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 ...
the only thing the libs are conservative about is the unemployment true numbers.
obviously the numbers are lies. duh.
There are bigger issues out there though. Including social issues that Paul doesn’t care about.
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.
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.
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?
So, Paul is saying not 8.3% without adequate employment but 22.6%.
I’d bet its closer to 30% than it is 22.
Ron Paul is willing to stand up to the establishment. Not many willing to do that.
Anything over 20% is depression era rates.
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.
“Anything over 20% is depression era rates.”
The real rate has been over 25% for years, as best I can tell.
Still, one must confess that the voters can understand 8.3 percent unemployment but not too much other information that confuses them.
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.
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%
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.
“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.
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?....
Oh - and how about college kids that can’t find a job out of college in the first place?
No cost demo commie presidential campaign advertising funded by the government.
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.