PDA

View Full Version : 10% Unemployment is normal in SOCIALIST COUNTRIES....


MACH1
04-13-2010, 02:01 AM
10% Unemployment is normal in Socialist countries and Liberal Cities.....and while 10% Unemployment may be viewed as "The Worst Of Times" in the United States, to Socialist Countries its just another day. For anyone that votes Democrat in this country.....your voting to make 10% Unemployment the norm here in the Divided Socialist States of ObaaamAmerica.

Today in these tough economic times, many Liberal Utopias have unemployment rates at 20% and higher.......which shows you how "progressive" they really are. And considering the Democrats want to take this country down the same path as these Socialist Countries/Liberal Shitholes..........20% Unemployment in America isn't completely out of the question.....and neither is declaring the US a Banana Republic.....Yes We Can!

This graph shows worldwide unemployment numbers in 2007, prior to worldwide crash. You will notice that these Socialist countries have unemployment levels that greatly surpass the United States.....this is of course due to decades of liberal leadership.

http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af288/Yeags12345/ignores1257811481.png

Yes France has National health care.....and 13% Unemployment......in the best of times

A lot of people cite Finland as a Liberal Utopia.....15% Unemployment.....in the best of times

Then theres Germany.....12% Unemployment......in the best of times

And during the same relative time frame in 2007....The US Unemployment rate was around the 6% mark....truly remarkable. And when you consider a lot of these Socialist shit holes listed look like a fishing village compared to the 300 million+ living in the United States.........its astounding.



Its also worth noting, that 2007 was the year Democrats (Including Senator Obama) took control of both houses of Congress, and began their unadulterated liberal insanity..........and we know what happened....

Unemployment Rate Since Democrats Took Over Congress
http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af288/Yeags12345/LNS14000000_6149_1257610550853.gif

And then of course came the fall of 2008, when a bunch of complete brain dead Americans decided to double down on FAILURE.....and elect the most liberal and inexperienced president this country has ever seen...

Unemployment Rate Since Obama Became President

http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af288/Yeags12345/LNS14000000_5930_1257610102519.gif

If your voting for 10% Unemployment....for more poverty....for more crime....for more taxes and more government......your voting Democrat.

JackHammer
04-13-2010, 02:16 AM
If your voting for 10% Unemployment....for more poverty....for more crime....for more taxes and more government......your voting Democrat or Republican.

Fixt. No need to thank me.

Venom
04-13-2010, 07:11 AM
Wheres the NObama countdown ? :banging:

Vincent
04-13-2010, 09:09 AM
Excellent post Mach. There it is in black and white. Nowhere to hide commie rat bastards.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3351/3596769266_59c4c529f4.jpg

"Bring me your lazy, your indolent, your sullen underclass, your liars, cheats, thieves, rapists, and murderers, your perverts, debauchees, degenerates, deviants, freaks, and all manner of slime that slither forth from dark places, and I will give you money we take from the normal, productive people."

MasterOfPuppets
04-13-2010, 10:09 AM
the unemployment rate was 9.7 % in march 2010.... the unemployment rate was 9.7 % in 1982 and 9.6 % in 1983.... who was the president during those years ? :huh:

Annual average unemployment rate, civilian labor force 16 years and over (percent)
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

SteelCityMom
04-13-2010, 10:35 AM
What no mention of Norway?

Norway has extensive health services and a well-developed social safety net. All those who are resident in Norway have a right to economic assistance and other forms of community support during illness, old age or unemployment. About 35 per cent of the state's budget is spent on the Norwegian health and social welfare system. Two laws - the National Insurance Act and the Social Care Act - are the statutory mainstays of Norwegians' social rights.

And I have trouble believing every statistic from this article because right off the bat, Finland's and Norway's are wrong. According to Finland's own Labor Statistic Analysis, they have not reached an unemployment rate of above 15% since 1995. In 2007 it was at 6.9.

http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_tyoelama_en.html

Norway was at 3.5% in 2007 and is at 3.2% right now.

http://www.indexmundi.com/norway/unemployment_rate.html


Even at that low unemployment rate, they've used government stimulus packages to create more jobs.

Norway's unemployment rate declined in May, which the government has accredited to its recent 2.2 billion euro stimulus package.

According to official data, registered unemployment fell by 0.2 per cent to 2.6 per cent last month, despite a Reuters' poll of economists forecasting an increase to 2.9 per cent.

The figure, which is extremely low by both European and international comparisons, has been aided by its high oil revenues and numerous government packages designed to support and create jobs.

Katrine Boye, economist at the Nordea Markets, told the news agency: "We see this as a sign that the stimulus packages from the government has started working, that many industries again have more to do and need the labor."

This positive news follows the release of data by Statistics Norway, which disclosed that retail sales rose by 1.5 per cent in April.

