WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(76 posts)

The "War on Women"......


  1. First, I thought we were supposed to stop using violent terms after the Giffords shooting? Oh well, maybe only Republicans are supposed to abide by that.

    That said, if there really is a "War on Women", isn't it this:

    - Since Obama Took Office, The Unemployment Rate For Women Has Increased From 7.0 Percent To 8.1 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)

    - Since The Stimulus Was Passed, The Unemployment Rate For Women Has Increased From 7.3 Percent To 8.1 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)

    - Since Obama Took Office, The Number Of Female Employees Has Declined By 683,000. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)

    - Since Obama Took Office, The Number Of Women Unemployed Has Increased From 5,005,000 To 5,863,000. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)

    - In March, The Number Of Women Employed Fell By 82,000. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)

    - The Female Labor Force Participation Rate Fell In March From 57.9 Percent To 57.7 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)

    - The Number Of Women Not In The Labor Force In March Increased From 52.8 Million To 53.1 Million. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/6/12)

    Come on MSNBC - lean forward, baby! Run it!

    http://bit.ly/HlKB79

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  2. Lies, damned lies, and statistics-Mark Twain

    even a 4th grader knows that when unemployment goes up, it goes up for men AND women. What exactly, then, does this bit of cherry picked information prove?

    Here's one from your link...

    "Since President Obama Took Office, The Nation Has Lost 740,000 Jobs And The Unemployment Rate Has..."

    Do you recall that when President Obama took office we were losing over 700,000 jobs per MONTH?
    Didn't think so.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  3. Yes. Yes, I do. My company starting laying off people in October of 2008 when we knew Obama and his burdensome policies were inevitable. I was there.

    Own it.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  4. "...when we knew Obama and his burdensome policies were inevitable."

    can you substantiate in any way that your company laid off people because they thought Obama would be elected in Nov 2008? That sounds ridiculous on its face.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  5. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    Sounds ridiculous because it is.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  6. I'd have liked to have been a fly on the wall in that room when someone at Smitty's office was told "I'm sorry, we're gonna have to lay you off because they're gonna elect Obama as President." Yeah, I bet that happened...

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  7. Yes, corporate America and the stock market "never" look ahead - well - at least the ones that don't weather the storms very well. Corporations hedge against fuel, inflation, all kinds of things. Increased corporate taxes and burdensome healthcare promises certainly made it the right move -- not to mention the predictions that the next four years would be a slow, slow recovery. We weren't the only ones, obviously. Deny all you want of it makes you feel better.

    What does substantiate mean? Show you the meeting minutes ? I probably would if I knew I wouldn't have 20 unemployed occupiers in our lobby the next day for doing the prudent thing.

    Edit; No Jan, we never said that.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  8. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    HA!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  9. "substantiate |səbˈstan ch ēˌāt|
    verb [ trans. ]
    provide evidence to support or prove the truth of : they had found nothing to substantiate the allegations."

    BTW, how's the stock market doing? Looks like "the stock market" might have been a little smarter than your corporate crystal ball readers.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  10. We were concerned with slowing demand for our product and the likelihood of an increased regulatory environment (and reduced bottom line). We didn't make any bets on the stock market.

    Trust me - I am happy that the stock market is as high as it is - but truth be told I am starting to ease my way out. My proven forward looking crystal ball tells me we are in for a big correction to the tune of DOW 10K or so.

    Don't worry - when it becomes clear that Romney is on track to win the Presidency corporate America will start hiring again! Keep the faith!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  11. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    without researching the topic, i'm thinking that your stats show net losses, right, smitty?

    so those numbers, as you presented them, are deceiving.

    so let's see if you can follow the logic here, smitty.

    according to the stats you posted, unemployment at the end of the previous administration was at 7%, on its way up from a low of 5% at the height of the economic bubble in the mid-2000's.

    and we know that since obama took office, eventually unemployment rose to over 9%.

    and that since that height, it has declined to where it is today.

    do you see how those stats don't tell the whole story? that unemployment is trending downward, and that the economy is improving?

    by the way, the private sector does the vast majority of the hiring in this country. so if anyone should own a war on women and their employment, it's the private sector.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  12. "and we know that since obama took office, eventually unemployment rose to over 9%.

    and that since that height, it has declined to where it is today."

    Not denying that redblack. The truth behind the "rate" however is that more and more people are leaving the workforce. The denominator is getting smaller, to the tune of 2 million or so (I think).

    The fact of the matter is that this has been a horrible recovery, plain and simple.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  13. History question for you- what happened in 2008 that set the conditions for a "horrible recovery" and who were the president and sec of treasury at the time who left such conditions for whomever succeeded them to deal with as best they could?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  14. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    not only that, dobro... speaking historically about high unemployment, it was at 9.5% during the third year of reagan's first term.

    that recovery was also slow, and it's one that the middle class never fully recovered from when you factor in debt versus savings and wages versus GDP.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  15. Obama's recovery plans were mostly left on the drawing board because the Republicans set their own agenda: shut down the administration, no matter what gets pitched. The Repubs wanted another 4 years of recession that they could use to pin on Obama.

