Posted on 07/09/2011 6:38:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The biggest part of UE claims will have expired by election time. The unemployed will still be there just not counted (unlike the Million Man March where shadows and hidden spots were counted just to be sure).
“Obama may well get the boot in ’12 as long as Republicans nominate a mainstream candidate.”
Anybody else catch the implicit threat not to nominate Sara Palin?
Of course, I said nobody named Hussein would ever be elected president, so what do I know?
Idiots!
This is not a horse race.
This is not a numbers game.
Candidates must be right on the ISSUES.
Forget about who’s AHEAD or BEHIND, rather concentrate on their positions.
An articulate CONSERVATIVE with PRINCIPLES will win every time he (or SHE!) gets the nomination.
Too bad we try it only once in a lifetime.
Under the Clinton regime the way the unemployment rate was calculated was re-figured to artificially drive the number down.
So when he compares FDR's unemployment rate to Obama’s he is comparing two different methodologies. Using the unemployment rate methodology of the FDR era, Obama unemployment rate is actually around 18%
“Sarah”
The economy would have to be going like a post-WWII or mid-80’s rocket from now to election day to get unemployment down to 7.2. Only Obama’s czars believe that it can or will perform so.
To be more specific:
USA Has To Create 250K Jobs A Month For 66 Months To Return To December 2007 Unemployment By End Of Obama’s Second Term
See here :
Good luck with a second term.
Bingo - and sorry to say, it won't matter if the advertised rate is 9% or 12%, there's still enough racist idiots out there to give Obama a fighting chance - we need to be very careful this election cycle to ensure we have a good candidate who isn't afraid to tell it like it is and then come out and refute any lies that get spoken during debates. If you don't show how bad your opponent lied, then the lies are accepted as facts by far too many.
I believe Palin would be willing to do both - tell the raw truth and expose the lies without regard to what the more "politic/polite" so-called conservatives might advise.
If this is too complicated here’s the Cliff Note version:
The number that matters is: ZERO. Anyone but Zero!
Most people listened to FDR and got their News from a even more controlled Media than today.
He convinced the electorate that Wall Street caused the depression.
Which in reality was not even true. The people could buy and sell stocks with the ease of Fannie and Freddie with little money down and only a fraction of the cost of the stock. Shoe Shine boys were playing the market with more money than they could make in their lifetime.
The Economics of that year should the economy contracting yet the markets were setting highs. Remember we had the Federal Reserve at that time. While the rest of the world was coming out of the depression we went into a Great Depression.
RE: Using the unemployment rate methodology of the FDR era, Obama unemployment rate is actually around 18%
A horrible thought just crossed my mind when you mentioned FDR... HE WAS REELECTED 3 TIMES ! This inspite of the double digit unemployment rate and the Great Depression !!
Is Obama the next FDR? (God Forbid).
Also the author’s bias as evidenced by “Gore lost by a technical knock-out.” Yeah, the Constitution and the Electoral College are nothing but a “TKO.”
The Republican nominees running against FDR were as socialist as he was.
One of them actually wrote a book called “One World” (We have it) in which he says Stalinist Russia was a great place to live, and everyone loved Stalin....
FDR had a huge Dem machine that all fell in line right down to the smallest town. He coerced and bought votes across the land. All of his New Deal agencies put money into states and cities where they could most effectively buy re-election votes; no money flowed to areas that were lost causes.
Obama blew his trillion-dollar vote-buying stash way too soon. Nobody will remember it at election time. Heck, it didn't even work for November 2010.
“A consensus of unbiased media experts agree that the discrepancy was inadvertent and slight and would have had little effect on the close reelection of Barack Obama.”
Very, very interesting; thanks for this Post. But, I sure find it hard to believe that in Nov. of 2008, George W.’s approval rating was only 25%. I guess my memory fails me.
The way unemployment is calcualted has changed so it no longer includes ‘marginally attached people’ so the real rate is probably near 15% or 18% today. I always thinks it’s funny when anyone compares todays unemployment rate to historical numbers from back before they changed the calcualtion.
Question: Is it the actual published number for unemployment that affects peoples voting choice? Or is it the general perception/hopelessness people have about finding a full time job?
If its the former, I’m sure the number can be tweaked lower right before the election by using some tricks and he will win.
If its the latter, what effect will never expiring unemployment benefits, mortgage bailouts, snap cards, free cell phones and other goverment handouts do to affect the voters decision?
To me, this is the biggest factor that totally seperates this recession from all others in the history of the world.
During the first depression, people were sleeping on the ground and praying for a soup line so they would not starve to death.
Compare this with today. You lose your job and you get a perpetual check from the goverment. Sure, you have to cut down to basic cable, change cell phone plans and eat out twice a week instead of 6 days a week, but does that suffering compare with the first depression? I don’t think so and when it comes time to vote, many people will vote for more handouts.
WE ARE ON THE PRECIPICE, THIS ELECTION IS OUR LAST STAND!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.