MORE ON THE DEMOCRAT WAR ON WOMEN…

 

I think most of us will be able to come to an agreement over the fact that Barry "Almighty" is really nothing more than a very committed socialist. And I would also argue that Hitlery Clinton, despite the very loud denials by her many devoted followers, is one as well. And as we have seen now on quite a few separate occasions, the economic policies that have been put into place over the course of just the last few years have not bode well for those women who remain in the nation’s workforce. So how is it then, that anyone thinks that by electing Hitlery Clinton job prospects for women in this country will in any way improve. After all, a socialist is a socialist is a socialist.

We are told today that the last recession began in December 2007 and supposedly came to an end in June 2009, although there are many Americans who would argue that it still continues to this very day. But regardless of that fact, in 2007, according to the Census Bureau, American women 15 and older had a median income of $23,169 in constant 2012 dollars. That is the highest median income American women have ever achieved. By 2009, the year we’re told that the recession ended, the median income of American women (in constant 2012 dollars) had dropped to $22,434—a decline of $735, or about 3.2 percent, from 2007. And things have only continued to get worse.

Because, as of 2012, the most recent year for Census Bureau income data, the median income of American women was $21,520 in constant 2012 dollars. That was down $914 dollars—or about 4.1 percent—from 2009. So it would seem that the median income of American women has not experienced a recovery and has continued to decline from its pre-recession high. The measure of "income," includes money a person takes in from such sources as unemployment compensation, Social Security payments, Supplemental Security Income, public assistance, disability benefits, and other cash payments such as rents, royalties, dividends, and interest. But not such as food stamps, health benefits, rent-free housing, and goods produced and consumed on the farm.

Like median income, other measures of the economic well-being of American women have also declined during the latest ‘recovery’. For example, the Census Bureau also measures "earnings," which is the money a person gets from working. This, according to the Census Bureau, "includes wages, salary, armed forces pay, commissions, tips, piece-rate payments, and cash bonuses earned, before deductions are made for items such as taxes, bonds, pensions, and union dues." It can also take the form of "net income" from self-employment, including on a farm. The real median "earnings" of American women peaked (in constant 2012 dollars) at $28,657 in 2007.

But by 2009, again the year that was supposed to have brought with it an end to the recession, real median earnings for American women had declined to $27,864—a drop of $793, or about 2.8 percent. By 2012, year four of Barry’s administration, the real median earnings of American women had declined to $26,882—an additional drop of $982, or about 3.5 percent, from 2009. In total, the real median earnings of woman have declined by $1,775, or about 6.2 percent, since 2007, with over 55 percent of that decline coming just since 2009 or Barry’s first year in office. The real median earnings of women who work full-time year-round also have declined since 2009.

In 2007, the real median earnings of American women who work full-time, year-round hit an historic peak of $38,872 (in constant 2012 dollars). By 2009, the median earnings of women who work full-time, year-round had declined to $38,835—a drop of $37, or about 0.09 percent, from 2007. By 2012, the median earnings of women who work full-time, year-round had further declined to $37,791—a drop of $1,044, or about 2.7 percent, from 2009. The median earnings of women who work full-time, year-round has not only dropped more than $1,081 in inflation-adjusted dollars since 2007, about 97 percent of that decline came after 2009, the year scarred by Barry’s coronation.

And yet women in this country, or at least many of them, remain convinced that it’s Barry and the Democrats who continue to have their back. And might that be because Democrats wish to make birth control, as well as all abortions, free? I mean why else would women continue to vote for those belonging to a party that wants nothing more than to put them out of a job and into a position where they become much more susceptible, even likely, to become addicted to the government? Because that’s exactly what they do, and then seem so proud of themselves for doing so. The rationale of many women in their choosing to vote for Democrats is nearly identical to that of blacks.

And for me, the fact that blacks continue to vote for Democrats has always seemed more than a little self-defeating as well as counter-productive, at least if one is to even glance at what ought to be the bigger picture. Why on earth do blacks keep voting for members of the party that is easily the most responsible not only for the destruction of the black family, but for keeping blacks in poverty. Is it because they too have been bought off by ever increasing entitlements in much the same way that many women have now apparently been bought off by the prospects of free birth control and abortions? I simply do not see any other way to try to rationalize that which continues to take place.