    This whole recovery thing is as inconvenient as the crash that happened while Bush was still in office.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  16. "Obama's recovery plans were mostly left on the drawing board because the Republicans set their own agenda: shut down the administration, no matter what gets pitched."

    1) Obamacare got through and that was a huge driver.

    2) So.......during the first two years of the Obama administration the Democrat congress held things up and are to blame? Interesting. Especially when you consider things finally started turing around(albeit slowly) after the Republicans took over in 2011. If you really are blaming the 2009-2010 minority party in congress then.........

    3) ......do we get to blame the Democrat MAJORITY congress that took over 2007-2008 for the recession? Deal!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  17. your point #2, Smitty...seriously? You're gonna give the GOP the credit for the "turnaround"? Can we also now blame them for everything else that's not worked since Nov. 2010?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  18. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    Smitty:

    Are you saying the economy adjusts instantaneously as a result of elections?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  19. The Democrats did not take over on January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007. The day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. (The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since 1995.)

    So every time Obama says that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
    The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
    The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
    The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

    January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank (Bawney Fwank) took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES! THANK YOU BAWNEY for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES! (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy"

    And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

    And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BAWNEY!!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  20. Redblack:

    speaking historically about high unemployment, it was at 9.5% during the third year of reagan's first term.

    Completely unrelated, but can you imagine Ronald Reagan blaming Jimmy Carter for every problem, any time he was in front of a camera/teleprompter? It's just beneath the dignity of The President. Yet another record low under Obama!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  21. "Are you saying the economy adjusts instantaneously as a result of elections?"

    No. I am saying "some" corporations (the smart ones in my opinion) understood that an Obama election was a slam dunk by early October of 2008 and made adjustments to account for impending regulatory and fiscal changes accordingly. That's it. I can't imagine we were the only ones and thus, I attribute some of the Oct-2008 through Jan-2009 job losses to the him (unlike that idiotic chart that Dems like to throw out - you know the one).

    Why is this considered partisan or a lie? It happened. I can vouch for it. I was in the board room. Sorry.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  22. ...I was in the board room.

    Plotting the slaughter of baby seals, no doubt! You EEEVVVIIILLLL 1 percenter!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  23. JV...so, once again...then we can blame all sorts of things on the Repub House of Rep. Right? They took over in 2010...have you seen a jobs bill, for instance? I mean..if it wasn't Bush's fault, but the Dems in Congress...then...I don't see how you can claim anything is Obama's fault..:->

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  24. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    JV: blame for the housing bubble and resultant financial crisis rests fully on the backs of wall street investors who sought high-yield securities in the form of bundled mortgages.

    lending standards and fannie and freddie's underwriting had been exactly what they were for 25 years with no mess like the one we saw from 2003 - 2007.

    the perfect storm formed when the fed dropped interest rates to about nothing, and investors could no longer count on traditional means of earning interest.

    it was only when wall street started pushing the retail banks to sell more and more loans - no matter the qualifications - that things got out of control.

    but frankly, i don't give two farts what wall street is doing. the dow 30 is not a solid economic indicator.

    for example, it's raging right this minute, at levels not seen since the housing bubble. and yet the average person still has flat wages, high debt, and a general lack of work.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  25. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    So.......during the first two years of the Obama administration the Democrat congress held things up and are to blame? Interesting.

    no. senate republicans killed over 400 bills with procedural filibuster.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  26. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    No. I am saying "some" corporations (the smart ones in my opinion) understood that an Obama election was a slam dunk by early October of 2008 and made adjustments to account for impending regulatory and fiscal changes accordingly. That's it. I can't imagine we were the only ones and thus, I attribute some of the Oct-2008 through Jan-2009 job losses to the him (unlike that idiotic chart that Dems like to throw out - you know the one).

    you mean this one?

    it's a bureau of labor statistics chart. why is it partisan or a lie?

    Why is this considered partisan or a lie? It happened. I can vouch for it. I was in the board room. Sorry.

    you're absolutely right, smitty. it's not partisan or a lie. it's fact.

    those businesses took their money out of the economy, and thereby slowed the recovery.

    it just goes to show you that they put their own profits and well-being above job creation. again, it's not partisan or a lie, but it is informative.

    and it's perfectly within their rights. rather than play by stricter rules and share their profits, they hoarded their wealth and are living on interest - or foreign investment.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  27. Keeping it as simple as possible, the housing downfall started with the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to lower lending standards and make loans to people who can't afford to repay them.

    There is a ton of blame to go around, but again, the original sin is government intervention.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  28. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    the CRA has been in place for 35 years. and it doesn't do anything but rate banks based on how many loans they make to minorities and low-income people - until the fed dropped interest rates and caused investors to make a run on american real estate.

    furthermore, CRA isn't regulatory. banks can comply or not at their discretion. same as a credit score. they're not forced to make bad loans.

    and CRA was actually strengthened slightly by bush and the republican congress. they insisted on more subprime loans, not fewer.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  29. The CRA had been around but political
    Pressure to stop "redlining" really kicked in during the mid 90's. This is a good piece on Mr Fwanks involvement.

    "Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing."

