jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (57 posts)

Unemployment Numbers

  1. tammybarnette profile image61
    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago

    http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/lauhsthl.htm 

    Current Unemployment numbers by state, includes historic highs and lows...Interestingly most historic highs came during the Reagan Administration.

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How interesting that only 9 of 50 states actually had their highest unemployment under Obama.
      WHY IS THIS INFORMATION NOT BEING USED TO FIGHT BACK?
      So many states have unemployment rates that are really LOW.
      I heard on the news that the Rust Belt is BOOMING, too.

      1. tammybarnette profile image61
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        MM, I know, I was speaking to Ken Burgess the other day about VA...I live right next door in East Tn....the adds of Obama killing Coal are every 5min....VA is huge coal country...I think I had said the unemployment there was 5.6%, but It is 5.9%...I'm glad many of the MA mayors came to VA, I hope it helped...they wanted to tell the TRUTH about Romney:)

      2. profile image66
        logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        and whose labor department is in control of the statistics at this time?
        If things are booming, why are 46 million people still on food stamps and over 20 million unemployed?

        1. tammybarnette profile image61
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Things aren't booming, the economy however is not in the deep hole as Republicans are trying to paint it, we are making a recovery, and they are trying their very best to convince people we are not, but....they are lying smile

      3. American View profile image54
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        MM

        percentages are a masterful way of making numbers look good that are not so good. As the base number goes up, it's harder to achieve the same percentage.

        For example, there are 100 people in the work force, ten are not working so there is a 10% unemployment rate. Now today here are 1,000 people in the work force and 10 are not working, is that 10% No. 100 people is what is needed for ten percent. So this President can have a 5% unemployment rate which means 50 people are out of work, but he has historical the lowest unemployment rate despite the fact he has more people on unemployment in history.

        1. tammybarnette profile image61
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Does this then also take into account , that the numbers of available jobs are lower and, by industry for instance, with our huge loss of manufacturing that some persons are enrolled in college or job training programs to prepare for the jobs now available?

          1. American View profile image54
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Forbes is very good at explaining the difference between Obama and Regan as well as other recovery's

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar … -straight/

            1. tammybarnette profile image61
              tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Ok first, I detect slant in the writing, but second, what stands out to me most is the loss of manufacturing jobs which is not the fault of POTUS...Reagan made maufacturing boom..but I will finish with both articles and do some fact checking and number running and be back in touch soon...I hope,lol...may take a minute(as the teens say today smile )

              1. American View profile image54
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LOL Tammy, no problem.. You are right, there is a slight slant in the writing but the numbers are accurate. The part that hits me is manufacturing and as I have wrote and mentioned on my show, the manufacturing sector in not doing what Obama claims. Why does no one say something?

                1. tammybarnette profile image61
                  tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  AV, still studying...but wanted to show you this stat about manufacturing, it started trending downward heavily in 2002-2004--leveled off a bit from 2004-2008--then drops off a cliff till 2010 and is trending upward...
                  http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES30000 … ol=XGtable   
                  It is very clear the heavy purge of manufacturing jobs has crippled our recovery...more later  smile

                  1. tammybarnette profile image61
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04032 … ol=XGtable 
                    Unemployment spikes from 2009-2010 then by 2012 has dropped to levels of 2003...

    2. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am bookmarking this!

  2. Repairguy47 profile image60
    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago

    Its a good thing Reagan ran the country not states.

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah.
      Good thing Obama runs the country and not the states, too.

    2. tammybarnette profile image61
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Repairguy, I guess it's only the POTUS fault if its Obama, right?

      1. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, national unemployment rates is what he should be concerned with! You don't know that?

        1. tammybarnette profile image61
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Was that what Reagan was concerned with?

          1. Repairguy47 profile image60
            Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Don't know, I'm not Ronald Reagan. Why am I breaking my own rules and talking to you. My bad, buhbye.

            1. tammybarnette profile image61
              tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I did not realize you had ruled not to speak to me, but suits me fine smile

            2. Mighty Mom profile image91
              Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Rules? What rules?

              1. tammybarnette profile image61
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                MM, he has chosen not to debate with me, we have some history,lol smile

                1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                  Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You win by default then!
                  tongue

            3. Credence2 profile image87
              Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Repair, you really have a problem with coherent conversation. a logical argument was presented supported with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and you find everyexcuse to discredit the data. With reasoning like this like you demonstrate, that a rightwinger could not be trusted in any responsible position.. Geez, how small minded can you get? Don't any of you people have the integrity to admit it when you are wrong?

              1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not wrong unemployment was low during the Reagan administration. States that had high unemployment at times can't be attributed to Presidents. Our national unemployment rate is high now but some states have low unemployment and that is attributed to the states not the President. Same with states with high unemployment rates. It ain't brain surgery!

