all know that there are lots of ways to tell a story and lots of ways to manipulate true numbers to paint a misleading picture. I always look at the motivations when making a judgement. +Warren Dew you didn't address my last question to you on the same lines. You stated that an economy can be turned around as quickly as year or two, yet you still felt that Jan 1 2009 was a legitimate starting point for attributing job losses to Obama - isn't this a contradiction?
+George Coelho ??? it's very simple math how they got the numbers and they are not wrong, just misleading and irrelevant to the point that the Romney camp is trying to make.
 
+Scott Saige I apologize to you, Scott, but I don't always have links and facts (as you asked). Unfortunately, I am a full time caretaker and my days are full as it is with little time to research the internet. But I do keep up with the facts, read numerous news sites (not just one) and do my best to be fair to everyone. Many of us lost our pensions the past year or so due to the financial situations America is experiencing and due to the legal issues we have become familiar with we very well understand WHY. If Obama is your choice again and you believe he can really turn this around for the betterment of America then go for it. But I am from the other side of the fence and I am not willing to take that chance again. In all sincerity, good luck to you.
 
I really don't get why people need to appear so dichotomous when it comes to politics; things really are not as bad as they could be. yes, those rates are bad, but the difference shown isn't that statistically different.Sure, Obama is not perfect (and neither is Romney); but instead of attacking the opponent I would like to see/hear about what plan (if there is any) the candidate has to change the matter (if it the will change, significantly). It's easy to make fun of someone, but if there is no plan (and if Congress does not do anything about it) then nothing will really change. Also, if anyone is to blame it is Congress (all the president does is sign a bill, ignore it, or veto it- which can be overturned by the House of Reps., anyway). The only reason people look for the president instead of the bill making body (legislature) (Congress) for because of the stardom that president has obtained with the use and cooperation of the media. A law created because a president will so and says "that's what's going to happen"; politics is more complex that some black-and-white comic strip (it is more like a very intrinsic masterpiece).
 
+Scott Saige This is a discussion of Obama's term, not the entire recession. It was mostly men that lost jobs under Bush; Obama made sure women lost jobs too. Men can feel comfortable that Bush won't be elected again in 2012, since he isn't running; Obama unfortunately is running, so that's a problem.

As for your question, I addressed it under the other post where you asked it. To recap, while it took Reagan 2 years to completely reverse his recession, he started having an impact on day 1. Under Obama, it's 3 years and counting, and his impact, from day 1, has only been to make things worse.
 
+Greg Blaire Of course the state is not on any reasonable level comparable to a corporation. Corporations do not possess any of the features of a sovereign state. They are also not collectively owned or democratically controlled. They seek to make profit, and they are legally required to only seek profit.
Similarly, being the President of the United States, or Governor of Mass. for that matter, is not the same thing as being a CEO. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii Sections II and III give a pretty good picture of the job requirements for the presidency.
 
+Warren Dew I'm not sure whether you don't completely understand, or whether you're willingly misrepresenting the situation.

The question is clearly whether we should draw conclusions about the policies (whether we want to blame congress or the president for them is another thing) from one statistical fact. The methodological problems in making such connections are simply immense.

First, correlation does not imply causation. That is, if I start riding a bicycle, and suddenly the economy of Brazil collapses, we can not infer that my behavior caused the second event. To underline such a claim, you would have to propose a verifiable causality between specific policies enacted by the Obama administration.

Second, there are better explanations out there. As has been explained over and over, the first jobs to go during the recession were construction and industrial jobs, which overwhelmingly are occupied by men. As the recession spread, consumers and states ran out of money. Now, teachers and service workers etc. were being 'laid off', professions in which women are strongly represented.

Unless you can overcome 1 and provide a better explanation than 2 it will just seem like +Mitt Romney is scared of the women voters who don't want to vote for someone who is in favor of arbitrarily defining every cygote as a person, even making birth control hard to access or illegal.
 
re: Making things worse from day one.
Ever heard of the "bikini graph"?
 
+Manuel Käppler While my explanation seems to have been clear enough for others, I'll be happy to try to clarify further since you are still uncertain. First, everyone agrees Romney's fact is true: women have done poorly under Obama. What that fact should spur us to do is to try to find the reasons behind it: given a correlation, we should look for causations.

In my earlier comment, I laid out the explanation, showing how Obama's specific policies led to additional job loss by women. To clarify further, Obama explicitly prohibited any of the money in his "stimulus" bill from being used to fill gaps in state budgets, which would have helped stem the job losses among women in education and other areas of state and local government. His economic approach specifically exacerbated economic problems affecting women: he caused the problem, it was not just a correlation.

