Oklahoma Unemployment Plummeting OKC Lowest in The Country

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sure, wait till Obama & the  democrats pass that amnesty for illegal aliens AND THEIR FAMILIES your talking of about 30 million new legal workers in the labor force talk about wages falling, wages will drop like a rock. They say we have 11 million illegal aliens if each one brings in 4 family members- you do the math. The new illegal aliens could also draw medical care and SS benefits under the democrats amnesty plan. The republicans are against that. Who really cares about working stiff in the end. The democrats just use and abuse working people to  stay in power and make people dependent on gov't. The huge increase in population from the democrats  amnesty plan will shift the demographics of the nation permanently.

Do you ever even listen to yourself??  The illegals who came here did so to find work.  And they are working now - as in already in the work force.  You really ought to do something....can't even begin to imagine what it would be that would help...but do something...

[heironymouspasparagus]

How bad was the Oklahoma poverty rate under Henry? If you look at your own link you'll notice that Oklahoma has the lowest poverty rate of all the neighbor states: Texas=18.5, Arkansas=19.0, New Mexico=21.5, Georgia=19.1 and Louisiana is at 20.4%, the chart is from 2011 so I'm sure Oklahoma numbers would have improved. Since Mary Fallin came to power we had drops in the Oklahoma unemployment rate just about every month, the Oklahoma economy is strong and anyone who REALLY wants a job can find one. Mary Fallin is a true conservative, the republican governors of some other states are nothing but RINOS. Michigan's governor is new he cannot reverse decades of democrat economic damage in a few years.

And we are wallowing along at 43rd in the nation.  Along with those you quoted...so if we are doing so great compared to them (which we aren't - some are above, some below), you really need to expand your horizon to get a little broader view of reality.  

And your idea the anyone who wants a job can find one.  Well, you are the satirical comic here - and that is massively laughable....

[heironymouspasparagus]

You too are a sad case and you too don't realize it.

Reality IS sad! 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Better them than Rosneft, Aramco or PDVSA, don't you think?

And realistically, what is the difference?

[RecycleMichael]

The national U-6 unemployment rate is still around 14%. Obama, Democrats, and federal agencys like the EPA keep the economy down like a wet blanket.

This graph shows the U6 Unemployment rates for the last few decades. Look at the last two years of Bush and the four years under Obama then apologize to each of us for your stupidity.

http://www.portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

[swake]

This graph shows the U6 Unemployment rates for the last few decades. Look at the last two years of Bush and the four years under Obama then apologize to each of us for your stupidity.

http://www.portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

There's more:

January 1953 – Eisenhower takes office – U3 is 2.9%
January 1961 – Kennedy takes office – U3 is 6.6%, During Eisenhower U3 is up 3.7%
November 1963 – Johnson takes office – U3 is 5.7%, During Kennedy U3 is down .9%
January 1969 – Nixon takes office – U3 is 3.4%, During Johnson U3 is down 1.3%
August 1974 – Ford takes office – US is 5.5%, During Nixon U3 is up 2.1%
January 1977 – Carter takes office  - U3 is at 7.5%, During Ford U3 is up 2%
January 1981 – Reagan takes office – U3 is 7.5%, During Carter U3 is flat, no change%
January 1989 – Bush I takes office  - U3 is 5.4%, During Reagan U3 is down 1.9%
January 1993 – Clinton takes office -  U3 is 7.3%, During Bush I U3 is up 1.9%
January 1994 – 1st month of U6 – U3 is 6.6% and U6 is 11.8%
January 2001 – Bush II takes office – U3 is 4.2% and U6 is 7.3%, During Clinton's term U3 is down 3.1% and U6 is down 4.5% from 1994
January 2009 – Obama takes office – U3 is 7.9% and U6 is 14.2%, During Bush II's term U3 is up 3.7% and U6 is up 7.1%
U3 and u6 peak in Oct 2009 at 10% and 17.1%
Current  U3 is 7.6% and U6 is 14.3%
During Obama's term so far U3 is down .3% and U6 is up .1%, figured from the peak of the recession which happed with 9 month of his taking office Obama's U3 is down 2.4% and U6 is down 2.8%

Over the last 60+ years:

Republicans held the Oval Office for 36 years and U3 was up during their terms 11.5%
Only one Republican  president ended his term with a lower U3 then when he entered office, Reagan. The other five all saw unemployment rise

Democrats held the Oval Office for 25+ years and U3 was down during their terms 5.6%
No Democrat had higher unemployment at the end of his term then when he started, none. Carter was even and the other four all improved. Yes, even Obama. Not just counting from the peak of Bush's recession but from when he took office.

Since 1994 when U6 started to be tracked Republicans held office for 8 years in which U6 went up 7.1%, Democrats held office for 12+ years since then and U6 has been down 4.4%

And the Democratic numbers would be even better if the economy wasn't in such a shambles when Obama took over.

[swake]

And realistically, what is the difference?

well, Aramco is the engine of Saudi wealth. The Saudi's then send upwards of $100 million a year to radical Islamic groups to spread Wahhabism which is the main reason for the radicalization of the Muslim world over the past couple of decades.

That might be a really big difference.

Rosneft feeds the increasingly dictatorial Putin government and PDVSA feeds the increasingly hostile Venezuelan government.

Those would be differences too.

[Hoss]

There's more:

January 1953 – Eisenhower takes office – U3 is 2.9%
January 1961 – Kennedy takes office – U3 is 6.6%, During Eisenhower U3 is up 3.7%
November 1963 – Johnson takes office – U3 is 5.7%, During Kennedy U3 is down .9%
January 1969 – Nixon takes office – U3 is 3.4%, During Johnson U3 is down 1.3%
August 1974 – Ford takes office – US is 5.5%, During Nixon U3 is up 2.1%
January 1977 – Carter takes office  - U3 is at 7.5%, During Ford U3 is up 2%
January 1981 – Reagan takes office – U3 is 7.5%, During Carter U3 is flat, no change%
January 1989 – Bush I takes office  - U3 is 5.4%, During Reagan U3 is down 1.9%
January 1993 – Clinton takes office -  U3 is 7.3%, During Bush I U3 is up 1.9%
January 1994 – 1st month of U6 – U3 is 6.6% and U6 is 11.8%
January 2001 – Bush II takes office – U3 is 4.2% and U6 is 7.3%, During Clinton's term U3 is down 3.1% and U6 is down 4.5% from 1994
January 2009 – Obama takes office – U3 is 7.9% and U6 is 14.2%, During Bush II's term U3 is up 3.7% and U6 is up 7.1%
U3 and u6 peak in Oct 2009 at 10% and 17.1%
Current  U3 is 7.6% and U6 is 14.3%
During Obama's term so far U3 is down .3% and U6 is up .1%, figured from the peak of the recession which happed with 9 month of his taking office Obama's U3 is down 2.4% and U6 is down 2.8%

Over the last 60+ years:

Republicans held the Oval Office for 36 years and U3 was up during their terms 11.5%
Only one Republican  president ended his term with a lower U3 then when he entered office, Reagan. The other five all saw unemployment rise

Democrats held the Oval Office for 25+ years and U3 was down during their terms 5.6%
No Democrat had higher unemployment at the end of his term then when he started, none. Carter was even and the other four all improved. Yes, even Obama. Not just counting from the peak of Bush's recession but from when he took office.

Since 1994 when U6 started to be tracked Republicans held office for 8 years in which U6 went up 7.1%, Democrats held office for 12+ years since then and U6 has been down 4.4%

And the Democratic numbers would be even better if the economy wasn't in such a shambles when Obama took over.

Facts.  What a grumble.

[heironymouspasparagus]

well, Aramco is the engine of Saudi wealth. The Saudi's then send upwards of $100 million a year to radical Islamic groups to spread Wahhabism which is the main reason for the radicalization of the Muslim world over the past couple of decades.

That might be a really big difference.

Rosneft feeds the increasingly dictatorial Putin government and PDVSA feeds the increasingly hostile Venezuelan government.

Those would be differences too.

Yeah....and the Koch brothers contributions to radicalization dwarf all that with their contributions and support to poisonous organizations in this country, which is the main reason for radicalization of the American world over the past several decades.  (Let's not forget Rupert Murdoch.)

