Since the Presidential Election is now over, and one of the most often discussed issues was the unemployment rate; I felt I should touch on it for a moment. Each side has its own arguments for and against unemployment and why the results are what they are. The Republicans will claim that we are living in an entitlement society, and the easier it is to receive handouts the less motivated people become. However, the Democrats allege that people are intrinsically motivated, there just aren't enough good paying jobs out there at this time, so the unemployment benefits need to last longer than previously. To assist in the debate I gathered some unemployment figures from the states with the lowest and highest unemployment rates, and the duration people can receive the benefits.
Lowest
Iowa: 5.3; 40 weeks
Oklahoma: 5.1; 40 weeks
South Dakota: 4.4; 40 weeks
Nebraska: 4; 40 weeks
North Dakota: 3; 40 weeks
Highest
Rhode Island: 10.7; 73 weeks
California: 10.5; 73 weeks
New Jersey: 9.8; 73 weeks
North Carolina: 9.6; 73 weeks
South Carolina: 9.5; 73 weeks
As you will notice, the states with the lowest unemployment rates also have the short duration for receiving benefits, and the states with the longer duration have the highest unemployment rates. There are a couple ways this can be viewed: Republicans - by cutting benefits it ends entitlements, which requires people to become self sufficient. Democrats - unemployment duration is only extended because of the poor job market, and without the extension people would not be able to survive. Hence, what the real answer is I am not sure. Although, this is a great place to initiate a debate. So, what do you think?
Non-Partisan News
Friday, November 23, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Hillary Clinton 2016?
I really did not intend to make this post, but it seemed too good to pass up. I was reading a Yahoo article today that listed five women who could make a run at the 2016 Presidential nomination. As many people know, there could be a heated contest between Hillary and Condoleezza Rice. I personally would love to see the two of them square off in debates. Anyway, that is not the purpose of this article, but more to gather others opinions regarding the photo usage on Yahoo. I must admit, Hillary was a pretty lady, in her time. However, she is now in her sixties and understandably so, not viewed as a sex symbol. With that being said, here is the photo used in Yahoo's article:

Now, here is a photo of Hillary from October 2012:

While I am sure there could be many reasons why Yahoo chose to use a younger photo of Hillary, I have my opinions, which I will not share. However, I would love to hear from others. Lastly, I just realized I provided an opinion in the first paragraph...I guess there could be some people who still find Hillary as a sex symbol.
Now, here is a photo of Hillary from October 2012:
While I am sure there could be many reasons why Yahoo chose to use a younger photo of Hillary, I have my opinions, which I will not share. However, I would love to hear from others. Lastly, I just realized I provided an opinion in the first paragraph...I guess there could be some people who still find Hillary as a sex symbol.
10 Years of Gas Prices
Anyone who knows me can tell you that I am about as moderate as a person can be. I equally dislike Republicans and Democrats. For my first post I feel like addressing a topic that is important to me - gas prices. While this has not been a major issue in the media recently, I feel it is an important topic and factor contributing to the economy because it affects one's disposable income. Another reason this is at the forefront of my mind is due to the fact that I recently sold my Scion Xa, and replaced it with a 1/2 ton GMC Sierra, which gets about half the gas mileage. While many liberals will chastise me because of my carbon footprint; I am ok with this because the Scion really was a useless vehicle outside of the gas mileage, which is another story.
Today's post is to highlight where the gas prices are now, and where they have been over the past ten years. I recall when George W. Bush was in office that there were many who felt the gas prices were high due to his affliations with oil companies. However, by looking at the graph, it appears we have not made any progress under President Obama either. I pulled the averages from the government's website, and have given you the yearly averages, since the cost fluctuates considerably throughout high travel times of the year.
2002: $1.16
2003: $1.40
2004: $1.65
2005: $2.22
2006: $2.50
2007: $2.68
2008: $3.75
2009: $2.51
2010: $2.93
2011: $3.71
2012: $3.73 through 10 months
While it is clear that the average cost of gas increased substantially under President Bush, it also appears that President Obama has not made any progress in reducing the average price. So, my question to each political party, if average gas price is almost identical to what it was on average four years ago, what is the determining factor?
Today's post is to highlight where the gas prices are now, and where they have been over the past ten years. I recall when George W. Bush was in office that there were many who felt the gas prices were high due to his affliations with oil companies. However, by looking at the graph, it appears we have not made any progress under President Obama either. I pulled the averages from the government's website, and have given you the yearly averages, since the cost fluctuates considerably throughout high travel times of the year.
2002: $1.16
2003: $1.40
2004: $1.65
2005: $2.22
2006: $2.50
2007: $2.68
2008: $3.75
2009: $2.51
2010: $2.93
2011: $3.71
2012: $3.73 through 10 months
While it is clear that the average cost of gas increased substantially under President Bush, it also appears that President Obama has not made any progress in reducing the average price. So, my question to each political party, if average gas price is almost identical to what it was on average four years ago, what is the determining factor?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)