You seem to assume that it was inevitable for the recession to "spread". That's simply not true; previous recessions have often been limited and recoveries prompt, when appropriate policies have been used. For example Reagan, when faced with a similarly sharp recession, managed to reverse and recover all job losses within a couple of years using effective supply side stimulus:

http://www.adammarquis.com/images/pelosi_corrected.gif

The problem with Obama's policies was partly that they used the wrong tools, but also that they simply weren't actually stimulus programs. Stimulus needs to take effect immediately. Obama's so called stimulus was spread out over multiple years, as discussed here:

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/41212.html

The bottom line is that the recession spread only because Obama didn't do anything to fix it, instead using it only as an excuse to hand out political patronage to his union supporters that made things worse rather than better.
 
How increasing the taxes, hiring third world employees( to fake the economy reports during the election), and creating trillions on debt will make USA create more jobs, specially for woman? Mitt will reduce the taxes, the government spendings so americans could invest their money in the country.
 
How can anyone think america is better now? There is no way to pay the trillion dollar debt!
 
Women account for 92.3% of jobs lost? There's no way that number is right.
 
+Warren Dew So... you're saying spending 151 billion USD in just about 6 months is not fast enough?
Or are you saying we should have invested more money in more infrastructure, specifically sustainable infrastructure, in unemployment benefits and education, instead of tax breaks?
Because if that is the case, I'll simply agree with you.

As to your "bottom line", it contradicts the opinion of almost anyone who earns a living thinking about the economy. Now this is not an argument from authoritay, rather something that I'd be puzzling over while I was defending my claim by quoting essays on livejournal.

Speaking of sources, I'm interested, I couldn't find anything on the "Obama explicitly prohibited" states from using money to fill gaps. According to a well-sourced Wikipedia article that I'd recommend you read it says, explicitly:
"Senate Republicans forced a near unprecedented level of changes (near $150 billion) in the House bill which had more closely followed the Obama plan. The biggest losers were states[16] (severely restricted Stabilization Fund)" during the house-senate conference. (Or here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2531)
Care to enlighten me how that is "Obama explicitly" prohibiting anything?
 
+Manuel Käppler I actually made my living making accurate predictions about certain sectors of the economy for several years. I don't any more: the problem with that business is that people are far more willing to pay to hear what they want to hear than they are to pay for accurate predictions. So be careful about people who are paid for what they think - you're only hearing the opinions that they are paid to have.

What you should do is take the trouble to learn the basis of economics so you can understand the arguments and figure out the truth for yourself.

There are two major problems with Obama's "stimulus" bill. The fact that only 151 billion of 787 billion hit in the first six months is the lesser problem, but it is a problem because the other 646 billion in extra spending creates expectations of inflation or tax increases that had a depressive effect. 646 billion of depressive expectations would have outweighed 151 billion of stimulus, even if the 151 billion had actually been effective stimulus.

The bigger problem was that it wasn't effective stimulus, because it was targeted at the demand side, and worse, was targeted at capital intensive rather than labor intensive projects using high priced union labor. As shown in the graph I linked to, Reagan's supply side approach is more effective.

As for prohibitions against the Obama's stimulus aid being used by states to close budget gaps:

Obama budget director Peter Orszag has slapped down South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s request to use $700 million in stimulus cash for his state’s deficit — ordering him to deploy the cash on programs and payments to the unemployed.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20091.html

Information at the time provided more specifics - specifically that the stimulus bill was targeted at new spending, not at sustaining existing spending - but it's not that easy to find information about things that happened three years ago, as you found.

Wikipedia is of course a poor source on political topics, and is clearly mistaken on the part you quoted. The Democrats had a supermajority in the senate at the time so the Republicans couldn't "force" anything.
 
和巴马对干,不知道今年胜算几率多大?
Translate
 
+Manuel Käppler +Warren Dew Warren - you made the same statement to me regarding Obama restricting how the stimulus funds could be used by states to generally shore up their budget problems and I also found the opposite. Where did you get your information from?
 
+Warren Dew You realize that the economy is much, much larger than government policy (even in socialist countries!). You can't arbitrarily slice and dice according to political election boundaries and get meaningful economic information. Or, are you saying that Bush had specifically policies that were bad for men, and then when Obama came in, he reversed course and started implementing policies that were bad for women (which took effect even before he was elected)? That doesn't really sound as credible as the explanation that most economists have given. Finally, you say that Obama came in a made things worse from day 1 yet in fact, job losses were reduced from the 800K/month the last month of Bush to less than 50k during Obama's first year. While not stellar, how is that worse??
 
