Don't look now, but unemployment dropped to 5.4%

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

Bingo Kilmer

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

You forgot a big one.

Students unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions. That's just as important.

And why don't they do that? It all goes back to parents and how hard they push their kids.

[Baculus]

Remember, if you don't make a certain income within a period, you can't claim unemployment. Thus, the actaul unemployed folks doesn't include folks who don't even qualify as "unemployed."

And in some states, the unemployment rate is still in the 8-9% - talk to folks in some of the Rust belt if they think unemployment has gone down. Folks smugly trot the unemployment figure out, but they don't even consider areas whose unemployment rate is unacceptably high, partially due to Bush's policies.

I bet many in the Rust belt, especially Ohio, a state that often determines the Presidential winner, will not vote for Bush. Why would they? Their collective economy has gone down the tubes.

[Baculus]

One extra remark - someone mentioned Zell Miller. I cannot say enough times how crazy, literally, I feel this guy really is. I mean, he wanted to duel Chris Matthews because Chris asked if Miller really thought Kerry would send our troops to Iraq armed with spitballs!

I can't believe this man actually holds office, let alone is praised as giving a good speech after his looney ravings! Some folks are simply blind to insanity - it's really unbelievable.

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by Baculus

Remember, if you don't make a certain income within a period, you can't claim unemployment. Thus, the actaul unemployed folks doesn't include folks who don't even qualify as "unemployed."

And in some states, the unemployment rate is still in the 8-9% - talk to folks in some of the Rust belt if they think unemployment has gone down. Folks smugly trot the unemployment figure out, but they don't even consider areas whose unemployment rate is unacceptably high, partially due to Bush's policies.

I bet many in the Rust belt, especially Ohio, a state that often determines the Presidential winner, will not vote for Bush. Why would they? Their collective economy has gone down the tubes.

Yeah, I'm simply now buying these as valid arguments. These are things that have always been, and always will be, true about the unemployment numbers. And relative to historical performance, the unemployment rate is not at all high. Its not super fantastic, but its solid right now.

The fact that some areas of the country have higher unemployment rates has always been true, of course. There's no smugness, just reality. There's no failure to consider, there's an assumption that everyone involved in this conversation is aware of this reality. And for every area with higher unemployment, you have areas of the country with very low rates of unemployment. Shocking huh? Who would have thought there isn't a perfect distribution of job markets across the entire country? Which of Bushes policies in particular do you attribute to this?

[Zen-like Todd]

Incidentally, you mentioned Ohio. The unemployment rate in Ohio is higher than the national average, but not markedly so. And as I'm sure you are aware, relatively (but not exactly) even numbers of states will fall on either side of any national average figure.

http://lmi.state.oh.us/LAUS/LAUS.html

They don't have August numbers, but the unemployment rate was 5.9% in June.

..edit.. and since I can never resist a graph, here's a graph, just because it was on the site (I'm a sucker for graphs).

[Thiebear]

:point2sky

I bet many in the Rust belt, especially Ohio, a state that often determines the Presidential winner, will not vote for Bush. Why would they? Their collective economy has gone down the tubes.

Feelings get in the way of a facts all of the time.. We are actually ON the Internet people... Try harder...

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

I like that graph Todd.

What needs to be looked at than in Ohio is why they seem to be consistantly above the national average in unemployment, even during the bubble.

Poorly educated population? High taxes and regulations on business? What is up with Ohio that it always seems above the national average?

One more thought on this graph. You will notice it is in late 2000 that unemployment starts to go up steadily than it skyrockets after 9/11 and begins to fall in August of last year.

What changed last year? The dividend tax cut

[December90]

Interesting bump looking back to 2004 and how "Bad" unemployment was...

How times have "Changed"

[Burgold]

Interesting bump looking back to 2004 and how "Bad" unemployment was...

How times have "Changed"

Anyone who wants to blame Obama for the unemployment is pretty delusional. An honest person would say that everyone was at fault. Dems, Repubs, free market, individuals. Everyone acted irresponsibly and created situations that led to the financial collapse and the jobs crisis.

To try to pin this on Obama is completely ignoring the circumstances that had built up and exploded before he took office. Shame on you for your quotations and your continuation of the blame game which helps to extend problems and deny solutions.

[greenspandan]

what's absurd is that regardless of blame, the current employment situation happened under bush's watch. blaming obama is utterly absurd, not because he can do no wrong, but because he hasn't been in power long enough to shoulder the blame.

bet it'll start coming down before autumn. unemployment is often the last economic indicator to turn the corner on the economy.

[December90]

Anyone who wants to blame Obama for the unemployment is pretty delusional. An honest person would say that everyone was at fault. Dems, Repubs, free market, individuals. Everyone acted irresponsibly and created situations that led to the financial collapse and the jobs crisis.

To try to pin this on Obama is completely ignoring the circumstances that had built up and exploded before he took office. Shame on you for your quotations and your continuation of the blame game which helps to extend problems and deny solutions.

1) I didn't specifically blame Obama. He is part of the problem however.

