Ran across an interesting stat...

The rate is undoubtedly going to climb for a time before it starts backing down. No matter which section of the population is more represented.

There have been 11 recessions since World War II, 9 on the Republican's watch in the executive office. In the two most recent ones, job growth lagged long after the recessions were deemed to be over, and this one has just now bottomed out according to the "experts".

In the most recent two (July 1990-March 1991 and March-November 2001, both under Bush watches) the unemployment rate did not fall back to pre-recession levels for several years. (emphasis mine)

Most recently after the eight-month 2001 recession (Bush Jr.), the unemployment rate went from a pre-recession 4% in 2000 to 4.8% in 2001. Then it kept climbing even higher, to 5.8% in 2002 to 6% in 2003. It didn't return to under 5% until 2006, when it fell to 4.6%.
See:

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1932411,00.html

So let's give it some time ok? And not be too "shocked" and blame Obama if it follows historical trends and climbs even after the "recession" is deemed to be bottoming out and over. The Time article uses Bureau of Labor statistics as their base, not stats filtered through another media provider.

 

"Can I just point out the MASSIVE falacy of this statement, you say here 'their ratings show they are...the best news source.'"

OK this was unclear I'll admit.....I intended it to be interpreted by implication. What I meant was that because Fox news ratings are far and away higher that the other cable networks. People have flocked to it. My implication here is that people watch it because they trust it. Yes, the "news" they get will not be liked by the other side just as the "news" that is presented on MSNBC will not be appreciated by the Fox viewers. Opinions all - people decide and they have. Does it make Fox right - not necessarily but that doesn't make them wrong either. In my case I do a lot of internet reading from sources all over the world. The US sources, except Fox, have not presented both sides of the political story - this is starting to change. Fox, IN MY OPINION, has a lot of liberals on so I do get to hear their side. I also find that the British papers cover some of the US issues better and in more depth than the US press. The Fort Hood terror attack is one example. The PC constraints here made it difficult for writers to cover this story freely. I read details in your papers that weren't originally reported here. Everything has to go through the PC mill first.
This topic is one that is hotly debated, obviously. More and more stories are coming out showing the "statistics" are wrong and many things aren't how they look.
The following story is but one example.
Stimulus jobs don't add up - JSOnline

Statistics are so malleable. I look at government stats produced by government employees with a skeptical eye. Doesn't mean they are wrong but when flags begin to crop up as reported and researched by the press it gets interesting.

 

I think you guys need to mellow and have a good Bier together, one reason why the politics stuff is on the edge of getting ripped. you guys come up with materials whether fact of fiction that neither party will agree totally on.............. why the pain and mysterious infiltrating insults in the posts
and the question why no-one else wants to add comment ........ why bother

 

Yes and my point is quite simply that the fact people listen to it doesn't add to the truth value of what they say ergo their value as a news source. There is no logic in stating 'lots of people believe Fox so it must be true,' particularly if ultimately they have no other real source of news.

People flock to news channels because they like the style or they agree with the opinions they put forward. They listen to these opinions and because they feel they are correct they infer that all the other info is correct. Since there is nothing to say the opinions are necessarily correct to start with then the fact lots of people watch fox doesn't actually mean that fox are reliable.

To return to my analogy, take Obama, loads of people supported him, they listened to what he said and agreed with it (exactly as people do with fox), his 'ratings' (if you will) were high, does that make his ideas true or reliable? No, particularly if the only person those people were listening to was Obama.

 

Stefan

you make a lot of sense here. Perhaps because I read every word.

Erich - you do too. No one else cares what we think. It just needs to be kept more "light". I've been trying to put the "it's just my opinion" caveat to the posts but no one else cares. I really do get your message. I'm gonna resist....

I'd love to have a beer with Stefan or Clint - you too.

Ted

 

Ah, don't mention beer, I'm driving tonight so it's a touchy subject

Cheers Tfer, always a pleasure.