Timothy Geithner is just the latest Administration mouthpiece to try to convince American voters that the number of women laid off during Mr. Obama’s stewardship of the recession is a ridiculous, meaningless number.
Statisticians know the figures show that George W. Bush likes women while Barack Obama prefers men because all the men were laid off under Mr. Bush; under Mr. Obama, only 7.7 percent of those who lost their jobs were men.
Of course, statisticians also know that fewer workers of any gender would have lost jobs had Obamanation actions not lengthened the recession.
A Facebook friend posted this Economist link that pretty much repeats what Mr. Geithner said on Sunday.
I didn’t comment about policy or meaning or even shifty boyfriends with flowers. Simply the facts and even The Economist can’t change those: “between January 2009 (when Mr Obama was sworn in) and March 2012, America had a net loss of 740,000 non-farm payroll jobs, and of those, 683,000 jobs were lost by women.”
The Economist did the same weaseling that Mr. Geithner tried: “By January 2009, however, America had already been losing jobs for months; between December 2007 and June 2009, men lost about 5.4m jobs, net, and women lost 2.1m” to which I say, “so what?”
The issue is quite simple. Mr. Obama is courting the female vote while his policies mean more women have lost jobs.
If you want the bigger picture, TWO MILLION more people are unemployed under the Obamanation as under the Bush administration. The number of unemployed persons (12.7 million) and the unemployment rate (8.2 percent) were both little changed in March 2012. The number of unemployed persons (10.6 million) and the unemployment rate (6.9 percent) were both much lower in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Looks like Mr. Obama is courting the unemployed vote while his policies mean more Americans are losing jobs.