2) An honest person would say Dems, Repubs share the portions of the blame but I do not blame the (now nearly fictional) Free Market as I blame Government interference on the Free Market

3) Obama could not do this on his own. Without Pelosi and a Super Majority in the Senate and Reid with the large majority of the House, we would not be actively punishing success or risk taking to the degree we are now. We act surprised when we get more of what we subsidize (Unemployed) and less of what we punish (work hard, get more, keep less) Repulicans are far from blameless, but the majority of their issues have been going along with Democrat policies or agendas. Very few "Conservative" policies will cause 1 in 6 people able to work to not have a job or 1 in 10 people looking for work to not be able to find it.

That said I found this interesting to see what was going on when it was Bad under Bush...

[December90]

what's absurd is that regardless of blame, the current employment situation happened under bush's watch. blaming obama is utterly absurd, not because he can do no wrong, but because he hasn't been in power long enough to shoulder the blame.

bet it'll start coming down before autumn. unemployment is often the last economic indicator to turn the corner on the economy.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/

It is not about the President. The Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006 (you know four years ago, not two) The Democrat controlled House and Senate have been in power long enough for us to feel the impact of what they have done.

[greenspandan]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/

It is not about the President. The Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006 (you know four years ago, not two) The Democrat controlled House and Senate have been in power long enough for us to feel the impact of what they have done.

you're reliable, i'll give you that.

[mjah]

It is not about the President. The Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006 (you know four years ago, not two) The Democrat controlled House and Senate have been in power long enough for us to feel the impact of what they have done.

Is it your contention that the "Democrat controlled House and Senate" largely caused the disaster that took us to the brink of economic collapse in 2008? The same disaster whose effects included the rise in unemployment which we now see?

And that after being inaugurated in Jan 2007, they somehow managed to ruin -- in a little over a year and a half -- all of the economically awesome work that Bush Jr. and the many-years-old Republican Congress were doing?

Because respectfully, that contention would be so right-slanted as to be borderline delusional.

Reality dictates that the seeds of the ill effects we're now experiencing predated not only Obama's election, but the 2006 midterms as well. Reality also dictates that while nobody is blameless, only one party had 6 years of lockstep Congressional/White House control -- but did basically nothing to actively secure the nation's fiscal health against a coming maelstrom they knew was approaching.

Expecting the biggest economic problems since the Great Depression to be largely controlled and resolved within 2 years of their full fruition is more than merely ridiculous. It's hyper-partisan posturing.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Man I was a damn smart 22 year old. What the **** happened? :doh:

My posts kick ass in this thread

Lets also be honest. The spin in this thread from 6 years ago is incredible. What we would do to come anywhere close to 5.3 unemployment this coming decade

[Hubbs]

Is it your contention that the "Democrat controlled House and Senate" largely caused the disaster that took us to the brink of economic collapse in 2008? The same disaster whose effects included the rise in unemployment which we now see?

And that after being inaugurated in Jan 2007, they somehow managed to ruin -- in a little over a year and a half -- all of the economically awesome work that Bush Jr. and the many-years-old Republican Congress were doing?

Because respectfully, that contention would be so right-slanted as to be borderline delusional.

Have you ever seen December post before?

[chipwhich]

Expecting the biggest economic problems since the Great Depression to be largely controlled and resolved within 2 years of their full fruition is more than merely ridiculous. It's hyper-partisan posturing.

Unfortunately that's what people do.

Personally I think Bill Clinton gets too much credit for his economic expansion just as Obama will get too much blame for the economic downturn.

While I think presidents can do things to improve the economy and things to mess up the economy, there are far too many outside forces which dictate economic growth and downturn.

But in our competitive zeal, we always want to take credit whether it's due or not, and deflect it the same.

[greenspandan]

Personally I think Bill Clinton gets too much credit for his economic expansion just as Obama will get too much blame for the economic downturn.

i don't understand the second half of that statement at all. the housing and financial markets had already crashed when obama took office. the stock market is up 39% since his inauguration. unless people believe obama has access to a top secret time machine, i don't see how HE shoulders any of the blame for the downturn itself.

[SnyderShrugged]

i don't understand the second half of that statement at all. the housing and financial markets had already crashed when obama took office. the stock market is up 39% since his inauguration. unless people believe obama has access to a top secret time machine, i don't see how HE shoulders any of the blame for the downturn itself.

I think he only shoulders blame for the expansions in spending and debt beyond those that helped create the downturn to begin with.

[Thiebear]

Were 4.5 months into 2010?

I thought we only spent 13% of that "EMERGENCY" must pass it today bill over a year ago so that we could make sure that in 2010 we would be good.

What are the goals this year on focusing on jobs like a Laser?

The unfunded 99weeks of unemployment is probably not the answer, and actually part of the problem.

[Burgold]

See, you guys done made me start a new thread....

[mjah]

Have you ever seen December post before?

Ya know, honestly I can remember the posting proclivities of maybe a dozen posters. The rest are always a surprise.

[Hubbs]

Ya know, honestly I can remember the posting proclivities of maybe a dozen posters. The rest are always a surprise.

I guess I spend too much time around here, I've probably got about 30 down. (If you happened to see that "To arms!" post I did in some thread about taxes and the deficit a few days ago, I think I named something like 20 posters and their leanings off the top of my head. I'm not at all trying to somehow brag about this - I clearly dick around at work way too much. This isn't a good sign.)