Geithner: Romney's statements on women "misleading and ridiculous"

Updated 10:30 a.m. ET

(CBS News) Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner pushed back on Mitt Romney's statements that women made up almost all jobs lost during the Obama presidency.

"It's misleading and ridiculous," Geithner said on CBS News' "Face the Nation." "It's just a political moment."

On the campaign trail, Romney attempted to turn the discussion to women and the economy, blaming President Obama for hurting women's checkbooks.

At campaign events, Romney repeatedly said the president's policies are waging "the real war on women," pointing to a statistic that women make up 92.3 percent of jobs lost since Mr. Obama took office.

In response to questions by host Bob Schieffer, Geithner said "you have to look at the whole duration of the recession.

"The recession started in 2008... It was already a year in the making before President Obama came into office," Geithner said, noting that men lost the most jobs at the beginning of the recession, due to construction and manufacturing job loss.

Geithner admitted that the second part of the recession saw more female job losses, because of teacher and education layoffs due to state budget cutbacks.

"Basically you're saying that [Romney] is right?" Schieffer asked.

To that, Geithner responded: "It's a meaningless way to look at the basic contours of the economy in that period of time, again because it starts artificially at a time when the President came into office and the crisis was still building momentum."

Romney's campaign pushed back: "If they move the starting point to the beginning of their so-called recovery, they will find women have benefited from less than one-eighth of the meager job creation," spokesperson Andrea Saul wrote in an email. "The President should stop making excuses for his failures - he is entitled to his own spin but not his own facts."

As for the "Buffett Rule," which would impose at least a 30-percent tax on those earning more than $1 million per year, Geithner said it is a "balanced" way to grow the economy.

"We have to get the economy growing, repair the damage from the crisis, get more people back to work," Geithner said. "And we've got to make sure we put in place a balanced plan to bring down our long-term deficits."

Fueling critics' fire who oppose the tax increase, Geithner noted that the amount raised for the federal treasury would be "modest." However, he said that extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts would add to the deficit.

"We just can't afford to borrow to do it anymore, and we have to preserve room (for) these other priorities," Geithner said. "And as part of that, again, we're going to propose to raise a modest amount of additional revenue from the most fortunate Americans."

The White House said earlier this week that the "Buffett Rule" would raise $47 billion.

[SiaraDelyn]

How sickening that Romney would come out with that incorrect statement.

Sorry Mr. Romney-- Taking away our control of our bodies so that some crackpot southern Evangelists will approve your plan to give the rich more power doesn't cut it with American women. My chief concern in this election is keeping Republicans away from the Supreme Court.

[fredricwilliams]

The "Buffett" tax is a scam -- Buffett is worth tens of billions and pays less than his secretary, largely because he takes very little salary. The 30% tax wouldn't touch him -- his salary is too low. He can borrow a billion dollars a year against his stock holdings without paying a penny in tax.

If anyone wanted to get serious about taxing the rich, they would tax their assets, not their income -- that would be a real "Buffett Tax" -- let's say 2% to begin with, rising to 10% over five years. The first year, Buffett might pay around a billion dollars -- Gates the same. Of course foundations and universities should be subject to the same tax. It would encourage rich people and organizations to become productive rather than simply living on their wealth.

[Cowcharge]

Do your taxes this year, Timmy?

[GeorgeVeritas]

IT IS VERY REFRESHING, given all the crooks in Congress, to have Mr. Geitner speak frankly to America. His Americanism reminds me of what I was born into post World War II. Since then -- because of the Romans ('Republicans') America has gone very far downhill. Our own US Government said this month that 48 percent of adults in USA live in poverty. For children only it is even higher. Unemployment figures are false. Far more good citizens are out of work than they say. And about our good President Obama . . . he inherited the nation's Roman problems of Poverty, Economic Bankruptsy, Marriage of Congress to Big Corporations, Wars and The Rich Getting Richer from the Roman Republicans. But, because Obama is in the Head Honcho seat, after their causing most all of it, he gets the blame. That is patently unfair.
On the "Buffet Rule," rich folks like Morman Romney don't like the idea that the wealthy should pay more taxes. This current year, Romney paid about 15% and Obama paid about 20% but Romney made many times more than Obama. WHY? A major historical and ongoing reason is the Roman Republicans adherence to any and all things that make the rich richer and the poor more poor. Republican mentality is clearly parasitic - feed on the poor without killing them. In other words, 'Economic Slavery'.
America desperately needs to completely rewrite the US Tax Code. My educated opinion is that IF that does not happen, THEN this nation will follow in the footsteps of places like Syria, Libya, Egypt and Ancient Rome.

[occupy_cbs]

Lucky: "The government is SPENDING more money than ever"



It's been our huge decline in federal revenue since 2001 that's been increasing our budget deficits and national debt, so screaming about "spending" only makes you look like an economic neophyte!


"What, after all, is the difference between a direct spending program and a refundable tax credit? Nothing, really." -- Bruce Bartlett, 2009

[kevjustice]

tired of hearing of the bush. bush inherited the greatest surplus in history and turned it into the biggest defecit. he was a disaster. no spin allowed-bush was in charge at the top/the captain of the ship(titanic or tea-tanic) and could veto anything he did not like.

[occupy_cbs]

Yep, bush held the VETO PEN, and yet the bush apologists keep wanting to know what a slight majority of Dems in Congress could have done with the housing bubble that burst, and millions of toxic mortgages that had been written between 2001-2006, bundled and sold as AAA-rated, and the GREEDY Wall Street banksters had bet against them with derivative instruments, and yet these bozos 'think' that the Dems were going to wave their magic wand over this republican debacle?

Nothing could be done at that point, and these morons really need to watch "Inside Job" to get the real story of the financial implosion!

[occupy_cbs]

DJ332013: "So while we can agree that Bush was in charge, we also need to agree that the democrats had the chance to try to resolve this and did nothing"




BTW, try looking at history, and tell me why the republicans and Hoover didn't correct the problems after Oct. 29th, 1929, since they clearly had until March 4, 193, when FDR took over -- 3 & 1/2 years to correct the economic catastrophe they created, but made it worse!

Seriously little boy, you really need a new line for once!

[occupy_cbs]

Come on dj, from Oct. 29, 1929 until March 4, 1933, what did the republicans do when in complete control, but make it much worse?

How about that smoot-hawley tariff bill of 1930, which economists say helped extend the Great Depression as well as making it much worse?

[occupy_cbs]

agentzer007: "it's been more than 50 months and counting since the downturn. And Obama has yet to turn it around"



Say what? Is that you willard mittens romney spewing more of your delusional partisan rhetoric, and completely divorced from reality?

When Obama took the oath of office, we were losing 800,000 jobs per month due to the bush/cheney Great Recession, and after the 2009 ARRA, the job losses each month declined, and finally turned around 25 months ago with private-sector job creation every month since.

After losing 4 million jobs since Jan. 2009, we've seen 4 million private-sector jobs created over the past 2-years.

After the DJIA dropped to below 7,000 in March 2009, it has just about doubled to 13,000 -- almost a 100% increase in 3-years (remember that 26% plummet of the DJIA over bush's 8 years?).

Corporations have had record profits the last 2-years, and are sitting on record amounts of cash, proving President Obama has helped create a great business climate.

Those statistics all prove you are lying or in denial.

[occupy_cbs]

BTW, 50-months ago was Feb. 2008, and the bush/cheney regime was still in power, and hadn't yet even seen the financial sector implosion due to their lack of regulation, lack of oversight and then their lack of accountability when the shiit hit the fan!

[THEREALITYTSAR]

All recessions reverse themselves. Usually it takes about 18 months and the recovery is substantial. Due to Obama's activities we still have not recovered.

The job losses started once it became clear obama was going to beat poor old stupid McCain. Then The union redistribution act (AKA the "Stimulus"), the violations of bankruptcy law in screwing bondholders in the "Auto Bailout" The ObamaCare debacle, The Oil drilling shut down in the gulf all haverestricted the recovery, so now we have a "Jobless" Recovery.

Obama is destroying our economy, our military, our foreign policy, our Constitution.

America's Enemies hold theWhite House.....

[BOJOKER-Obama_]

You have to be pretty stupid to listen or care what this tax cheat has to say about the Buffett "Ruse" and "fairness"(redistribution of wealth for Obama's constituent moochers) and all that other tax BS from him, the Dems and Obama.

If Obama can claim a "War on Women by the GOP, Romney can use his 92.3 claim of jobs lost by women under Obama's 3 years of above 8.2 percent unemployment. Women and Blacks and Hispanics are the ones who have suffered the worst unemployment under Obama's presidency.

[Zann-Zel]

Geithner admitted that the second part of the recession saw more female job losses, because of teacher and education layoffs due to state budget cutbacks.
-------------------------------
And take a step back from that...why did the state have to do budget cutbacks??? Oh yeah...because the republicans decided to give tax breaks to the rich! THEN they scream - deficit! So most of the women laid off were because of REPUBLICANS!!! I watched it happen in Wisconsin, I watched it happen in Texas...anyone from the other 48 states that has another example feel free to add your state!

Vote out all Republicans in 2012!

*a disclaimer this time...thats MY Opinion!*