+Marty D'Arcy I read and listen to a broad range of media from different perspectives - the majority agree that this statistic does not indicate that Obama's policies are responsible for hurting women.
It seems that you are willing to repeat and defend anything Romney's campaign decides to tweet regardless of merit (though I appreciate that you have the integrity to admit when you don't have all the facts). I don't know yet who I am going to vote for, but I am disappointed that team Romney isn't initiating a more substantive debate.
Lance G
+
1
2
1
 
Warren's point is a good one. If by looking at that one chart showing the disparity between women job loss and men, why didn't the Obama admin skew the stimulus money earlier and towards women?

Evidently "shovel ready" didn't include women. Ftm "shovel ready" didn't include enough "shovel ready" by Obama's own statement.
 
+Scott Saige Most Americans = stupid. You won't see a substantive debate from either side because substantive arguments don't win elections. How did Newt surge in the primary? How did Romney get back on top? By attacking, attacking, attacking. Negativity is decried by so many, yet it generates such a positive response in the polls its no wonder politicians use it.

You can count on continued attacks like this between the two candidates all the way through November. Why? Because it works, otherwise they wouldn't do it. And why does it work? Because substance does not win elections, appealing to basic, emotional responses like fear win elections. Sad but true...candidates and campaigns will never change unless we all do.
 
+Daniel Deceuster I don't generally disagree, however I would say that what happened with Gingrich was a little different. Gingrich's surge was driven by good debate performances, because he actually is very good at explaining things when people are motivated to listen - and people who actually bothered to tune in to the debates were motivated to listen. Romney got back on top by taking on Gingrich head on in the two debates just prior to Florida, instead of basically ignoring him as had happened in the earlier debates.

Unfortunately all the later primary debates got cancelled, and a long series of presidential debates after the conventions is simply not realistic, as Obama can legitimately say he can't debate full time because he needs to pay attention to being president. That leaves the field to ads, many negative.

Frankly, there is justification for negative ads as well as for positive ads: candidates aren't going to point out their own weak points, so the only way for us to find out about them is to have others point them out.

Presidents can get reelected on positive campaigns, as Reagan did in 1984, provided they have a good record to run on. Unfortunately for Obama, his record is abysmal, so that option isn't open to him.

+Scott Saige This recession was caused by a bursting housing bubble. The housing industry employs mostly men. That's why it was mostly men that lost jobs initially.

Obama's policies then essentially added a second recession on top of what should have been a recovery from the housing recession. Those policies caused additional job losses, mostly women.

But hey, go ahead and trust left wing journalists over actual facts.
 
Is Romney really saying hard times began on the day Obama was sworn into office?
 
Romney said that since obama started his job, rick perry created 2 millions jobs in texas, and during the same time obama lost 4 millions jobs, counting the 2 millions Perry created.
 
Rick Perry actually have done something, and the US economy is the same for both. What is the difference? I Think we should support Mitt Romney.
 
i should slap you,you little nasty tale man
 
+Thomas Terence Obama started doing bad things to the economy within a month of being sworn in, yes. Before that, it was other people doing bad things to the economy, such as Dodd, Schumer, and Pelosi, and yes, to some extent Bush, though he vetoed some of the worst excesses.
 
so you just are going to be mean to him back.I really dont think he meant to hurt anyone though
 
+Warren Dew I agree with much of what you said in your comment, as I find most of your thoughts here informed and reasoned out.

What I mean is, in general, I get this lack of accountability feel from Republicans. They never do anything wrong. It is all the Democrats' fault. They are faultless.

It all comes off as too simple to me. I don't think any one person is all good or bad. I can't follow that way of thinking.

On another note, we can agree that Obama's policies are bad. I come at it like Obama tried some stuff and it didn't work. There are hard problems out there in the world and he had the wrong answers. Some of us make mistakes in our work too, granted with different stakes.

I never understand why some Republicans say Obama is trying to wreck our economy on purpose. If that premise is true, that is saying Obama doesn't want a second term. Why would he want to sabotage himself?
 
Nobody mentions that the EMPLOYMENT rate is 64%. Lowest in decades. This is very telling. In the 70's, we had many stay at home moms and the employment rate was higher.
 
+Warren Dew I returned today to read your posts I missed last night, Warren. Your posts are always refreshing and full of remarkable facts and figures! I,for one, always learn from your incredible knowledge of politics and really appreciate your contributions here. Thanks a million! :-)
 
+Thomas Terence I don't see anyone here saying that Obama's causing problems for the economy is on purpose. My rule of thumb is never to attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. I agree there are a few Republicans who do demonize Obama personally, but I think the Romney camp has mostly avoided that.

Personally, I just try to ignore the name calling, wherever it comes from. It's not going to affect my vote for who we hire as president, anyway: a well meaning but, as it turns out, incompetent president can do just as much damage as a malicious one.

And there are plenty on the left who demonize all Republicans as stupid, rich elitists, which itself is somewhat oxymoronic.

As for accountability, I don't think it's realistic in politics to expect people to point out their own failings. During the primary season, and even more in 2010, there were plenty of Republican factions pointing out problems with other Republican factions' policies, though. I think that has been very healthy for the Republican party: some of their mistaken policies have been abandoned, or at least their supporters are on the defensive. But in politics generally, it's the responsibility of one's opponents to point out one's faults.
 
+Warren Dew No argument about the housing bubble pop causing the recession or that it was mainly men that lost their jobs in the first part of the recession because of the industries that were impacted. My point is that the loss of jobs and economic slowdown caused a secondary, delayed effect of reducing tax revenue (creating public sector job loss) and slowing retail sales - these happened to be the predominate trends when Obama took office and were responsible for the bulk of jobs lost by Women. There is no way the government was going to stop that train on a dime - and personally, I do not want a government able to control our economy that directly, do you? So let's talk specific policies enacted by Obama that were detrimental to women getting jobs - the only specific one you've mentioned is him restricting the use of funds at the state level, but you ignore requests to provide any evidence - not even a link from breitbart or another one of your impartial sources of truth. Let's see your facts.
 
+Scott Saige I was the person who posted the Breitbart link, Scott. No need to lay blame where it is not due.
 
+Scott Saige I provided a link describing how the Obama "stimulus" was not allowed to be used to close state budget deficits in one of my responses to Manuel Kappler above, if you want it. The link was even from Politico, a somewhat left leaning source.
 
+Tyson Quick I see the Obama supporters are reduced to spamming now. Can't come up with any valid arguments, eh?
 
The difference about right and left is the difference about North and South Korea.
 
While Germany is getting an ultraconservative leader some people in US are voting for communists.
 
+Warren Dew Had to dig but found it. All it states is that the administration upheld the restrictions written into the bill. Contrary to your statement, dems did not hold a super majority in the senate and had to negotiate to ensure passage - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123384511136052427.html.

Do you have anything else that directly ties Obama to women losing their jobs during the later part of this recession?

BTW, isn't your line of argument a little disingenuous? It implies that women lost their jobs because of lack of federal stimulus funds to cover state problems, so more stimulus = more jobs?
 
When those that support Obama have to end up defending him ad nauseam without anything positive to say, I think it speaks for itself. Look at the facts. He hasn't done very well. If he could turn it all around and get the economy going, I would be all for it. However, up to this point his policies have not been helpful in stopping in the recovery.

Obama has admitted to this point when he said himself that his shovel ready jobs were not quite so shovel ready. He then made the blunder by making capital intensive projects a large part of his stimulus instead of labor intensive projects.

I hope that the economy will turn around but I think that means the policies and the priorities of the country will have to change. Touting things like the war on women, the Buffet Rule, and ending oil subsidies (which will only help to increase gas prices, something we shouldn't do in a down economy) is not helpful to the current problems.

It is time for people on both sides of aisle to work together. Can we please stop the name calling and focus on what policies will help our country? So many of us, like me, have just graduated from college and do not have full-time jobs. So many of us, have families that we need to support but not the income. Increasing taxes, expanding government programs, and burying ourselves in government debt is not a formula for success.

Let's work together to make this country great, for men and women.
 
+Scott Saige You seem to be taking after Obama in making up your own facts. At the time the "stimulus" bill passed, the Democratic caucus in the senate had 60 votes, which was the supermajority needed to override a filibuster. Obama and the Democrats were the ones who made sure the bill prohibited use to close state budget gaps. Here's a link to the roll call; people interested in the actual facts can count the numbers:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00064

As for women losing their jobs, they did so because Obama's policies prolonged the recession, as explained in my previous comments; the use of supposed stimulus funds to pay off unions instead of closing state budget gaps was just one example.
 
