Bad News for Bush Haters

I don't agree with the premise that educating the masses would make for electing a better caliber of politico. There is, no doubt, a higher per centage of Blue staters that hold college degrees. Yet, they [in very general terms] have given us liberal energy policy that has contributed to our dependence on foreign oil. And that dependence has yielded a veritable plethora of unintended consequences related to such seemingly disparate issues as terrorism and the domestic/global economy.

Have I mentioned nominating Al Gore, not once, but twice? How 'smart' can the supposedly higher educated masses in the Blues states be?

I think the system isn't broke. Or at least if it's broke now it's never been not-broke since its inception. People are ideological animals that vote more with the gut than the brain, anyway.

Good luck with changing that.

well brian if they had heeded jimma cawtah's words we would not be in this energy mess

Would it do any good to mention that of the 38 times you've been ask in one form or another why Jimmy Carter didn't heed Jimmy Carter's words and actually do something you've never come up with a decent answer.

Not once.

TerryRC wrote:How about the "First Test" to be put into practice ...... being the omission/deletion of any and all references to Party affilation of the Candidates.

I proposed that very thing on the old boards.

I doubt too many would go for it and, even if they did, the Big Two would never allow it.

I'm all for it, though.

Baby steps. How about if for starters straight ticket voting is eliminated?

Welcome to the forum, Darth.

Well Steph maybe there should be no political parties.

But if there are parties then a person should vote for that Party's candidate straight down the line if they want.

I have never voted a straight ticket in my life. I've never pulled the master lever in my life. People who do I don't see the sense in discussing issues with, what's the point? They're letting a political machine do their thinking for them.

Well Steph if you agree with the policies and platform of a Party, why not support its candidates?

Makes no sense to me to support a candidate representing Party principles you dont believe in.

In the first place, you're trusting that because an individual affiliates with a particular party they actually hold those principles dear and will work to achieve them. Lots of times they're just playing lip service to get the support of people like you, with blind party loyalty.

Party platforms change all the time. Sometimes the other candidate is just better qualified. Sometimes the other candidate just has more integrity. Many times individual candidates don't support key portions of the party platform. Lots of times candidates flip-flop.

Politicians make all kinds of promises and fail to deliver on them. If you keep voting them back in they assume you don't mind being lied to. They assume that the voters think they are doing a good job.

Do you think the Democrats in Congress have been doing a good job? Look at the abysmal state of affairs in WV. After 80 years of a single party dominating, perhaps it is time to try something new.

Well in my lifetime there have been two republican governors who served at least five terms between them.

And the record speaks for itself.

Actually Sherm, you can add two more WV governors to that- Rockefeller and Caperton- each of whom served two terms; former Republicans who were politically born again as Democrats with but the stroke of a pen a their voters' registration office. So that makes nine terms- more than half my lifetime- of Republican governorships in WV. And then there is Manchin. Make that 10 terms.

You fellows get done re-writing history just let us know. Any reason you didn't want to shed Wally Barron?

By the way, you're re-writing state history on the national politics thread.

You fellows get done re-writing history just let us know.

Jimmy, what is being re-written?

Do you dispute Sherm's math?

Do you dispute my reference to Rocky's and Caperton's political party affiliation history?

That's way beneath you.

I dispute sherman's undocumented memories of unemployment records from 1957 through 1960.

I dispute your contention that Rockefeller and Caperton were republicans. You say that only the "stroke of a pen" made them democrats. Well, yeah, that's how you do it. Let the record show they were democrats. You can't foist your losers on us because you don't like them in retrospect.

Jimmy, when Sherm started quoting those unemployment numbers here about 6 years ago, I made seperate inquiry about their accuracy. Here is what the WV Dept. of Employment Security reported to me then:


----- Original Message -----
From: VICKY ABBOTT
To: MILDRED BROWN ; PAT BODKIN ; Fyoung@wvhighlands.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 3:02 PM
Subject: Fwd: Forwarding Question


Mr Young,

I am replying in response to your question to Mildred Brown asking if we have the number of claims for UC during 1957 - 1961, also if we have a web site link.
I am not aware of a web site link, but I have located the information you have requested. It is located in the following book, which you should probably be able to locate at the library.

Employment Security in West Virginia
Thirteenth Annual Report to the Governor
July 1, 1966 - June 30, 1967
Table 13, page 59.

The years you have requested for the total initial claims filed are listed below.

Year Initial Claims
1957 118,425
1958 210,791
1959 164,961
1960 166,641
1961 151,217

If you have any further questions you can contact me at the number listed below.

Thanks,

Vicky

Vicky Abbott
Bureau of Employment Programs
112 California Avenue
Charleston, W.V.
(304) 558-2660

Well the unemployment numbers are a matter of public record.

Plus I did not convert the thread from national to state.

I was responding to Stephanie's statement specifically about wv.

So maybe you should take that point up with her.

So maybe you should take that point up with her.

Maybe I should. I didn't. I was talking to you, thread purist.

Well the unemployment numbers are a matter of public record.

Show me.

I just did, Jimmy- last post on previous page.

I'm sorry I didn't see that earlier. I'll accept your numbers and hope I can remember this time.

Well Jim I figured you had seen those numbers before since every time it comes up someone disputes it and Zig posts the numbers above and the challenger acknowledges historical fact.


The reason I knew they were so high is that I was fairly active in the Pritt for Gov. campaign.