The Norwegian krone, on the back of these unexpected disclosures, has surged in recent days, climbing to its highest levels against the US dollar since March 2009.

http://www.randstad.com/the-world-of-work/norways-unemployment-rate-falls

MACH1
04-13-2010, 10:52 AM
What no mention of Norway?



And I have trouble believing every statistic from this article because right off the bat, Finland's and Norway's are wrong. According to Finland's own Labor Statistic Analysis, they have not reached an unemployment rate of above 15% since 1995. In 2007 it was at 6.9.

http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_tyoelama_en.html

Norway was at 3.5% in 2007 and is at 3.2% right now.

http://www.indexmundi.com/norway/unemployment_rate.html


Even at that low unemployment rate, they've used government stimulus packages to create more jobs.



http://www.randstad.com/the-world-of-work/norways-unemployment-rate-falls

The real US unemployment rate is around 18.5%, so whats your point.

The spendulas package is a joke. It creates no more jobs than you do.
Turtle or Salamander tunnels anybody?

MACH1
04-13-2010, 10:56 AM
the unemployment rate was 9.7 % in march 2010.... the unemployment rate was 9.7 % in 1982 and 9.6 % in 1983.... who was the president during those years ? :huh:

Annual average unemployment rate, civilian labor force 16 years and over (percent)
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

And was/is that the "norm" rate?

Just cause this clown in office now says so doesn't make it true.

SteelCityMom
04-13-2010, 10:57 AM
The real US unemployment rate is around 18.5%, so whats your point.

The spendulas package is a joke. It creates no more jobs than you do.
Turtle or Salamander tunnels anybody?

Then why did you make this post with bogus numbers? You're whole point was based off of figures from the graph....and they are wrong, that was my point.

BTW...US unemployment is at 9.7%, not 18.5%.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

MACH1
04-13-2010, 11:05 AM
Then why did you make this post with bogus numbers? You're whole point was based off of figures from the graph....and they are wrong, that was my point.

I posted what your government wants you to believe. I believe the numbers don't include the people who have ran out of unemployment or simply quit looking for work.

So here ya go. Just as the above numbers what make you think yours are 100% correct. I'm willing to bet there a whole lot worse than what you posted.

"Today is a Big Day in America" Real Unemployment Rate Over 21%

"Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gleefully proclaims on the Senate floor.

Harry Reid is not really happy with the loss of 36,000 jobs. He is just happy if the American people are silly enough to accept this as really good news.

Come on folks. Is it really good news to keep losing tens of thousands of jobs each month (the number is likely higher than whatever they are telling us).

So here is what the good consumers of America are supposed to believe. People keep losing tens of thousands of jobs, but miraculously the unemployment rate trickles down a bit each month.

But what is the real umemployment rate?


Well the government's U6 number reports that the unemployment rate for February is up a bit to 16.8%. That number "is the broadest measure of unemployment in the civilian labor force in the U.S. economy and includes those who need work but have given up the search, and those who have taken part-time jobs while still seeking full time employment."

But wait; there are some statisticians that claim even the government's U6 number is a lie.

According to Shadow Government Statistics, ".....the CPI, GDP and employment numbers run counter to your personal and business experiences? The problem lies in biased and often-manipulated government reporting..... Payroll Drop of 36,000 was 51,000 Net of Census Hiring • Broader February Unemployment Measures Rose: U.6 at 16.8% (up 0.3%), SGS at 21.6% (up 0.4%) • Economy Remains Headed into Deepening Downturn"

Let's face it; the economy is in a mess and has been in a mess well before the official Great Recession started in 2007. Oh, and if you recall, the media/government economists kept telling us we weren't in a recession all the way up to the Spring of 2008. These are the same media/government economists that, like Senator Reid, are proclaiming the good news of US jobless unemployment at 9.7% for this past month.

Ronald Reagan once said something like "a recession is when your neighbor is out of work and a depression is when you are out of work."

Well we might be able to turn that around a bit for Harry Reid.

A really big day in America is when "only 36,000 lost their jobs" but a really really great big day in America will be when Harry Reid loses his job.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/-Today-is-a-Big-Day-in-Ame-by-Grant-Lawrence-100306-129.html

SteelCityMom
04-13-2010, 11:11 AM
OpEd news....really. I think I'll stick with what the actual labor statistics are.

I'm sure there's nobody working in the government or reporting on this matter who would be biased enough to work the numbers in their favor to appear higher.

I just can't take your whole post seriously if the numbers you are comparing the US to are incorrect.

And if you truly don't believe that the numbers of unemployment are correct now, then there's no way you can say with any certainty that the 6% figure from 2007 that you were using from the graph as the crutch of your argument are correct either. What if that number was much higher than what was posted by the government? See my point here?