+Alexa Alexa In English, sometimes a word can be used for multiple meanings. In this case, it should be easy to tell from context whether "work" is being used as in "doing hard work" or as in "doing something to get paid".
 
Conservatives sicken me. Well, their social opinions do. When in comes to fiscal conservative ideals, I see where they're comin from.
 
+Michael Muldowney I take it you're in favor of the Democratic passed and Obama signed Stupak amendment banning abortion coverage for lower and middle income women, then? Because repealing that along with the rest of Obamacare as part of returning power to the states is an example of "conservative social opinions".
 
+Warren Dew Read your own link. There were 58 Dems. The 60 votes included 3 republicans - Snowe, Spectre and Collins (Kennedy didn't vote). Looks like you're the one taking after Obama... ;-)
 
+Scott Saige Glad you agree Obama gets the facts wrong.

Kennedy supported the bill and would have voted for it had his vote been needed. However, I had forgotten that Franken hadn't been seated yet and Specter only formally switched to the Democrats two months later, though he was already voting as a Democrat.

It still remains the case that the compromise mentioned in your link was rejected by Obama in favor of railroading his own proposal through.
 
+Warren Dew The point of the link was that dems had to negotiate with republicans in the senate to pass the stimulus bill as they didn't hold a super majority. So we're back to where we started. This little stat is true, but there have been no facts presented to show how Obama's policies are responsible for hurting women. There was a recession, it ran it's course and you theorize that a different response to the recession by the government would've generated a faster, stronger recovery, but you know that this isn't something you can prove (and please don't go on about Reagan here - the 1980s economy was a totally different beast).
 
+Scott Saige To the contrary, your link points out that Reid was impatient with the attempts at compromise, thus showing compromise was unnecessary for the Democrats to achieve their aims - and compromise was in fact eventually rejected.

And frankly, what are you claiming here? Are you claiming it was Snowe who forced Obama to put in the restriction against letting the states use the money to close budget deficits? That seems extremely unlikely, and I challenge you to find anything at all to back that up.

As for Obama dragging out the recession in ways that hurt women, all the evidence is for it. Obama forced the states to spend money in a way that failed to create jobs, and lost them for women. Not only did Reagan do better in the 1980s, the rest of the world did better in this very recession. Only Obama managed essentially to turn it into a depression, here in the U.S.

In the fact of that evidence, you haven't offered a single fact or even an argument for why lack of recovery was inevitable in the U.S., even though recovery came in the rest of the world.

What we have is about as close to a proof as you can get in economics that Obama dragged out the recession and delayed the recovery, especially for women. Even if we're only 98% sure Obama made things worse, rather than 100% sure, why throw away your vote on a 2% bet?
 
+Warren Dew I am too tired (and have a big meeting at work tomorrow) to recap the line of argument right now, but looks like we are back where we started with you claiming that Obama put in the restriction on how states could spend. However, I am amazed by the new facts you presented:
1. The rest of the world did better in this recession - maybe you can define the rest of the world? (never mind the nonsensical comparison between Reagan in the 80s and the rest of the world today...)
2. Obama turned the recession into a depression - this is fact? You sure?
3. As close as proof as you can get in economics.. where? what? 98% of the economists in the world (or maybe you mean the CATO institute) agree that Obama made things worse? In comparison to what?
This should be interesting.
 
A recession is the time period when the economy and employment are going down - receding. Normally after a recession, there is a recovery, when things come back up. A depression is when things stay down - stay depressed - after the recession.

Here's a graph showing how, unlike every other one of the 11 recessions in the last 70 years, under Obama jobs are not coming back the way they went away:

http://alineofsight.com/images/12-2-11-Scariest-Job-Chart-Ever1%20%281%29.jpg

So yes, it looks like we're back to constantly increasing evidence that Obama is handling the economy incompetently, with no facts at all that say otherwise - just wishful thinking on the part of Obama's followers.
 
Well that's interesting... and they still like him?
 
It's an interesting definition of depression. Recession is when the economy contracts for a short period and depression - instead of being a prolonged and severe contraction - is the new +Warren Dew word for a slower recovery. I don't think you can find a single credible economist agreeing with this new definition, but it's par for the course in politics.
 
Obama is a nightmare for women, they already realized that! Go Romney
 
Seroiusly........this guy is the best option republicooks can come up with....man...i cannot wait for the debates.
 
Obama is destroying economy, we can see the results now! We can change it!
 
we sure definentley can and mitt romney is just the right man who can do it!
Add a comment...