Female Unemployment: Obama is Winning the War Against Women

by 1389 on April 11, 2012

in "The Great Recession", 1389 (blog admin), Barack Hussein Obama, Bush family, economy, unemployment, USA, women's issues

Rush demolishes the pro-Obama whitewash you may have seen on Politico.

Rush: The Real War On Women Is Being Conducted By The Obama Regime

(h/t: 2.0: The Blogmocracy)

Uploaded by DailyRushbo on Apr 9, 2012

Obama is Losing His War on the Supreme Court, But Winning His Wars on Women & the Economy (excerpt)

…But the real war on women, I’m gonna go back to last Friday, the real war on women is being conducted by the regime, by the Obama administration. Since Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate for women has gone up from seven to 8.1%. Since Obama took office, the number of female workers has declined by 683,000. Since Obama took office, the number of women unemployed has increased by 858,000, close to a million. The poverty rate among women rose to 14-and-a-half percent last year, up from 13.9% when Obama was immaculated. That’s over half a percentage point in Obama’s three years. And it happens to be the highest rate for poverty in women in 17 years. If there is a war on women, it is happening and it is being directed from the White House with Obama as the generalissimo.

Now, Politico: “Romney Camp’s Claims About Female Job Loss Under Obama Not So Clear Cut.” Well, we must have hit a home run on Friday with these numbers, because The Politico decides to try to do something about it. “The Romney camp would have you believe that, under President Obama, women have suffered the most economically –claiming that 92.3 percent of the jobs lost on his watch belonged to women. Romney press secretary Andrea Saul tweeted the stat with the label ‘FACT’ around the time Obama spoke to a White House forum on women and the economy.” Here’s Obama on Friday with a forum on women saying you’re all not monolithic to me, when they all are monolithic. He’s treating them all the same.

“There’s a simple reason why job losses look worse for women during Obama’s presidency: Almost 3.3 million men were fired during the George W. Bush’s last year in office, while the losses for women were more drawn out over time.” So you see, it’s only an illusion that it looks bad for women, because so many men lost their jobs in Bush’s last year. If you go look — in fact, I’m gonna check, ’cause I think I’ve reported prior, and I think I remember this right, that after Obama won, even before, starting in October of 2008, the people being laid off and fired rose dramatically and particularly in November-December after Obama was elected. Because small business knew what they were in store for, in terms of the forthcoming regulations and the shackles.

Now, The Politico says that Romney’s “claim looks accurate at first blush.” That’s until we in the media get hold of this and start whitewashing it. “From January 2009 through the release of the March numbers on Friday, women lost 683,000 jobs and men 57,000. That’s the sources of the 92.3 percent.” Well, it is what it is. You got those two numbers. Women lost 683,000 jobs from January 2009 through last month. Men lost 57,000. The 683,000 is 92.3% of the number. “But let’s dig deeper,” says The Politico here in an attempt to save Obama. Let’s go back to January 2008. He-he-he-he-he-he. What’s that got to do with Romney’s point? “During the last year of the Bush administration, employment for men plunged by 3.29 million jobs but just 1.17 million for women.” So there wasn’t anybody left to fire, is their point. Nobody left to fire except a bunch of women. Well, isn’t that great. Isn’t that a great way to try to save Obama. Hey, there was nobody left to lay off.

You take a look when most of those layoffs in 2008 took place, folks, and they’ll happen in October and November and December. But the one thing that I want to stress to everybody here is that there’s really nothing wrong, per se, with the United States economy. There are a lot of people who are discussing the whole notion of America being in decline. In fact, there’s a piece in the Wall Street Journal today, Walter Russell Mead, “The Myth of America’s Decline.” And along with Mead, there are three books ranging from decline being overhyped to underhyped. “The World America Made,” by Robert Kagan. “Strategic Vision” by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who says the decline is serious. Kagan, by the way, says the decline is overhyped. And, “Every Nation for Itself,” a book by Ian Bremmer, who says it’s over. Those are the three books, plus Walter Russell Mead.

Now, is America in decline? No. I don’t believe we’re in decline. I think we’re in shackles. It’s a fine point. There’s no question the economy’s trending down, but why? What Obama wants — folks, this is crucially important now. Look at me. What Obama and the Democrats want you to believe is that we are in structural decline because of the failure of capitalism. We’re not. We are in decline because of Obamaism. We are in decline because Obama is shrinking the private sector. We are in decline because Obama is spending us into debt. He is taxing us into debt. He is taxing everybody into mediocrity. It really hits starting next year. There’s nothing wrong with the country if capitalism would be allowed to flourish. What’s happening here is that Obamaism has shackled all these new regulations, all of the spending.

The expansion of government has to come from somewhere. It comes from the private sector shrinking. Government doesn’t have any money, other than what it borrows or prints, but it doesn’t have any money as a result of production. So whatever money it has to redistribute, it has to take from someplace. It’s taking from you and me and every other American. It’s taking from the private sector, shrinking it. That’s why the labor force participation rate is down by over two million people since Obama took office. This economy, there’s nothing wrong with it that capitalism can’t fix. But what Obama wants you to believe is that it’s never worked. Capitalism, since the days of our founding, has never worked. It’s as though we don’t have an incumbent president.

What’s happening now is the result of all of these years of capitalistic failure since the founding of the country. And the only thing that really will work if we just give it time is the last three-and-a-half years of Obamaism. There is no country in the world, there is no country in the history of the world that has the energy of the United States of America. No country has the ability to innovate, to adjust to make things happen that we do. You call it American exceptionalism or Yankee ingenuity, or whatever, but it’s right there in our 200-plus-year resume. There’s no holding us back if we’re turned loose.


RUSH: The Politico. Politico says that the reason all these job losses in the last three years are from women is because all the men were already fired or let go starting in 2008 with George W. Bush; there was nobody left to fire. What an explanation that is: Nobody left to fire! The economy was tanking so bad that people had to be laid off and the only people left were women. Sorry, folks, that excuse falls on deaf ears with me. Now, we looked it up. The unemployment rate in October 2008 was 6.5%. If you go back earlier in the year, you’re going to find unemployment at 4.7%. In 2007-2008, it was in the upper fives.

It got progressively worse as the election year and the campaign went on. And don’t forget when the economic crisis hit in September, and the bottom fell out. So the unemployment rate in October 2008 was 6.5%. In November, after the election, it was 6.8%. And the December unemployment rate shot up to 7.3%. So the bulk of the job losses in 2008 occurred after Obama was elected. And there’s no way The Politico is going to tell you that. All they’re trying to do right now is “debunk” the Romney claim about female job loss under Obama. But they can’t debunk it. All they can say is, “Well, all the men were fired with Bush! There was no way that anybody else could get fired but women ’cause they were the only ones left!”

Which is a crock.

That’s what they want you to think. I’m just here to tell you: There’s no bigger believer in this country than I am. There’s no country in the history of the world that has the energy we do, the ability to innovate, that our people have to adjust, to make things happen. It’s called American exceptionalism, Yankee ingenuity, but it’s been part of us for 200 years. The problem we face today is shackles, not decline. The real problem is shackles. Decline is the result of the problem. And I’ll tell you: There’s no better barometer for decline and the shackles than the Keystone pipeline. Here’s a job-creating device, a program that would increase domestic oil — decreasing our dependence on foreign oil — and create jobs, and who stands in the way? Obama!

Obama says: No way we’re gonna do this. No Keystone pipeline.

It’s a metaphor.

It’s an example for everything that’s happened to cause what I’m talking about.

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: