In the GOP economies, their Social Conservatives win out and there are more babies born then job creation. Fact, not fiction.
...The figures show that on Jan. 1, 2001, (click here) the U.S. population was 283.7 million. By Jan.1, 2009, that number had risen to 305.8 million.
Those estimates show the population increasing by about 7.8 percent, below Kaine’s claim that the population jumped by 10 percent under Bush.
What about the second half of Kaine’s claim that the number of jobs only grew by 1 percent under Bush’s tenure?
We turned to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which show that in the month that the former president took office, there were about 132.5 million non-farm employees in the U.S.
In January 2008, the month after the official start of the Great Recession, the total number of non-farm workers peaked at 138 million.
But as the economic downturn took hold, that number declined, and by the time Bush left office in January 2009 there were 133.6 million non-farm employees.
So over the course of Bush Administration, the number of non-farm workers rose by about 1.1 million, or .83 percent. That’s just shy of Kaine’s claim that the number of jobs rose by 1 percent under Bush.
While Kaine’s numbers are a little off on employment and census, he’s right in suggesting that that U.S. population grew 10 times faster that jobs during George W. Bush’s presidency....
If the paradigm of the USA shifts to women returning to the home, that increases the number of family in poverty, limits the ability of parents to send their children to college, which will limit the growth of the USA economy, except for the number of people of course. That is another thing, the number of people do cause increased economic growth, but, it just may be stunted growth.
...The figures show that on Jan. 1, 2001, (click here) the U.S. population was 283.7 million. By Jan.1, 2009, that number had risen to 305.8 million.
Those estimates show the population increasing by about 7.8 percent, below Kaine’s claim that the population jumped by 10 percent under Bush.
What about the second half of Kaine’s claim that the number of jobs only grew by 1 percent under Bush’s tenure?
We turned to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which show that in the month that the former president took office, there were about 132.5 million non-farm employees in the U.S.
In January 2008, the month after the official start of the Great Recession, the total number of non-farm workers peaked at 138 million.
But as the economic downturn took hold, that number declined, and by the time Bush left office in January 2009 there were 133.6 million non-farm employees.
So over the course of Bush Administration, the number of non-farm workers rose by about 1.1 million, or .83 percent. That’s just shy of Kaine’s claim that the number of jobs rose by 1 percent under Bush.
While Kaine’s numbers are a little off on employment and census, he’s right in suggesting that that U.S. population grew 10 times faster that jobs during George W. Bush’s presidency....
The Social Conservative wants no contraception and no abortion. That dictates increased family size. Increased family size means the income of one of the parents is meaningless as child care is no longer reasonable and one parent has to remain in the home rather than work.
...both National Right to Life and the Susan B. Anthony List (click here) highlighted what they called Romney's strong "pro-life" positions and criticized President Barack Obama for what they call a "pro-abortion agenda."...
If the paradigm of the USA shifts to women returning to the home, that increases the number of family in poverty, limits the ability of parents to send their children to college, which will limit the growth of the USA economy, except for the number of people of course. That is another thing, the number of people do cause increased economic growth, but, it just may be stunted growth.
But, to realize how important have become to the USA economy all one has to do is think about how women increase the quality of life of their families by working.
The importance of sex (click here)
Apr 12th 2006
EVEN today in the modern, developed world, surveys show that parents still prefer to have a boy rather than a girl. One longstanding reason why boys have been seen as a greater blessing has been that they are expected to become better economic providers for their parents' old age. Yet it is time for parents to think again. Girls may now be a better investment.
Girls get better grades at school than boys, and in most developed countries more women than men go to university. Women will thus be better equipped for the new jobs of the 21st century, in which brains count a lot more than brawn. In Britain far more women than men are now training to become doctors. And women are more likely to provide sound advice on investing their parents' nest egg: surveys show that women consistently achieve higher financial returns than men do....
Women are important to the modern economy. They are more important than deciding what laundry detergent to purchase, where the best prices for goods are or driving the children to their next practice session. Not to diminish those activities, but, they are not income based activities. And in a world where computers are available in homes these days all those activities are better organized with a touch of a key stroke.
Women have to decide what promotes the best quality of life for them and their families. Is planning a family, having an education, using it when the children start school or while they grow up and contributing to a life well lived as important as biological realities and joys? Or should women decide that political oppression of choices through control of reproductive options actually dictate the life outcomes of us and our daughters? Do women realistically believe they are better off under the oppression of Social Conservatives? Do women discern the difference that their political choices are also cultural?
In the year 2012, women have to decide if planned economic growth that is now proving itself to be consistent and sustainable is a better decision then the reality of the cultural impacts that come along with voting Republican? The year 2010 was more than a reality check, it was a realization the culture under Republican leadership is oppressive of women. We can see it across the country.
American women have to know they are one of the most important elements to the USA economy and with that comes the demand for every aspect of freedom to decide their futures and that of their families.
Do American women want to be economic partners to their husbands and partners or do they want to have their dreams and the dreams of their children taken from them?