Same reactionary extremists selling the American people a bill of goods about fighting the wrong war - Iraq - leading directly to the death of over 4,000 of our kids, PLUS the extra hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.  While we sit on our thumbs during genocide in Uganda, Rwanda, Congo (6 million or so), not only doing nothing to stop it, but supporting that obscene government bunch of gangsters (Congo).

Like I said...what's the difference?


It's one of those "sense of history" moments again.  Radical Islam is always being dragged out as if it just started about 15 years ago.  That particular adventure started about 1,000 years ago - and western Europe (our predecessors) had a big hand in that whole thing - AT LEAST equivalent culpability.  Kind of like the terrorist activities the Jews engaged in during the 20's in the mid-east....just how far back do we start keeping track?

Could quite easily make the case that many of the 20th century tyrants learned from history - US history in the 18th and 19th centuries - and used that as the "case study" for enslavement and genocide.  But then, we don't learn from history, while so many of the bad guys seem to do just that.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Mary Fallin has Oklahoma doing very well, but still Oklahoma is tied into the national economy and as long as the feds and Obama keep choking the national economy Oklahoma can't be as good as it can. The EPA is coming down with still more regulations for power plants and our gasoline. The EPA wants to increase the ethonal content of our gasoline from the current 10% to 15% and that will damage many cars, the EPA plans to ban the sale of pure gasoline. Federal policies  like that choke the economy all over. The national U-6 unemployment rate is still around 14%. Obama, Democrats, and federal agencys like the EPA keep the economy down like a wet blanket. Mary Fallin can only do so much, still Oklahoma is far better than other states.

You are really Michelle Bachmann incognito, aren't you?

[sauerkraut]

Please.  Stop.Watching.Fox.News.

Fox news? What has that got to do about anything? This is about basic economics 101. Raise taxes you choke off the economy, lower taxes you grow the economy. This is not rocket science.

[sauerkraut]

Leaving aside the argument about if ethanol damages cars, how does ethanol harm the economy? That would have us shift from oil, of which 40% is imported, often from places that don't like us very much, to US grown corn.  

We import about 40% of our oil, currently 7.412 million barrels per day, with a price point of $108 per barrel as of today. That means we are sending $294 Billion a year to places like Venezuela, Russia and Saudi Arabia. If moving to E-15 lowers our imports by 5% that means we are sending $15 billion dollars less each year to those places and spending that money on corn from American farmers.

That helps lower the cost of oil overall (supply/demand), helps to heal our trade deficit and helps American farmers.  

Ethanol pollutes more, cars get less gallons per mile using ethanol than on pure gasoline. It costs more money to produce a gallon of ethanol than gasoline. Ethanol is using a food product for fuel and that increases the cost of food. Ethanol is bad all around, the drop in fuel mileage is huge and the free market cannot support ethanol so it must be subsided by the government. If the free market cannot support a product without the government propping it up it's a failure. As for lowering our oil imports that's easy we need to drill for our own oil, we also have huge deposits of shale oil that are off limits to use. We can't drill in Alaska, we can't drill off shore, Obama cut drilling on public lands by 40%, is it any wonder oil is at $110.00 a barrel? Obama won't even allow the Keystone pipeline to come here. We are lucky the Alaska pipeline is built, in todays world we would not be allowed to build the Alaska pipeline. We have enough of our own oil so that we would not have to import a single drop of OPEC oil, but we now have  a self imposed oil shortage by not drilling for our own oil. We are also losing a lot of jobs by not drilling. BTW, The Keystone pipeline would make around 60,000 jobs.

[sauerkraut]

You are really Michelle Bachmann incognito, aren't you?

I strongly support Michelle Bachmann  and I think she would of made a great president. I agree very much with her policies.

[Townsend]

I strongly support Michelle Bachmann  and I think she would of made a great president. I agree very much with her policies.

FAKE.

Nobody able to use a library card says something this momentously BSC.

HOSS?   Is this you?  Who's messing about on here?  Well done whoever you are until now.

There is no damned way someone's this twisted.

[AquaMan]

Fox news? What has that got to do about anything? This is about basic economics 101. Raise taxes you choke off the economy, lower taxes you grow the economy. This is not rocket science.

Its not rocket science for someone who's actually had Economics 101. That apparently doesn't include you.