I remembered how bad it was in the first Underwood term so I went over to the archives and spent an afternoon looking up the old records.

I thought the campaign should use them and do some "man in the street interview" ads to remind voters how desperate our economic plight was when he was Gov. before in the late fifties.

The idea never really took off, even though her Dad agreed with me and said as a matter of fact that was the only time he himself had to leave to find work.

I still think they would have been effective.

But again, I did not bring up wv history, Stephanie did.

I wasn't around in 1958 Sherm. Is it your contention that the economic woes of the late 50's is ENTIRELY the fault of Cecil Underwood?

And do you give him credit for bringing the unemployment rate from double digit percentages in the early to mid 90's down a near record low of 5.1% by the time he left office during his second term?

I guess you missed the privious post Sherm so I'll repeat the question.

Do you solely blame Cecil Underwood for the unemployment rates of the late 50's during his first term and is he responsible for unemployment rates dipping from double digit's under Caperton to near record lows by the time he left office?

The only reason I brought up WV state history was to make my point about how, imho, straight ticket voting is for drones. You want somebody else to tell you who to vote for there is little I, or anyone else, can do about that.

I don't know diddly about Caperton, remember I've been here just about two years now. I DO know Manchin is no Republican and neither is Rockefeller. The Democrats seem to love them as they place them on the ballot over and over again. I don't want any part of either of them.

ziggy wrote:Jimmy, when Sherm started quoting those unemployment numbers here about 6 years ago, I made seperate inquiry about their accuracy. Here is what the WV Dept. of Employment Security reported to me then:


----- Original Message -----
From: VICKY ABBOTT
To: MILDRED BROWN ; PAT BODKIN ; Fyoung@wvhighlands.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 3:02 PM
Subject: Fwd: Forwarding Question


Mr Young,

I am replying in response to your question to Mildred Brown asking if we have the number of claims for UC during 1957 - 1961, also if we have a web site link.
I am not aware of a web site link, but I have located the information you have requested. It is located in the following book, which you should probably be able to locate at the library.

Employment Security in West Virginia
Thirteenth Annual Report to the Governor
July 1, 1966 - June 30, 1967
Table 13, page 59.

The years you have requested for the total initial claims filed are listed below.

Year Initial Claims
1957 118,425
1958 210,791
1959 164,961
1960 166,641
1961 151,217

If you have any further questions you can contact me at the number listed below.

Thanks,

Vicky

Vicky Abbott
Bureau of Employment Programs
112 California Avenue
Charleston, W.V.
(304) 558-2660

SamCogar wrote:

Even this World Socialist Web Site ...... acknowledges the truth that Shermam refuses to accept or acknowledge, to wit:

However, the improvements won by miners were quickly eroded as the coal industry entered an extended depression during the decade of the 1950s, as coal prices plummeted and the mine owners used new mining machinery to increase productivity and eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Between 1950 and 1960, employment in coal mining fell from 488,000 to 166,000. Many of those who remained in the mines were working part-time and were barely able to feed their families.

So, from 488,000 coal mining employees to ..... 166,000 coal mining employees in ten (10) years, .... equals a total of 322,000 coal mining employees that lost their job and filed an Unemployment Claim during that ten (10) year period.

And 322,000 in 10 years is a far cry from 600,000 in 4 years, ....... which means that many of those 322,000 coal mining employees filed several claims for Unemployment ........ being they were only working part-time.

So Zigster, ..... what were the TOTAL Unemployment Claims for the seven (7) years of 1950 through 1956?

Ziggy baby, do you realize that during the time that Democrats have been in TOTAL CONTROL of the Legislature that there have probably been 6,000,000+ (six million) Unemployment Claims filed by WV workers?



.

I had, sherm, seen those numbers but they were always untenable. I figure that there were 1,039,268 adults between ages 18 and 65 in 1957. Half of those were women. Yes, many women work now. In 1957 not so many. I'm thinking the work force should have been maybe 600,000 to 700,000.

In the years 1957 through 1960 (Underwood left office in January, 1961) Federal unemployment numbers averaged 5%. As Ziggy is fond of pointing out that is their set-point. Towards the end unemployment rose to around 7%. In West Virginia, apparently, unemployment was by your numbers 15% to 20%.

What confuses me is the term "initial" claims. Does that mean claims in subsequent years might be the same people? Because if these are not the same people nobody in West Virginia was working by the time 1960 rolled around.

West Virginia is not nearly so industrialized as it once was. My memory of that time is that things were booming. I don't remember lots of kids moving in or out which would surely be the case if we were as depressed as you say.

I'm making those suppositions based on:

NET
YEAR POP BIRTHS DEATHS +/- MIGRATION %

1957 1,843,000 44,362 17,808 26,554 -40,554 -0.75
1958 1,845,000 44,428 17,665 26,763 -24,763 0.11
1959 1,855,000 42,235 17,677 24,558 -14,558 0.54
1960ab 1,860,421 39,696 18,040 21,656 -16,235 0.29

http://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/hsc/pubs/vital05/vs_4.htm

And,

TOTAL <5 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65

1957 . . . . . . . . . . . 171,274 19,379 32,515 22,311 23,737 23,496 19,513 14,973 15,353

% 100 11.31 18.98 13 13.86 13.72 11.4 8.7 8.96

56.39% OF POPULATION @ WORKING AGE

1,039,268

With regard to the purity of threads here - I sure don't care what we talk about. I like to tweak those protect the purity of their own threads while they muck about in the dark in other's.