Over 92 million Americans out of work force
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
Tell me craik, how did B.O. manage to steer the US economy to 2%.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
I have included a chart that shows the "unemployment rate back through the Great Ronald Reagan.
Data extracted on: May 12, 2014 (6:39:13 PM)
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
US Unemployment Rate
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Its informative to take a careful look at the peaks and valleys of the US unemployment rate since 1980.
Republican Reagan became President Jan 1981, by Jan 1983 Reagan had run the "unemployment" rate to the highest in my lifetime! (That was when Reagan changed how we "count the unemployed") I bought my first house in 1983 paid 18% interest!
Republican BushI took office Jan 1989 the unemployment rate had been declining, but no more...
(After BushI and 12 straight years of Republican Presidents the unemployment rate was as high or higher than when they started)
Democrat Bill Clinton took office Jan 1993, almost immediately the unemployment rate started dropping....it dropped and dropped to the lowest point right around Jan 2001
Republican BushII took office Jan 2001, almost to the exact date, the unemployment rate shot up, then declined for a few years before shooting way, way up, very close to the record REAGAN unemployment numbers!
Democrat Obama took office Jan 2009.............
Now I know that a lot of this can be put down to coincidence, or other factors. Just as Obama inherited the market collapse, BushII inherited the Dotcom bubble.
But its not all coincidence and if it were reversed, if every time a Democrat became president, unemployment shot up, you on the right would never stop talking about it.
Don't try and claim any superiority when it comes to job creation because it just ain't true.
Last edited:
But there again, opposing ideology would clash on the very type of jobs that are 'created'. Our very own Tony Bliar, created a substantial amount of 'jobs' in his tenure - the problem being that they were mainly used to expand Government and worse, focussing on one region of the country. This is unsustainable 'job creation' in my view, as a change in the Administration to an opposing ideology, (Big Society) would see those jobs scrapped and an entire region become an economic disaster area.
Which jobs are sustainable? The UK seems to be quite robust in the Service Industries and here and there, we see small rises in manufacturing output but I think that's all finished for us now..
Which jobs are sustainable? The UK seems to be quite robust in the Service Industries and here and there, we see small rises in manufacturing output but I think that's all finished for us now..
Bob,
If you seriously believe your post then you should be shouting from the rooftops for the right to stop the bullshit rhetoric about those claiming welfare being a bunch of lazy $%^£&*% and there are plenty of jobs for those that want to work.
You can't have it both ways.
Jobs are jobs, but I think it quite dangerous to increase size of Government to do it, as they will likely be quangoes and foster bureaucracy although Roosevelt certainly achieved quite a turn around after the Great Depression by doing just that.
Good to hear that the US is getting people back to work. Its not been an easy time.
Good to hear that the US is getting people back to work. Its not been an easy time.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
If government jobs were reduced back to the level that graph shows them at in the 60's I bet it would be much more efficient.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Pete, we did way better that that!
US population 1962.............168,540,000.......#Fedral Employees 5,354,000
US population 2012.............318,036,099......#Federal Employees 4,312,000
Last edited:
Jim, You have military personnel in those numbers.
1962 Federal Employees 2,515,000
2012 Federal Employees 3,661,000
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
If that is correct I am amazed and hats off to the administration. Jim do those numbers include semi government operations that are fully funded by Government we call them Quangos don't know what you would call them.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Pete, virtually all the decline was in military personel. Yes we have fewer military but they are better trained with better weapons and are considerably stronger and more effective than the 1960's military.
But when you consider the huge increase in population, it really is quite astounding!
But when you consider the huge increase in population, it really is quite astounding!
Last edited:
Al, are you saying that the "Commander in Chief" leads a civilian military?
Al, this chart shows the US Federal Govenment, the Military is absolutly part of the "Government"
You know what I'm saying. When someone talks about Federal Employees they are usually not talking about the Military. The employees that actually get a reasonably higher rate of pay.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Yes Al, but the Military is absolutely positively are part of the Federal Government.
It's interesting how AL, by pretending that the Military is not Government, actually changed the data 100%, we went from showing a smaller Government to showing a larger Government.
This is the Fox News method of reporting facts.
It's interesting how AL, by pretending that the Military is not Government, actually changed the data 100%, we went from showing a smaller Government to showing a larger Government.
This is the Fox News method of reporting facts.
Last edited:
It's interesting that you need to attack in every post. Of course the military is part of the federal government. The civilian federal government is larger, you skewed it by adding the military.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Al,
In answer to a post about the size of our Governemt, you cherry pick the data in a way that makes it appear that the Federal government is getting larger when it's actually getting smaller. You arbitrarily remove the largest group of Federal Employees with the greatest loss in numbers.
You can't understand why someone would take issue with that?
That really says a lot.
In answer to a post about the size of our Governemt, you cherry pick the data in a way that makes it appear that the Federal government is getting larger when it's actually getting smaller. You arbitrarily remove the largest group of Federal Employees with the greatest loss in numbers.
You can't understand why someone would take issue with that?
That really says a lot.
Last edited:
And you don't? You tried to skew that.
