Europeans rooting for Obama...

Well I wish I'da said that.

Thanks for expressing my opinion better than I could SFC.

Speaking of opinons Sherm, do you have one about Underwood being responsible for reducing double digit unemployment under Caperton's adminstration to near record lows by the time he left office?

I know I shouldn't ask you here with you being the thread purist and all but since you've continually ducked the question on the other thread, I figured, what the hey.

Well I never was a big Caperton supporter or cheerleader but I have to give him credit for beginning to put our financial house in order after the disastrous administration before him.

My understanding was that Underwood's term after Caperton was pretty much a "caretaker" governor and not much of substance was accomplished.

And he never got re-elected so apparently the voters did not see him as the economic savior you seem to think he was.

I never said he was a savior in his second term but then I didn't vilify him in his first either.

Seems to me you want to heep the the responsibility for a bad economy on him for his first term but not give him credit for a good one in his second.

And other then partisan tripe, I see no reason why. Perhaps you can explain why everything ever done bad was by a Republican while everything good ever done was by a democrat.

Aaron wrote:Speaking of opinons Sherm, do you have one about Underwood being responsible for reducing double digit unemployment under Caperton's adminstration to near record lows by the time he left office?

I know I shouldn't ask you here with you being the thread purist and all but since you've continually ducked the question on the other thread, I figured, what the hey.

Well Aaron, you are good at figuring ........ but Sherm don't like to and won't.

He likes to quote that "600,000 Unemployment Claims in 4 years" figure for a time when the State's population was 1,900,000+- and the total workforce that was eligible to collect said Unemployment Claims was assuredly less than 600,000.

Thus, Sherm's "600,000 Unemployment Claims in 4 years" ..... is really only 150,000 per year.

And if all those workers were "laid off" 2 times during each work year ........ then that is only 75,000 per year.

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.




.

I'm sure it was Underwood's fault that coal prices fell and equimpment improved that allowed mines to use less labor force in bringing out the coal. It has to be his fault; he's a Republican.

Well guys that is a valid point and I did check that.

The bulk of the coal mining jobs were lost in the early 50's before Underwood came in as I recall.

And Sam's numbers are presumably national numbers. Not wv numbers.

Nice try though.

So you can provide a link backing up your stance.

shermangeneral wrote:Well guys that is a valid point and I did check that.

The bulk of the coal mining jobs were lost in the early 50's before Underwood came in as I recall.

And Sam's numbers are presumably national numbers. Not wv numbers.

Nice try though.

So Shermmy, ..... what caused the big decline in population between 1950 and 1970?

Year McDowell County Population
1900 18,747
1910 47,856
1920 68,571
1930 90,479
1940 94,354
1950 98,887
1960 71,359
1970 50,666
1980 49,899
1990 35,233
2000 27,329

Source: U.S. Bureau
of the Census

And just who were those 600,000 that filed for Unemployment?

,

Aaron wrote:Speaking of opinons Sherm, do you have one about Underwood being responsible for reducing double digit unemployment under Caperton's adminstration to near record lows by the time he left office?

Aaronspeak runs him into the ditch once again.

Actually, WV unemployment rates- which had reached their highest under Republican Arch Moore's governorship- had fallen well below double-digits by the time Underwood became governor in 1997- to 6.9 percent.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/econdev/westva.htm

WV unemployment rates were highest, at 18 percent, in 1983-84.

In the recession of 1961, West Virginia's rate was 13.6%, nearly 7% more than the national rate. During that year, the state had the highest rate in the country. In 1983, at the height of the most recent recession, the state's rate was 18%, almost 9% more than the national rate. In that recession, West Virginia had the third-highest rate in the country.

http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/ipa/par/report_7_2.html

Are you saying unemployment was double digits under Caperton Frank?

Or that it didn't lower in each of Cecil's 4 years?

Go ahead, open mouth and insert foot Frank!!!

Are you saying the worst 4 year unemployment period was not during Underwood's first term?

The worst I coudl find on record was 1983 when it was 18.3

As both Sammy and Jimmy have brougth your claims into question and you've not backed them up, I would imagine, minus FDR's great depression years, 83 would have had to have been the worst.

Are you saying unemployment was double digits under Caperton Frank?

In some of the earliest of Caperton's (who succeeded Arch Moore) 8 years, yes it was. But you said it was double digit when Underwood took office. I showed you that it was down to 6.9 percent by then- and hadn't been double-digit for about 4 years previous to Underwood.

Call a tow truck, Aaron. It'll get you out of that ditch you keep blundering into.

ziggy wrote:But you said it was double digit when Underwood took office.

No I didn't.

ziggy wrote:

...Underwood took office. I showed you that it was down to 6.9 percent by then...

And no it wasn't. When Underwood assumed office in January in 1997, the unemployment rate was 7.1%.

And when he left office in January, 2001 the unemployment rate had dropped to 5.2%.

In fact, at no time was the unemployment rate 6.9% As usual, you're wrong Frank.

Ziggy, hows come you are basing your argument on those State issued Unemployment percentages ....... when you know they are fony and don't believe them to begin with?

You know that those Unemployment percentages only reflect the percentage of the estimated workforce that is believed to be currently "looking for work".

.

SamCogar wrote:Ziggy, hows come you are basing your argument on those State issued Unemployment percentages ....... when you know they are fony and don't believe them to begin with?

You know that those Unemployment percentages only reflect the percentage of the estimated workforce that is believed to be currently "looking for work".

I am not making any "argument", Sam. All I did was post the numbers you have been saying for years were just a figment of Sherm's imagination. If you think those numbers are "fony", then take it up with the WVBEP that generates them.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:But you said it was double digit when Underwood took office.

No I didn't.

I take it from your lack of response that you admit you were wrong in your claim!!!

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:But you said it was double digit when Underwood took office.

No I didn't.

So were you playing those word games you pretend to hate so much when you said:

Aaron wrote: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?

https://gazzfriends.forumotion.com/post.forum?mode=quote&p=14458

(bold emphasis added- zig)

Well aaron I answered you the first time.

I said I give Caperton credit for returning the state to fiscal sanity.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:But you said it was double digit when Underwood took office.

No I didn't.

So were you playing those word games you pretend to hate so much when you said:

Aaron wrote: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?

https://gazzfriends.forumotion.com/post.forum?mode=quote&p=14458

(bold emphasis added- zig)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander gander Frank. I knew you would bite if Sherm didn't.

shermangeneral wrote:Well aaron I answered you the first time.

I said I give Caperton credit for returning the state to fiscal sanity.

After Rockerfeller nearly ruined it, right Sherm.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:But you said it was double digit when Underwood took office.

No I didn't.

So were you playing those word games you pretend to hate so much when you said:

Aaron wrote: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?

https://gazzfriends.forumotion.com/post.forum?mode=quote&p=14458

(bold emphasis added- zig)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander gander Frank. I knew you would bite if Sherm didn't.

But that doesn't chage the fact that the Underwood adminstration added thousands of jobs durning his second term. You guys want to place all the blame of the 50's squarely on him but give him no credit for the 90's. Seems a tad hypocritical to me, doesn't it.