Jump to content

President Obama's War On Women And Minorities


Recommended Posts

President Obama's War On Women And Minorities

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 19, 2013, Forbes - Peter Ferrara


The 2012 election featured the bottom feeding charge of a Republican War on Women. The grounds for such a charge were less than zero. But with the Democrat Party outright controlling so much of the national media, every Democrat talking point takes on added weight.


Is opposition to abortion indicative of a “war on women?” That would overlook the fact that at least half of babies aborted are female. Maybe it is a liberal war on women.


The most braindead allegation was that Republicans harbored a secret plan to ban contraceptives. The effectiveness of that charge depends on the public being ignorant of the landmark 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that married couples (later expanded to everyone) have a constitutionally protected right to purchase contraceptives.


But did you ever see NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, or the Washington Post, even mention Griswold v. Connecticut all year last year? In the age of the low information voter, poll it and I doubt even 1% would recognize the case.


But numbers don’t lie. And what the economic numbers show is that it is President Obama who has been conducting the war on women.


Compare how women have fared in the economy in Obama’s first term versus how they fared in Ronald Reagan’s first term.


Obama faced a recession when he entered office. But it was already 13 months old at the time, and the longest recession since the Great Depression previously was 16 months. In fact, Obama’s recession ended just 5 months after he entered office. So for almost all of his first term was after the recession was over.

Reagan entered office facing double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and soon double digit unemployment. Real median family incomes had been falling for several years, poverty rates were rising. Reagan and the Treasury’s support of the dollar that eventually broke the back of inflation also produced the worst recession since the Great Depression (to be fair, the ”recession was a function of capital being reallocated from inflation hedges to real ideas of the mind) up until that time, with the entire recession coming 6 months into Reagan’s first term, and lasting through almost his entire second year.


But still, real median weekly incomes for females rose 32.1% in Reagan’s first term, compared to 6.6% in Obama’s first term. Employment of women rose by 4,460,000 in Reagan’s first term, while women suffered a net loss of 354,000 jobs during Obama’s first term. Conversely, the number of women not in the work force rose by 4,458,000 in Obama’s first term, compared to 345,000 in Reagan’s first term.


More than 3 times as many jobs were created for African-American women in Reagan’s first term, compared to Obama’s first term, even though the population was much larger in Obama’s first term. Jobs for African American women rose by 15.1% in Reagan’s first term, compared to 2.6% in Obama’s first term.


Teenage female African Americans employed fell by 19.1% in Obama’s first term, compared to a decline of just 1.5% in Reagan’s first term. The unemployment rate for teenage female African-Americans rose by 5.7 percentage points in Obama’s first term, compared to just 1.1 percentage points in Reagan’s first term. Yet, the labor force participation rate for teenage female African Americans rose by 2.5 percentage points in Reagan’s first term, while it fell by 2.6 percentage points in Obama’s first term.


The poverty rate has soared under President Obama, to 16.1%, higher than when the War on Poverty began, and that covers primarily women. Child poverty has soared as well, to over 20%, with 8 million American children growing up in poverty. The Census Bureau reports more Americans in poverty today than at any time in the more than 50 years that Census has been tracking poverty, at almost 50 million, and again that is mostly women, and their children.


Real median household income has declined by nearly 8% in Obama’s first term, which is the equivalent of the middle class losing one month’s pay each year. Income for the bottom 20% of income earners has declined by a similar amount. Income has been rising under President Obama only for the top 20%, which is why income inequality has perversely (given Obama’s rhetoric) been rising under President Obama as well.


In President Reagan’s first term, by contrast, the decline in average and low incomes, which had persisted for several years when he entered office, was reversed, and incomes for every income quintile, from the top 20% to the bottom 20%, turned around and rose for several years.


As George Washington University Professor Henry R. Nau summarized in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2012, “the U.S. grew by more than 3% per year [in real terms] from 1980 to 2007, and created more than 50 million new jobs, massively expanding a middle class of working women, African-Americans and legal as well as illegal immigrants. Per capita income increased by 65%, and household income went up substantially in all income categories.” (emphasis added).


Women under Reagan started their own small businesses in record numbers. Small business under Obama has been assaulted in every way, with higher tax rates, and soaring regulatory burdens in particular.

