Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,

Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.

If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.

Thank you.

Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.

Mitt Romney's real war on women.. fact check

The news this morning had a clip of Mittens saying the real war on women is how the Obama economy has effected them. They he pulls some ridiculous number like 92% of the job losses have been women under Obama.

I thought this was a Mancession.

Re: Mitt Romney's real war on women.. fact check

  • Nice try, Mittens. I am kind of offended though that he thinks women are so dumb as to believe that Obama is waging a war on us.
  • That figure is actually true, although it's misleading.  Most of the men who lost their jobs in the recession lost them in 2008.  Most of the women who did lost them in 2009, on Obama's watch.  But that probably has more to do with there being more low hanging fruit men than women than it does with anything Obama did or didn't do.

    From this morning's Politico Morning Money:

    ROMNEY JOB FIGURE: TRUE BUT TOTALLY MISLEADING - Lots of noise surrounding Romney?s claim that women make up 92.3 percent of the people who lost jobs since President Obama took office. This claim is both true and totally misleading. The bulk of all job losses under Obama took place in the early months of 2009 before the president?s policies took effect. They were the last of the over 8 million jobs vaporized by the housing bubble burst, financial crisis and subsequent Great Recession. That these losses happened during the early months of Obama?s presidency and not under George W. Bush is simply a quirk of the calendar not the result of any actual policy.

    And men bore the brunt of the jobs cuts in 2008 with women following in 2009, not as a result of any Obama policies but as a natural part of the business cycle. Hard to see how the Romney camp is going to be able to sell this kind of weak argument that takes almost no effort to eviscerate. Wouldn?t it make sense to stick to a more believable line of attack such as: The economy is growing, but too slowly, and here is how I would put more women (and men) back to work. 

    Can't find me on the nest anymore.

    Find me here instead!
  • Thanks Y4M and I agree with the analysis of the article you posted.
  • Yep, as pointed out, the statistic is true, but not quite LOL  NPR basically summed it up as "Women felt the pain (of UE) later, and are not feeling the recovery later."
  • You know, I'm still shocked by that number.

    I understand that a lot of the earlier jobs lost were in construction and trades, as the housing market tanked, thus more male jobs.  The later wave included more civil service workers and teachers as cities and states had to tighten their belts when property values crashed.

    But I never realized the disparity was THAT great.  Depressing.

  • I always have to LOL, both at the people who profess it and the people who believe it, when someone claims that eleventy bajillion people have lost their jobs under Obama.  Yeah, it's not like Rome was fwcking burning when he took office or anything.  As if he inhered it a perfectly healthy economy and the job losses started en masse for no reason the day he was sworn in.

    And yet, he gets no credit for the stabilization and the more recent gains.  So funny how he's responsible for everything and nothing all at the same time.

Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards