Quantcast

Unemployment drops in states governed by GOP. Are Republican policies better for workers?

FanOreilly 2012/07/08 21:13:37
Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
No, Democrat policies are better for American workers.  I am an idiot that ignores the facts.
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Unemployment has dropped in every state that elected a GOP governor in 2010.



In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate.

Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%

Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%

New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%

Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%

Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%

Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%

Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%

Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%

Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%

South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5%

South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7%

Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3%

Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2%

Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0%

Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%



Are Republican policies better for workers?

Read More: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/07...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • FanOreilly 2012/07/08 21:18:13
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    FanOreilly
    +13
    It's not rocket science...free market policies do the most good for the most people.

    Socialism promotes misery, poverty, inequality and tyranny.

    History proves it.

    You would think a group of people who claim to be 'scientific' would actually look at the evidence.

    socialism misery

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • jubil8 ... FanOreilly 2012/07/15 23:06:30
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    The point was dumb enough in your original question. If unemployment is down all over, it's down in some states governed by Democrats too. Duh. Illinois unemployment peaked at 11.4% in January, 2010 and has fallen to 8.6% presently.

    Do you think the Michigan governor had more to do with the drop in unemployment than the improvement in the AUTO industry -- which happened because of the GM bail-out?

    Nobody normal would deny that conservative fiscal policies promote prosperity. With a small "c." Careless fiscal policies don't promote prosperity regardless of political origin. Not all Republicans are Conservatives. With a capital "C."

    If it weren't for UNconservative Republican fiscal policies, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in in the first place.
  • Kiosk Kid jubil8 ... 2012/07/09 20:05:11
    Kiosk Kid
    +2
    This continues to be the longest streak — 41 months — of unemployment of 8% or higher since the Great Depression. And recall that back in 2009, Team Obama predicted that if Congress passed its $800 billion stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would be around 5.6% today.

    Obama prediction
  • jubil8 ... Kiosk Kid 2012/07/15 04:49:10
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    Sure, I remember. But this question isn't about that either. Imo anyone who bought into the stimulus plan shtick was a fool. Obviously there were lots of them around -- surprise, surprise.
  • FanOreilly jubil8 ... 2012/07/15 21:59:20
    FanOreilly
    Sure it is.

    It proves leftists are failures and righties do the right thing.

    But I know you won't vote for righties but it isn't about prosperity, it's about controlling others.
  • jubil8 ... FanOreilly 2012/07/15 23:15:03
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    Oh, is Romney a "rightie?"

    I vote for people whose views are closest to mine. For President I vote for the person I believe will do best for my country. I don't care about party.
  • Nimitz 2012/07/09 02:35:43
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    Nimitz
    +7
    Indirectly and in the long run, yes. Republicans are pro business (not the same as pro-free enterprise). Businesses do better under Republicans and can hire more employees. Marxian socialists are yet to figure out how this works. :-)
  • les_gvt 2012/07/09 02:34:12
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    les_gvt
    +4
    Not only must on look at the governor of a state, but also the state legislature, and in virtually very one of these states, conservatives made major gains there also
  • Tombo 2012/07/09 02:12:08
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    Tombo
    +5
    Of course, this was proven at the Federal level by Reagan but there are those who still don't get it!



  • Diane Spraggs Yates 2012/07/09 02:11:48
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    +5
    CA IL are goinjg down the drain of over spending over taxed comp moving out and taxed to death if you can not move out !!!!!
  • Diane S... Diane S... 2012/07/09 02:21:44
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    +4
    I read that Republican governors head seven out of 10 states with the lowest unemployment rates, providing proof that the GOP has a better record on jobs than Democrats.
  • Kiosk Kid 2012/07/09 02:07:08
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    Kiosk Kid
    +6
    Nerbraska has been controlled by Republicans for ever. Our unemplyment rate is 4.1 percent. Our top unemplyment rate during this recession was 5 percent. My house is worth more then it was in Jan 2009.