Here again we see that President Obama following the exact opposite of every policy of Reagan in every detail has been getting the exact opposite results. It is time to return women’s liberation to America. If Obama and Congressional Democrats will not reverse course, then American women will have to restore their liberation at the ballot box in November next year.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article seems fixated on African American women. Obama's wife is African American. It says that she doesnt currently have a real job either here:



Why dont we compare Obama to Bush.


And how do you create a Job specificaly for an African American woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.



10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol my lady has her doctorate and is smart enough to know when a political party is shafting her. ..and votes accordingly.


Back to your mom's basement with your imaginary lady.


















Senate Dems Betray Lilly

Senate Democrats pay female staffers less than male staffers


BY: Andrew Stiles

May 24, 2012


A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.


Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 33.8 percent.

That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.

A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.


Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent.


The Free Beacon used publicly available salary data from the transparency website Legistorm to calculate the figures, and considered only current full-time staff members who were employed for the entirety of fiscal year 2011.

The employee gender pay gap among Senate Democrats was not limited to Murray, Boxer, and Feinstein. Of the 50 members of the Senate Democratic caucus examined in the analysis, 37 senators paid their female staffers less than male staffers.


Senators elected in 2010—Joe Manchin, Chris Coons, and Richard Blumenthal—were not considered due to incomplete salary data.


Women working for Senate Democrats in 2011 pulled in an average salary of $60,877. Men made about $6,500 more.

While the gap is significant, it is slightly smaller than that of the White House, which pays men about $10,000, or 13 percent, more on average, according to a previous Free Beacon analysis.


The pay differential is quite striking in some cases, especially among leading Democrats. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), who runs the Senate Democratic messaging operation, paid men $19,454 more on average, a 36 percent difference.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) paid men $13,063 more, a difference of 23 percent.


Other notable Senators whose “gender pay gap” was larger than 23 percent:


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.)—47.6 percent

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.)—40 percent

Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.)—34.2 percent

Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.)—31.5 percent

Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.)—30.4 percent

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.)–29.7 percent

Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.)–29.2 percent

Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.)—26.5 percent

Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore)—26.4 percent

Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa)—23.2 percent


Sen. Sanders, who is an avowed socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, has the worst gender gap by far. He employed more men (14) than women (10), and his chief of staff is male. Like many of his fellow partisans, he has previously accused Republicans of “trying to roll back the clock on women’s rights.”


One possible explanation for the pay disparity is the noticeable preference among Senate Democrats’ for male chiefs of staff, who typically draw the highest congressional salaries. Of the 46 Democratic Senators listing a chief of staff on their payroll in 2011, 13 were women.


A similar disparity exists in the White House, which employs 74 men and only 48 women in senior positions.


Senate Democrats have been actively pushing the issue of equal pay over the past several days. “In 19 of the 20 most common occupations for men or women, women earn less for the same work. We need #EqualPay,” the official Twitter account of Senate Democrats wrote on Tuesday.


Sen. Murray has invoked the so-called GOP “war on women” in fundraising pitches for months. “Women are people. That should be obvious, but apparently it isn’t, at least not to extreme Republicans who see us as mere targets of their political strategy,” she wrote in May 10, 2012, campaign fundraising e-mail.


Senate Democrats plan to bring the Paycheck Fairness Act, which some have described as a “trial lawyers’ payday” that would facilitate large punitive damage claims in discrimination suits, up for a vote following the Memorial Day recess.


Congress already passed equal pay legislation in January 2009. President Obama has frequently touted that bill—the Lilly Ledbetter Act—as the first piece of legislation he signed upon taking office, and has sought to declare “problem solved” on the issue of equal pay for women.


“We passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act—the first bill I signed—so that equal pay for equal work is a reality all across this country,” he said in June 2009.


When it comes to prosecuting instances of gender pay discrimination, however, the Obama administration has been far less active than that of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush. Under Obama, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed six gender-based wage discrimination lawsuits. That number is down from 18 lawsuits filed during Bush’s second term.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical right wing tactic. Wage war on minorities and then claim the left abuses minorities . Run a real war on women and instead of smarting up and changing your policies, say the left is waging a war on women.


Earth to cons:,women aren't as dumb as you think!

the GOPhers know they are in trouble with minorities. they think the contraception thing will get 'em votes from hispanics, who are mostly catholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical right wing tactic. Wage war on minorities and then claim the left abuses minorities . Run a real war on women and instead of smarting up and changing your policies, say the left is waging a war on women.


Earth to cons:,women aren't as dumb as you think!



they had a woman do their response to the SOTU!


That means they LIKE us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...