Bng_Hevn
04-13-2010, 01:25 PM
the unemployment rate was 9.7 % in march 2010.... the unemployment rate was 9.7 % in 1982 and 9.6 % in 1983.... who was the president during those years ? :huh:

Annual average unemployment rate, civilian labor force 16 years and over (percent)
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

Those were the beginning years of Reagan. Who was the President that caused all that unemployment? Where was the rate of unemployment when Reagan left office?

Obama didn't cause the initial spike, so that is not on his shoulders. He took office in 1/09, you can't blame him for what was already happening.

Nor can you blame Bush as he did not force people to default on mortgages.

I think the two situations are completely different. Reagan took over for Carter who had self-inflicted wounds and was better capable of overcoming them because it was due to policies, not the economy tanking due to idiot banks giving out idiot loans.

With that said, Obama is making the situation worse, not better.

Bng_Hevn
04-13-2010, 01:33 PM
OpEd news....really. I think I'll stick with what the actual labor statistics are.

I'm sure there's nobody working in the government or reporting on this matter who would be biased enough to work the numbers in their favor to appear higher.

I just can't take your whole post seriously if the numbers you are comparing the US to are incorrect.

And if you truly don't believe that the numbers of unemployment are correct now, then there's no way you can say with any certainty that the 6% figure from 2007 that you were using from the graph as the crutch of your argument are correct either. What if that number was much higher than what was posted by the government? See my point here?

I am against Obama-ism as much as anyone but I have to agree. You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

The thing I hate most about liberals is that they throw a whole bunch of crap against the wall without any evidence to convince themselves. The same thing you appear to be doing here.

fansince'76
04-13-2010, 01:39 PM
the unemployment rate was 9.7 % in march 2010.... the unemployment rate was 9.7 % in 1982 and 9.6 % in 1983.... who was the president during those years ? :huh:

Annual average unemployment rate, civilian labor force 16 years and over (percent)
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

And it was 7.6% in January 2009 when The Savior assumed his throne....

SteelCityMom
04-13-2010, 02:00 PM
I am against Obama-ism as much as anyone but I have to agree. You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

The thing I hate most about liberals is that they throw a whole bunch of crap against the wall without any evidence to convince themselves. The same thing you appear to be doing here.


I too am against Obama, and am not a liberal. But I am not throwing a bunch of "crap against the wall" w/o any evidence. I'm merely bringing up the point that the OP presented an argument that was filled with false information. I despise arguments that present false facts. If you can point out where I presented any information w/o evidence to back it up that would be great.

MACH1
04-13-2010, 04:56 PM
OpEd news....really. I think I'll stick with what the actual labor statistics are.

I'm sure there's nobody working in the government or reporting on this matter who would be biased enough to work the numbers in their favor to appear higher.

I just can't take your whole post seriously if the numbers you are comparing the US to are incorrect.

And if you truly don't believe that the numbers of unemployment are correct now, then there's no way you can say with any certainty that the 6% figure from 2007 that you were using from the graph as the crutch of your argument are correct either. What if that number was much higher than what was posted by the government? See my point here?

In 2007 if somebody wanted a job they went and applied and had a good chance of getting said job. Now not so much, lots of people have given up looking. So if you believe the low #'s the government puts out, there's something wrong.

I too am against Obama, and am not a liberal. But I am not throwing a bunch of "crap against the wall" w/o any evidence. I'm merely bringing up the point that the OP presented an argument that was filled with false information. I despise arguments that present false facts. If you can point out where I presented any information w/o evidence to back it up that would be great.

Then stay out of it.


According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the official unemployment rate is 10%, a figure which itself caused a major headline to blare, "U.S. Job Losses Dim Hopes for Quick Upswing."

But in fact real unemployment in the United States is stuck at a dismal 19%, a figure nearly twice the so-called official number.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-hindery-jr/the-real-unemployment-nee_b_420108.html

SteelCityMom
04-13-2010, 05:24 PM
In 2007 if somebody wanted a job they went and applied and had a good chance of getting said job. Now not so much, lots of people have given up looking. So if you believe the low #'s the government puts out, there's something wrong.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem...I'm just telling you the overall number (probably for all of the countries in the graph) are wrong. I would think if you wanted to make a clear cut point, you would use facts, not misinformation. I also don't agree with adding part time and marginally employed workers to the list (which of course boosts it up to your 19%). First off, the BLS goes off of employees 16 and above and not many 16-21 year olds work full time jobs. And full time can mean anything from 15-39 hours/week. Again, I know there's a problem, but it's not as good as the BLS says it is, and it's probably not as bad as the Huffington Post says it is either.



Then stay out of it.