                1. tammybarnette profile image61
                  tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  RG, again, I have to answer, I apologize in advance...Obama has been murdered in the media for unemployment, that is the point of the thread....If you add all states unemployment then divide by the number of states you will get an average...what we are saying here is that by state, the worst umemployment numbers are reflected in the Reagan Administration, so the average would also be higher...I do understand  what you are saying about state responsibility, and it is a valid point, but not the way the media paints it for the Obama Administration.

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The reason Obama is getting pounded is because he said he was going to fix it and hasn't done anything! Now he says he has a plan, thats what he said four years ago and here we are!

          2. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            No, no, and no!

            Let's review this one more time.
            If it's a point against Obama, it counts.
            If the same point can be made against them, it doesn't count.
            Got it?
            If this explanation is too complicated (I know it's hard to follow along, tammy, being a "retard" as I am sure you are, just like me and our President and all libTARDS), here's some language that might be easier to grasp:

            "I know you are but what am I? Neener. Neener. Neener."
            lol

            1. tammybarnette profile image61
              tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol

              1. movingout profile image60
                movingoutposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                @tammy and MM...in a libTARDS voice! WILL YOU BE MY FRIEND? lol

                1. tammybarnette profile image61
                  tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  U BETCHA smile

            2. Repairguy47 profile image60
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No and no, sorry to disappoint but Obama is not responsible for good and bad unemployment rates in each and every state. Those numbers can be due to good or bad governors,state officials.

              1. tammybarnette profile image61
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                RG, That was the FOX spin...He said that drove us in the ditch, this time mid class families will ride shotgun and they can sit in the back...now I will give you this, it does sound like a little Rosa Parks; tit for tat, but hardly news worthy, FOX is owned by the right wing, please watch better sources, actually do not watch any and just research the economy and foriegn policy using government web sites like the CBO and US treasury...factcheck.org is an un biiased site, calls them all out on BS...but please DO vote, it is your right, and I would never say that to someone...of course I am voting, as I explained on the other forum, it's my rights R/R is screwing with...

                1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                  Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  His words were not fox spin. You don't seem to know much about the guy you support! You seem rather ignorant that he had two full years of democrat controlled house and senate and did nothing to create jobs. You are going to support Obama no matter what, if he had kidnapped the Lindbergh baby you would call it fox spin! You only know what is dumped into your head by other liberals! For the love of god DO NOT VOTE!

                  1. tammybarnette profile image61
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    RG, No reason to be rude...I already gave you the whole run down on those two years, Rupert Murdock owns FOX, do you know who that is...He has been doing such a fabulous job spreading propaganda in Australia, creating basic genocide against the aborigines , the other owner of 5.5% is Prince al-Walid Bin Talal, who has bragged of his pull to dictate their stories...I wrote an entire hub about the owner's of our media...this is why I say, please research and make the best decision for you and your family smile

                2. American View profile image54
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I know you may not read this since it is from a right wing source but you can google it, there are many other sites carrying it.

                  "The Obama campaign has finally released the transcript of his endorsement interview with the Des Moines Register--and it is clear why they were reluctant to do so: the President says he has "absolutely" no regrets about ignoring the economy during the first two years of his term, when Democrats controlled Congress."

                  http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government … -Two-Years

                  1. tammybarnette profile image61
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I will read when have a moment, I tried to skim and did not see it in the Q and A part, but will check it out smile

                  2. tammybarnette profile image61
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, first I can hear bias in the author, next the "facts" are according to the Washington Post and third the graph is from The Heritage Foundation...So all a little to righty tighty...So, If i even concede that the "no regrets," part is true, although some context is obviously left out, I believe what I read between the lines is that Obama said he has no regrets for working out the healthcare issue as his top priority...and it is a campaign promise he has kept, and Ted Kennedy would be so proud smile More to study smile

  3. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    You guys are too funny!

  4. chaoticpsyche profile image60
    chaoticpsycheposted 4 years ago

    I hate numbers, especially when coming to unemployment for percentage of people in poverty. These numbers show those who are unemployed based for factors that someone has reported to. For example filing for unemployment. I am thinking unemployment rates are much higher. You figure some people just lose their job and don't file for unemployment. Or they have been working under the table and no are jobless. So there are a lot of factors for any numbers and statistics.

    1. tammybarnette profile image61
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I understand what you mean, but these are the real numbers from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, and most people do draw their unemployment, they still have bills to pay....but yes poverty is at 15%, which is why food stamps are at 15%...after the worst recession since the Great Depression...Thank God these systems were in place smile

  5. secularist10 profile image87
    secularist10posted 4 years ago

    The series begins in 1976. Not the most useful, but interesting.

    On a related note, history shows that Democratic presidents are better for the economy than Republicans:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung … -democrat/

    GDP does better, the stock market does better, and corporate profits do better. There's many factors in economic prosperity, of course, not just the party of the President. But the policies do make a difference.

  6. profile image0
    khmohsinposted 4 years ago

    I think policies count, the war to terrorism lead US towards unemployment

  7. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    A sobering reality check for us all, here:

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/ … eally-need

 
working