The Debates

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by ruffryder

I think the next debates on Monday are about Foreign policy.



I don't know how to take this.


750,000 more women unemployed since Obama took office.
.. and the number one issue for women is free birth control.

how can we even begin to talk about equal pay for women when we are all struggling for a damn job.

ever hear of multi-tasking, especially when the tasks are pretty solidly linked....a women's economic capability and freedom entirely depends on how many crumb snatchers she will have responsibility for...Remember in the debate Romney said since mothers were going to work for him then he had to give them flex hours so they can take care of the wee ones....and for less pay but he did not outright say that.

The BIGGEST hinder is the fact men don't do 'womens work'................cooking bathing feeding all the mouths at the table. then the rest of the housework and finally the outside the home job...............

I haven't done the fact checking on the 750000 number however my inclination is the numbers are manipulated...........

[Kobi]

The facts:

The Romney statement would imply that between January 2009 (when Obama took office) and September 2012 (the most recent month for which we have statistics), that 580,000 women have lost their jobs.

According to the monthly jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were about 66.1 million women on nonfarm payrolls in January 2009. In September 2012, that number was 65.8 million. That's a loss of roughly 300,000 jobs -- 283,000, to be precise.

So where does the 580,000 jobs lost claim come from? It could be 6 months old.

In March, 65.5 million women were employed -- a net loss of 583,000 jobs since January 2009. That would give Romney the magic number. But, since March, 300,000 jobs have been added to the economy, reducing the jobs lost number to 283,000.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politi...obs/index.html

[Kobi]

As the U.S. continues to rack up more than $1 trillion of new debt every year, Americans are beginning to worry about who we owe this money to and how much power our creditors have over us.

According to Barry P. Bosworth, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, our two biggest foreign creditors are Japan and China.

Although it may seem as though our debt to these countries renders us a puppet on strings, Bosworth says this fear is overblown. The U.S. market is very important to China's economy, so China would be loathe to do anything that might exacerbate tensions or disrupt trade between the two countries. And the same can be said for Japan. China owns $1.15 trillion of U.S. government debt -- more than any other country -- but U.S. taxpayers actually owe less money to China compared to recent years. China holds 10% of U.S. Treasuries, down from 12% two years ago.

And what about all the anti-China rhetoric that we hear about on the campaign trail?

Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney has been promising the country that he will declare China a "currency manipulator" on the first day of his presidency--and then enact tariffs as necessary until he forces China to level the trading playing field. Is that something that Romney is actually likely to do if he gets elected?

No, says Bosworth.

Tough talk with respect to China has become standard rhetoric for any presidential challenger. If and when Romney becomes president, his position will likely mellow.

Bosworth also says that the problem with the U.S.-China trade relationship is not, as is commonly believed, that China doesn't play fair. China has actually addressed lots of its unfair practices over the past decade, Bosworth says, while the U.S. is still pursuing the same old self-destructive habits. Until we stop consuming so much and start producing more, Bosworth says, we're in no position to demand anything.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...191108431.html

[JustJo]

Thanks Kobi....I appreciate you pointing out that neither China or Japan want our economy to fail when they depend on it. Very true.

Also, people forget that the "national debt" is the sum of the Treasury bills that are issued. Essentially, we've written an IOU and promise to pay with interest. The vast majority of Treasury bills are owned by U.S. citizens and our own Social Security Trust Fund. So, essentially, the bulk of our debt is in our own hands.

Having said that, I'm not comfortable with us having this much debt. It's simply bad policy...much like an individual living off their credit card. At some point, there's a reckoning, and the amount spent on interest could have been better used on other things.

However, the Republican/Tea Party spin on the national debt is all about fear mongering.....big surprise, right?

Look here if you want to see the breakdown.

[Martina]

Debt that we pay because corporations and the super wealthy do not pay is unnecessary and can be stopped easily and at once. We have to make corporations and rich folk pay their fair share. And we have to stop fighting expensive wars. We do not need another dot com bubble to get us out of debt.

Reducing debt would free some money to help reduce the problem of unemployment, which is the more important issue. Full employment would end the debt crisis in a few years. There is a gallup poll out today that says that only 45 percent of Americans over 18 have full time jobs.

We have got to get money into the economy from the banks, meaning force them to lend again, especially to small businesses. And we have to make sure that public sector jobs are not cut to the bone, which means stimulus spending. And we must repair our crumbling infrastructure.

The jobs we do have are low end jobs. It is ironic that Romney was talking about flexible scheduling. That is a high end problem. Here's what most women in the economy are encountering:

Rather than being long and relentless, work hours in hourly jobs, especially low-level ones, are often scarce, fluctuating and unpredictable. Sales associates and restaurant servers might be scheduled for 7 hours one week and 32 the next. Hotel housekeepers might work Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday one week, and then Sunday, Thursday and Saturday the following week. Schedules are often posted just a few days in advance. And women in hourly jobs are likely to have less input than men in determining their work schedules, according to national surveys.

The lack of stability is especially hard on parents. Unpredictable work schedules leave them scrambling to arrange child care and reluctant to volunteer for school events or to schedule doctor’s appointments. They make it tough to establish the household routines that experts tell us are essential for healthy child development, like bedtime rituals, homework monitoring and family meal times. Unstable hours also result in unstable earnings, a nightmare for parents on tight budgets.

Well-educated women have benefited from the growing gap between workers who have college degrees and those who don’t. But low-paid women have been left vulnerable by cuts to safety net programs. In 2011, nearly half of the households headed by single mothers who worked part-time or part-year were poor (46.8 percent), compared with 8.9 percent of households headed by single mothers who worked full-time, year round.

The different pressures on salaried and hourly workers arise from companies’ trying to maximize productivity. . . .

To do that, the government must reform the Fair Labor Standards Act. Enacted in 1938 — decades before women’s labor force participation became the norm — the law established a minimum hourly wage but did not guarantee minimum weekly hours for any job (though unions may bargain for minimum hours). This reform would encourage employers to make full use of their hourly employees instead of overhiring, at low cost, a pool of on-demand shift workers.

We tax to get money to reach meaningful full employment and reduce the debt. End of story. Taxes on the wealthy and an end corporate tax breaks. And we need to improve the working conditions for all workers, which means regulation, so that the jobs we do have actually make it possible for people to live and raise a family. It's crazy that working people in this country live in poverty so that a few can become super wealthy instead of just wealthy.

[tonaderspeisung]

i'm looking forward to the 3rd party debate
even with larry king as moderator
- did stein make bail
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,5390151.story

[Martina]

That does look fun.

Re tonight, Romney won both coin tosses and gets to go first and last. Romney . . . . grrrrrr.