Why should I stay out of it? Because you don't like being challenged? You still haven't responded about me questioning the 6% unemployment rate for 2007 that you used as the crutch of your argument. If you feel that the numbers are skewed today, do you think the numbers then were higher too? Or is it just convenient now that a democrat is in office to skew numbers? You can't just rely on broad statements like "it was easier to get a job then, and it's not as easy now" to make your argument.

MACH1
04-13-2010, 07:36 PM
Is it easier to get a job now or then?
Yes, it's harder to get a job with a socialist in office.


According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the official unemployment rate is 10%, a figure which itself caused a major headline to blare, "U.S. Job Losses Dim Hopes for Quick Upswing."

But in fact real unemployment in the United States is stuck at a dismal 19%, a figure nearly twice the so-called official number.

Facts is facts!

SteelCityMom
04-13-2010, 07:56 PM
Is it easier to get a job now or then?
Yes, it's harder to get a job with a socialist in office.




Facts is facts!

Come on....I know you can argue your point better than this. Quit sidestepping any questions I ask.

You stated in your original post that the US had an unemployment rate of 6%...and I'm assuming your happy taking that number from the BLS (since that is at least close to the number they give for that year...the actual number the BLS gave was 4.6, not a huge margin though). Then you stated that a liberal utopia like Finland was the perfect example of how a socialist country has astronomically high unemployment rates...when in fact, the actual number is way off. Then I gave you an example of a country (Norway) that is heavily liberal (by your standards anyway), and is one of the most prosperous nations in the world, has some of the highest standards of living in the world and has some of the lowest, if not THE lowest unemployment rate in the world....yet you say nothing to this?

I know there's an unemployment problem in the US, but again, you can't just make a broad argument and compare our unemployment rates to those of other countries rates when the numbers your giving are all wrong. It does not make your argument appear to be a strong one.

Leftoverhard
04-13-2010, 08:22 PM
Watch out SCMom - you're either with them or against them. Soon you'll be a labeled a socialist nazi commie bastard like the rest of us who aren't right wing extremists around here.

Mach - I love how your unemployment rate gets higher and higher with every post. Why 21%? Let's call it an even 40%. And why stop at blaming Obama for our current 70% unemployment rate? I'm pretty sure there's a way we can peg him for the Great Depression too. The way the unemployment rate is growing in this thread, by the time I'm done typing it will be at 90%.

MACH1
04-13-2010, 08:31 PM
I'm sorry I couldn't here you over the WAAAAAA.

Leftoverhard
04-13-2010, 08:37 PM
Wondering where our friend Mach1 got this information, I googled it since no link was provided...

This "data" is 5 months old and comes solely from a message board. No links provided, just some good old fashioned, badly spelled magically produced data from some guy on some message board that allows racial slurs. Enough said.

Just in case anyone had the notion to blindly believe it...

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/general-political-discussion/83557-10-unemployment-normal-socialist-countries.html

MasterOfPuppets
04-13-2010, 08:37 PM
And it was 7.6% in January 2009 when The Savior assumed his throne....
and it was also 7.6 % in 1981 when reagan took office... whats your point ? :noidea:

SteelCityMom
04-13-2010, 08:47 PM
Wondering where our friend Mach1 got this information, I googled it since no link was provided...

This "data" is 5 months old and comes solely from a message board. No links provided, just some good old fashioned, badly spelled magically produced data from some guy on some message board that allows racial slurs. Enough said.

Just in case anyone had the notion to blindly believe it...

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/general-political-discussion/83557-10-unemployment-normal-socialist-countries.html


That's hilarious. And I was just going to ask where he got this data from. Thank you for answering it for me...cause I'm sure he would have ignored it.

Yes, unemployment is a problem...no Obama isn't going to fix it, but saying that other "socialist" countries are doing worse than us is just a flat out lie. This problem was created long before Obama was ever elected.

Godfather
04-13-2010, 09:25 PM
That's hilarious. And I was just going to ask where he got this data from. Thank you for answering it for me...cause I'm sure he would have ignored it.

Yes, unemployment is a problem...no Obama isn't going to fix it, but saying that other "socialist" countries are doing worse than us is just a flat out lie. This problem was created long before Obama was ever elected.

I was more interested in seeing the numbers behind the data. I'm sure different countries use different methods to calculate their numbers, so there's no apples to apples comparison.

Our own rate is artificially low because we don't count people whose benefits expired. That's a bit of Enron accounting used to make incumbents look better, especially since the accounting trick has more effect on the numbers in a bad economy.

Leftoverhard
04-13-2010, 09:59 PM
Our own rate is artificially low because we don't count people whose benefits expired. That's a bit of Enron accounting used to make incumbents look better, especially since the accounting trick has more effect on the numbers in a bad economy.

Another trick - counting each job. One person with 2 jobs plus one person with no jobs equals two people with two jobs, 0%.