    What recession?
  • none 2012/07/09 02:03:40
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    none
    +3
    Damn right they are but as we will see the disgraceful Obama will try to take credit for this .
  • wtw 2012/07/09 02:00:41
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    wtw
    +2
    Looks cut and dry!
  • marcuss....PHART 2012/07/09 01:52:25
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    marcuss....PHART
    +2
    PROOF is what you have provided and LIES and TWISTED LIBERAL INSANITY is what you will receive by the LWNJs in rebuttal.
  • Ozzyboy 2012/07/09 01:31:38
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    Ozzyboy
    +2
    They got a lot better in 2010 when the tea party leaned on them and demanded accountability from both parties. The repubs listened better and the numbers got a little better but that is better than nothing. See what happens when you actually have a Right To Work?
  • Delete 2012/07/09 01:06:27
  • Saye Saye 2012/07/09 00:24:09
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    Saye Saye
    Neither answer applies
  • mach-1 BL-106 2012/07/09 00:09:10
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    mach-1  BL-106
    +6
    Of course they are.....obamas methods are big Government and we all know where that will lead.
  • ed 2012/07/09 00:02:52
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    ed
    +5
    democrats and liberals the Republicans must be doing something right.
  • 4570GOVT 2012/07/09 00:00:32
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    4570GOVT
    +4
    YUP ! - No Doubt About It . If you want a JOB , move to a Republican Led State !
  • JT For Political Reform 2012/07/08 23:55:06
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    JT For Political Reform
    +4
    The proof is in the pudding.
  • Catch224u 2012/07/08 23:47:23
    Yes, Republican policies are better for American workers
    Catch224u
    +3
    It's in the numbers.
  • Ken 2012/07/08 23:18:45
    No, Democrat policies are better for American workers. I am an idiot that ig...
    Ken
    +2
    Did you know the unemployment rate has dropped for every governor elected in the 2010 election, except Cuomo? This kind of makes your choices a bit difficult, so I flipped a coin. Glad I did since no one else made this choice.

    This doesn't mean the policies implemented by the Republican governors did not improved unemployment conditions but it does suggest there are national rather than local forces at work here. So the facts you called our attention to suggest the unemployment rate has dropped because of Federal Policies implemented by the Obama administration.
  • ManBearPig Ken 2012/07/08 23:40:59
    ManBearPig
    +7
    by your logic... if it was due to policies implemented by obama then the rest of the country would have the same decreasing rates of unemployment... but that does not seem to be happening here

    common logic wins absolutely
  • Ken ManBearPig 2012/07/09 00:28:24 (edited)
    Ken
    +1
    Actually what I am trying to say....is when you want to make an argument based on the facts, get the facts first. The facts you presented did not make a case for the Republicans.

    Cherry picking the information to create an argument is not using the facts it is torturing the facts.
  • Kiosk Kid Ken 2012/07/09 01:44:29
    Kiosk Kid
    +4
    On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-...
  • Ken ManBearPig 2012/07/09 00:39:03
    Ken
    The problem with most of the Republican arguments is they are stuck in the80s. This was before the internet and people had to rely on the print and broadcast media for their facts. Today anyone using the internet can get the unemployment figures by state by month. So when you create an argument based on unemployment figures, make sure you have analyzed all the figures. If you haven't, take a class or two in statistics so you understand the proper use of numbers. Then create your hypothesis; determine what facts prove and disprove your hypothesis; then go get the facts. If the facts disprove your hypothesis, either revise your opinion or revise your hypothesis.

    Sometime before 2008, I started down this path...unfortunately my hypothesis about the Republicans proved false repeatedly until I revised my opinion. I now refer to myself as a "recovering Republcan"....I still believe in many of the messages...I just don't believe the Republcan Party believes what it says. So I am very hard are factual arguments supporting Republicans....probably because I keep hoping to be proved wrong.
  • Kiosk Kid Ken 2012/07/09 01:40:28
    Kiosk Kid
    +4
    "Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate."

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-...

    In Nebraska which has been a Republican controlled state for every. The unemployment rate is 4.1 percent. Marxism doesn't work!
  • Ken Kiosk Kid 2012/07/09 01:54:49
    Ken
    The bottom line is US Exports are primarily food. The growth in the world economy has dramatically increased the demand for US food and therefore US Exports. This growth in US exports has benefited rural states more than urban states. Rural states are much more likely to be Republican.

    We can use these numbers to argue for the governors of those states, i.e., a Republican argument, or for US Federal Policy, i.e., a Democratic argument. The truth is politicians had very little to do with these numbers.

    In general, the US economy thrives despite our politicians not because of them. When the politicians act, it generally is harmful to the economy. So stalemate in Washington is not necessarily a bad thing....unless that stalemate disrupts infrastructure. E.g., failure to reauthorize the Federal Aviation bill increased the 2011 deficit. At minimum, we expect our elected representatives to do the peoples work....and the first rule of doing the peoples work is do no harm....especially, if you consider yourself a conservative.
  • Kiosk Kid Ken 2012/07/09 02:15:54 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    +2
    Illinois and California produce and export a lot of food but they are waste lands controlled by Democrats.

