April 6, 2012 at 3:44 pm #602783
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!April 6, 2012 at 4:52 pm #753982
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.April 6, 2012 at 4:59 pm #753983
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.April 6, 2012 at 5:18 pm #753984
“…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.April 6, 2012 at 5:32 pm #753985April 6, 2012 at 6:08 pm #753986
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…April 6, 2012 at 6:09 pm #753987
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.April 6, 2012 at 6:15 pm #753988April 6, 2012 at 6:16 pm #753989
“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.April 6, 2012 at 6:24 pm #753990
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!April 6, 2012 at 6:26 pm #753991
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.April 6, 2012 at 6:44 pm #753992
“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.April 6, 2012 at 6:50 pm #753993
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?April 6, 2012 at 6:59 pm #753994
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.April 6, 2012 at 7:37 pm #753995
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.April 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm #753996
“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!April 6, 2012 at 9:16 pm #753997
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?April 6, 2012 at 11:10 pm #753998
Are you saying the economy adjusts instantaneously as a result of elections?April 7, 2012 at 12:05 am #753999
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!!April 7, 2012 at 12:20 am #754000
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!April 7, 2012 at 12:22 am #754001
“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.April 7, 2012 at 12:37 am #754002
…I was in the board room.
Plotting the slaughter of baby seals, no doubt! You EEEVVVIIILLLL 1 percenter!April 7, 2012 at 3:39 am #754003
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..:->April 7, 2012 at 2:43 pm #754004
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.April 7, 2012 at 3:08 pm #754005
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.