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  30. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    Are the Republicans to blame for anything? Have they ever made a mistake?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  31. WC...according to some people...no...sigh

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  32. Absolutely, WC. I just get tired of the mantra that the Republicans make mistakes because they are stupid or greedy and Democrats make mistakes but golly, they were just trying to make things better for everyone. Both sides want what is best, just have differing ideas on how to get there. Civility is lost (and it is probably Atwater, Rove, or some other Republicans fault.....;-))

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  33. Karl Rove - now there's a peach of a guy...

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  34. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    smitty: there are democrats on wall street, too.

    and i'm not pointing the finger solely at republicans so much as i am at "fiscal conservatives." again, plenty of them are democrats.

    it was lack of regulation - mostly by republicans, with democratic collusion - that brought us this mess, along with low interest rates.

    regarding CRA and redlining: make fun of barney frank's speech impediment all you will, but i hope you'll note that he, clinton, and bush all emphasized the importance of home ownership for low-income people. is this not a noble sentiment? provided that there are standards that have to be met, and that predatory lending is punished with extreme prejudice?

    furthermore, republicans in congress were happy to oblige them. and, conveniently, everyone was looking the other way while predatory lending was becoming a cottage industry.

    again, this was the free market run amok. and we know that wall street doesn't need any political pressure to make themselves a killing. they only need the hurdles removed.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  35. Smitty ..
    your entire argument rests on ... the democrats made me do it because i was afraid of what they would do.
    pretty lame

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  36. I don't think much of rove, but I sure like his dad!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  37. dhg...I had never read about his dad. Reading his story certainly explains a lot...even got an eyeful of his 30+ piercings...

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  38. YES! I thought of posting a link but that seemed a bit much. He lived on the edge and, for those who can't be bothered to google him, let's just say he'd never get through the airport scanners.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  39. lol..imagine that search by the TSA - lol...

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  40. Wonder where Smitty got his talking points to start off this thread?

    "Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Monday pushed back against claims that Republicans were attacking women's rights and insisted that the "real war on women" was being directed by President Barack Obama.

    "The real war on women is being conducted by the regime, by the Obama administration," he explained. "Since Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate for women has gone up from 7 to 8.1 percent. ... The poverty rate among women rose to 14.5 percent last year, up from 13.9 percent when Obama was immaculated."

    Limbaugh continued: "If there is a war on women, it is happening and it is being directed from the White House with Obama as the generalissimo."

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  41. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    i caught that, too, dobro.

    and i'm glad to see that the senate minority leader picked up the scent...

    and then proceeded to alienate every member of his caucus who has two X chromosomes.

    what a thoughtful, intelligent guy.

    not.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  42. Since I posted three days ago, I like to think that Rush gets his information from me! Can't take credit though.

    Common sense wins.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  43. I find it interesting that those (conservatives) who say that there's no "war on women" are always male. If Smitty, et.al. were female, he/they might feel differently.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  44. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    wow, smitty. thanks for saving me the trouble of writing a retort.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  45. I wish some of you would look at the whole picture. Reagan was not allowed to implement his tax cuts in one year, it happened over three years, over the objections of most Democrats and a lot of Republicans. And oh yes, the Congress promised to cut spending but didn't. Gee not much ever changes does it.

    Obama owns this slow recession. He promised unemployment would not go up over 8% and the stimulus would help keep unemployment low. That was his "Read My Lips" moment.

    Obamanomics....Blame Bush, blame Republicans, even when they held both houses and the Presidency. Nice Saturday Night Live script. No on second thought, this is a nightmare.

    The economy is recovering in spite of the Prez and his policies.

    Go Romney!!!!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  46. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    i wish you would look at the whole picture, too, rich.

    republicans own the debt because of those tax cuts.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  47. @JV: Try remembering the way Ronald Reagan treated Jimmy Carter before and during RR's inauguration. Talk about uncivil.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  48. When the Republican women who are used as the examples of how inclusive Republicans are of women are asking their party to back off on it's self appointed crusade against women's rights...

    it's pretty clear that those justifications are little more than lip service...

    i wish this wasn't a war..
    but it is.

    women stand to lose every gain they have made in equality in the last 50 years if Republicans have their way.

    I am literally hearing statements from mainstream Republican politicians that i thought i would never hear again in my lifetime...

    all women asked for was equality
    in name and in deed

    apparently, we set our sights too low.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  49. Presidential candidate Herman Cain on women (or, as he calls them, "other people")

    "Yes, President Obama is very likable to most people, if you just look at him and his family. But if you look at his policies, which is what most people disagree with, it’s a different story. And I think many men are much more familiar with the failed policies than a lot of other people, as well as the general public."

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  50. there's the problem with us uppity women dobro..

    when what the men who know better say doesn't make sense..
    we question them

    for that we should be kept

    barefoot and pregnant

    unless of course gracing the arm of a man
    when heels so high you can't walk in them
    and must lean on your man for support
    are in order

    been there
    done that
    burned the t-shirt

    Posted 2 years ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2014, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Header image by Nick Adams. ABSOLUTELY NO WSB PHOTO REUSE WITHOUT SITE OWNERS' PERMISSION.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^