    I agree with you that the problem is Obama if that is what you are saying. He establishes regulations through executive order that kill jobs.

    "What do concerns about regulations and policies mean for small businesses? Stalled growth. 80% of small businesses surveyed report the taxation, regulation, and legislation from Washington make it harder for their business to hire more employees. Nearly three-out-of-four (73%) of small businesses surveyed cite the recent health care law as an obstacle to growing their business and hiring more employees.”

    "Sixteen percent of small businesses approve of the job President Obama is doing."
    http://www.uschambersmallbusi...
  • Ken Kiosk Kid 2012/07/09 02:29:24
    Ken
    Bush killed jobs more effectively than Obama...he did it by taking private sector workers out of the work force a sending them to Iraq and Afghanistan. Until the Republicans learn how to limit their foriegn adventures to that which we can afford, I can't support the Republicans...and their opposition to a president I see as moderate, does nothing to increase my confidence in their ability to govern.
  • Kiosk Kid Ken 2012/07/09 03:33:14 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    +2
    No, Bush didn't kill jobs.

    George Bush had an average 5.3 percent unemployment rate over his 8 years as president. When Liberals took control of Congress in Jan 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent but by Dec 2007 were a recession. The unemployment rate had been below 5 since July 2005. Bush needed congress to keep the housing market from melting down. However, Liberals wanted the quotas put on by the community reinvestment act.

    http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/s...
    Table 1.1

    Military jobs are government jobs just like Obama job is a government job.

    What about California and Illinois? You cut and ran on that question.
  • Ken Kiosk Kid 2012/07/09 03:40:22
    Ken
    Yes...during the Bush administration total employment increased....unfortunately, it was largely due to more government jobs. private sector employment didn't fair so well ... and I don't know about you but my goal is not public sector jobs. I want a vibrant private sector ... and there results were so good.
  • Kiosk Kid Ken 2012/07/09 04:06:53
    Kiosk Kid
    +1
    The Bush tax cuts took effect in Jan 2004. In Dec 2003, there were 131.026 million non farm payroll jobs. In Dec 2007 when the recession started, there were 138.875 an increase of 7.849 million jobs.

    http://www.bls.gov/webapps/le...
    Click on Non farm payrol and run the report.
  • Ken Kiosk Kid 2012/07/09 12:20:33
    Ken
    I am very familiar with the BLS website. But why did you pick Dec, 2007? Why not Dec, 2008, 2009, 2011? The Bush tax cuts are still in effect. Why did they stop creating jobs?

    We all know the recession that started sometime in 2007 has been the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. We all know this recession started after 6+ years of Republican rule. Cherry picking your numbers doesn't change these facts....and if you have forgotten than you are not Elephant....that symbol of Republican politics.
  • Kiosk Kid Ken 2012/07/09 12:34:50 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    +1
    Dec 2007 was when the recession officially started.

    Obama big government regulations are killing jobs. The tax cuts are the only thing that is helping Obama create a few jobs.

    Every business group in America is fighting Obama. How can Obama create jobs when he and the people that hire are at war? In the 2010 elections the business groups spent 75 million dollars and helped dump 63 Liberals from the house into the street. They are spending much more to dump Obama into the street.

    I didn't cherry pick. The unemployment rate was 4.6 percent when Pelosi and Reid took control of Congress in Jan 2007. By Dec 2007 we were in a recession. Marxism doesn't work which is why Obama can't create jobs.
  • Ken Kiosk Kid 2012/07/09 18:32:43
    Ken
    So the jobs we lost between December, 2007 and when Obama took office are just bad luck and are not related to Bush economic policies?

    Everyone who has studied econometrics knows that jobs are a lagging indicator. Estimates of the lag between policy and impact on jobs vary between 6 months and 1 year. This suggests using unemployment numbers to assess the effectiveness of a program should start 6 to 12 months after the candidate takes office and continue for 6 to 12 months after the candidate leaves office.
  • Kiosk Kid Ken 2012/07/09 19:52:40
    Kiosk Kid
    +1
    Democrats took Congress in Jan 2007 by Dec 2007 we were in a recession. Obama didn't have anything to do with the recession except that he was one of the Democrat Senators.

    However, as President he made matters worse rather then better.

    Every business group in America is fighting him. How is he going to create jobs when 84 percent of small business owners won't bet a dime on him?

    Therefore, the economist are right, the recession occurred 12 months after Democrats took congress. Obama’s policies are making matters worse then when he took office.
  • Ken Kiosk Kid 2012/07/09 20:55:45
    Ken
    What policy implemented between January, 2007 and July, 2007 caused a recession? I think you inferring a cause and effect relationship from a coincidence.

    BTW, in June, 2004, I said three things would be true in November, 2008 regardless of who was elected
    1) We would still have troops in Iraq
    2) Gasoline would be $5/gallon
    3) The US would be in a recession
    The predictions were approximately true although gasoline never quite made it to $5/gallon and the disaster in October brought gasoline prices down dramatically by November. So nothing you can say will convince me the Congress elected in 2006 had anything to do with the 2008 recession.

    Since then I have tortured the numbers extensively and reached the following conclusions:
    1) Cutting taxes to increase demand while reducing the workforce by sending approximately 1% of the most productive members to Iraq should have led to rampant consumer price inflation.
    2) The inflation didn't occur because China fixed exchange rate between the Yuan and the Dollar. This kept check on prices for consumer goods other than gasoline. But led to a huge number of Chinese Dollars seeking save investments causing inflation in financial assets most notably real estate and sovereign debt.
    3) The resulting wealth dramatically increased China's global ...







    What policy implemented between January, 2007 and July, 2007 caused a recession? I think you inferring a cause and effect relationship from a coincidence.

    BTW, in June, 2004, I said three things would be true in November, 2008 regardless of who was elected
    1) We would still have troops in Iraq
    2) Gasoline would be $5/gallon
    3) The US would be in a recession
    The predictions were approximately true although gasoline never quite made it to $5/gallon and the disaster in October brought gasoline prices down dramatically by November. So nothing you can say will convince me the Congress elected in 2006 had anything to do with the 2008 recession.

    Since then I have tortured the numbers extensively and reached the following conclusions:
    1) Cutting taxes to increase demand while reducing the workforce by sending approximately 1% of the most productive members to Iraq should have led to rampant consumer price inflation.
    2) The inflation didn't occur because China fixed exchange rate between the Yuan and the Dollar. This kept check on prices for consumer goods other than gasoline. But led to a huge number of Chinese Dollars seeking save investments causing inflation in financial assets most notably real estate and sovereign debt.
    3) The resulting wealth dramatically increased China's global power and makes it the most fearsome US competitor of the 21st Century.
    4) The rise of Indian and Chinese economies have made oil prices much more elastic than they were in 1973 and much more sensitive to economic cycles. This means oil prices are a good barometer of economic activity. This suggests an economic boom regardless of which party is in power around 2016. This prediction comes from a model of oil supply which suggests supplies increase faster than demand in 2016 and so there will be falling prices despite rising demand. So the party winning the 2012 election is likely to dominate the 2016 election.
    5) The proximate cause of the 2008 financial system meltdown (as opposed to another post WW II recession) was repeal of the Glass-Steagal act. This repeal conspired with the massive amounts of Chinese dollars looking for safe investments to create the "mortgage bubble".

    This prediction and my personal financial plans based on this prediction is the baseline I will use for evaluating who ever is elected in 2012. Since my personal economic situation is much better than a similar baseline prepared after the Lehman Brothers collapse, I give the Obama administration high marks for its performance to date.

    Our debate of the numbers and what they mean about today is much less significant (to me) than what they mean for the future. Right now I am afraid of being much worse off in 2016 if a Republican is elected President because that has been the result on my financial situation with two of the last 3 Republican Presidents.

    Anyway .... I need to get back to thinking about problems people pay me to consider. Cheers.
    (more)
  • Kiosk Kid Ken 2012/07/09 22:08:25
    Kiosk Kid
    +1
    I wouldn’t pay you a dime for your advise, you don’t seam to have a clue.

    It was the lack of policies. The facts are the community reinvestment act put quotas on community banks to make bad loans. They couldn’t meet the quotas unless they reduced the lending standards. Then with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Clinton put quotas on large bank to buy the loans.

    The sub prime loan allowed people to get a lone with no down payment and half the interest rate with the other have being added to principal. As long as housing prices increased enough everything would be fine.

    On signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[63]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Bush had a 6 year record of low unemployment rates until Democrats took control of Congress.

    Every business group in America is fighting that Marxist Liberal in the white house. They aren’t going to bet a dime on him and create jobs.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/27 16:05:32

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals