Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul says unemployment numbers don't tell the whole truth
CBS ^ | Feb 3 2012 | Leigh Ann Caldwell

Posted on 02/03/2012 7:49:39 PM PST by WilliamIII

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said the latest unemployment numbers don't tell the whole story. In an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan Friday night, Paul also said the .2 percentage drop in unemployment to is "not all that glamorous."

Paul said there is an under-reported element to the latest jobs numbers released Friday that showed the lowest unemployment rate in three years - and that is that millions more are disengaged from the job market.

"More important if you admit the truth," Paul said about the latest unemployment numbers. "We quit counting people."

The number of unemployed people declined to 12.8 million people in January, according to the Labor Department, but that number only includes people actively looking for work.

Nearly as many people are experiencing the dire consequences of the sluggish economy and that statistic has not seen much improvement. Eleven million people either gave up looking for work or are underemployed, and that's why Paul calls the jobs numbers "not glamorous."

(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 02/03/2012 7:49:42 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

the only thing the libs are conservative about is the unemployment true numbers.


2 posted on 02/03/2012 7:52:04 PM PST by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

obviously the numbers are lies. duh.

There are bigger issues out there though. Including social issues that Paul doesn’t care about.


3 posted on 02/03/2012 8:03:41 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

The ‘headline’ UE number is proof that you can do any damn thing you want with statistics in order to make them show what you want them to.

Much of the basis that makes our economy today is based on fraud, both private and public.


4 posted on 02/03/2012 8:10:15 PM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
"More important if you admit the truth," Paul said about the latest unemployment numbers. "We quit counting people."

Precisely true.

The number of unemployed people declined to 12.8 million people in January, according to the Labor Department, but that number only includes people actively looking for work.

No, it only includes people who are on unemployment. If your benefits have run out, you aren't counted whether or not you are looking. If you just graduated from school and you can't find work, you don't qualify for unemployment and aren't counted. If you never filed for unemployment because you were living on your own savings, you aren't counted.

The whole "no longer looking for work" category is a dodge that allows them to hide the magnitude of the unemployment problem.

5 posted on 02/03/2012 8:18:30 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Mr. Paul, where have you been hiding over the past 5 years? Under a giant boulder on an isolated island located in the South China Sea?


6 posted on 02/03/2012 8:18:30 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

So, Paul is saying not 8.3% without adequate employment but 22.6%.

I’d bet its closer to 30% than it is 22.


7 posted on 02/03/2012 8:19:49 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

Ron Paul is willing to stand up to the establishment. Not many willing to do that.


8 posted on 02/03/2012 8:24:12 PM PST by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dsc

Anything over 20% is depression era rates.


9 posted on 02/03/2012 8:25:15 PM PST by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998

I’ve always liked Ron Paul. Not sure I’d want him as president due to his EXTREME isolationist tendencies with international matters(this is coming from someone who tends to be a bit isolationist). However, he’s dead on accurate when it comes to all matters domestic. One thing that REALLY hurts him is he’s a horrible public speaker.


10 posted on 02/03/2012 8:33:37 PM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998

“Anything over 20% is depression era rates.”

The real rate has been over 25% for years, as best I can tell.


11 posted on 02/03/2012 8:40:21 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Still, one must confess that the voters can understand 8.3 percent unemployment but not too much other information that confuses them.


12 posted on 02/03/2012 8:43:40 PM PST by Theodore R. (I have a feeling that our little Republican primary voters will again disappoint us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

The other candidates are good at lying. They know if they lie on the hard question people will give them a pass. Look how many times Newt, Mitt and Obama has changed position.

The truth is if Ron Paul would change position on foreign affairs and illegal drugs he would be the next President. Lies are acceptable behavior for Presidents ie: Bill Clinton. That is why Paul will never be President.


13 posted on 02/03/2012 8:58:29 PM PST by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dsc

Depression Era Unemployment Statistics. The government numbers were real back then unlike today.

Average rate of unemployment
in 1929: 3.2%
in 1930: 8.9%
in 1931: 16.3%
in 1932: 24.1%
in 1933: 24.9%
in 1934: 21.7%
in 1935: 20.1%
in 1936: 16.9%
in 1937: 14.3%
in 1938: 19.0%
in 1939: 17.2%


14 posted on 02/03/2012 9:18:36 PM PST by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

The fact the unemployment numbers have been dropping due to significant jumps in the number of people being counted as being in the labor market should be the story making all of the headlines - not that a candidate ‘says’ that it is. Instead, the press runs with story after story that the unemployment numbers have been falling due to a “surge” in hiring which does not exist.


15 posted on 02/03/2012 11:05:28 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998

“The government numbers were real back then unlike today”

It can be hard to find the information that shows what an scumsucking demonrat lump of dogmeat FDR really was, but having seen a good amount, I don’t trust any numbers that he had influence over, either.


16 posted on 02/03/2012 11:55:47 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
This is actually how it works folks.

=========================

Bud Abbot and Lou Costello were one of the most
popular comedy teams of the 1940's and 1950's.
 
 
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America .

ABBOTT: Good subject. Terrible times. It's about 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed.  You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ... they are out of work!

ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To who?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work... Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment rolls, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they're two  ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!


And now you know why Obama's unemployment figures are improving!


17 posted on 02/04/2012 12:56:09 AM PST by VideoDoctor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VideoDoctor

Nice job! Except you need to add in the part about:

Well there is a THIRD way.

THREE ways to lower unemployment - that’s GREAT!

Even if you ARE looking for a job.

But I thought you said if you stopped looking for a job it lowers it.

Well sure. But if you look for a job and after two years you still can’t find one, you go off of unemployment, so that lowers the number.

That’s great - so who finally gave him a job?....


18 posted on 02/04/2012 1:03:23 AM PST by 21twelve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: VideoDoctor

Oh - and how about college kids that can’t find a job out of college in the first place?


19 posted on 02/04/2012 1:04:19 AM PST by 21twelve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marron
Yes, but it is enough to excite democrats and the liberal media.

No cost demo commie presidential campaign advertising funded by the government.

20 posted on 02/04/2012 1:15:42 AM PST by tdscpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Excellent. Now look back and tell me the extensions in unemployment benefits (99 weeks?) were not designed to have the economy ‘improve’ just in time for the election...


21 posted on 02/04/2012 1:24:37 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: devattel

He hasn’t been hiding..this was part of an interview from last night I think.


22 posted on 02/04/2012 5:11:19 AM PST by stillafreemind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
This Democrat Obama has borrowed 5 trillion dollars, mostly from China. And yet not a single net job has been created. In fact 15 million jobs have been lost . As evidence see that 43% of Americans are on food stamps. The U.S. is living on debt and every single day we lose more manufacturing jobs to China.

Any one in the liberal mainstream media really think that this borrowing trillions per year, losing manufacturing, and exploding debt is sustainable? No way :The U.S.A is headed toward collapse just like Greece is only worse.And it is all Obama's fault. We post the truth on the Internet so Obama is trying to censor the Internet and destroy it with the international agreement ACTA.

23 posted on 02/04/2012 5:44:14 AM PST by Democrat_media (China is destroying all our jobs and manufacturing ability. China makes everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

“...were not designed to have the economy ‘improve’ just in time for the election...”

And I haven’t listened to Glenn Beck in a long time, but awhile ago Obama STILL hadn’t used over half of the stimulus package from a year or more ago. Beck thought Obama might release the rest of it in time to make the numbers look good for the election.


24 posted on 02/04/2012 2:12:50 PM PST by 21twelve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson