This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
  • junkmail5 Nov 16, 7:53 p.m.

    Crumps, ever notice how the dems blame everything on past republican presidents?- working man

    Just like republican blame everything on past democratic presidents.
    What's fun is each side is SURE it's only the OTHER side doing it.

    Like Reagan repeatedly blamed carter for example.

    "First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend"- 1982 State of the Union

    "The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."- 1983 State of the Union Address

  • Working man Nov 16, 7:44 p.m.

    Crumps, ever notice how the dems blame everything on past republican presidents? Guys please take some ownership here! Obama by no means is perfect. Please open your eyes just a little

  • Working man Nov 16, 7:39 p.m.

    Grand union- how did he get his job? A better liar!
    We're you just talking about Obama. It kind of has similarities to it

  • junkmail5 Nov 16, 6:51 p.m.

    Gas up $2.00 a gallon, 47 million on Food Stamps, 9% unemployment-paultaylorsr100

    Gas national avg the past 6 months is LOWER than it was 4 years ago

    Unemployment 2 months before the election in 2008 is exactly the same 7.5% (not 9%) rate is was 2 months before this one (and back then it was on the way up, now it's on the way down)

    Food stamps generally follow (with a bit of lag behind) the unemployment rate, so that's not a real shocker they went up during a serious recession... food stamp use shot up the first few years of Reagans first term too, same reason... food stamp use shot up first few years of Clinton, same reason... food stamps skyrocketed from 02-06 too.

    In fact the ONLY year food stamp use didn't go up since Bush was elected was 2007, the last year of the "good" economy.

    I'm not even a big fan of Obama, but holy cow are some folks facts totally divorced from reality!

  • beachboater Nov 16, 6:03 p.m.

    Yep. The elections are over now. They will make a final ajdustment for the states that didn't report last month. See which way the numbers move now. Hostess will just be the beginning.

    Wait until Obamacare kicks in at a minimum cost of $2,000 penalty per employee for not providing health insurance. Look at the restaurant industry......many chains with over 50 employees. Costs will be unbearable, and they will cut back.

  • Bartmeister Nov 16, 5:59 p.m.

    Gas up $2.00 a gallon, 47 million on Food Stamps, 9% unemployment, cities lining up for bankruptcy, HOSTESS closing and we have no moe Ding-Do#gs. Oh, I forgot. There's still the white house. Yes, we are heading in the right direction.
    paultaylorsr100
    ===========================================================

    Ahhhh, yeah.

  • wayneboyd Nov 16, 5:54 p.m.

    The elections over now you folks can get real.

  • paultaylorsr100 Nov 16, 4:45 p.m.

    "Headed in the right direction"?!! Gas up $2.00 a gallon, 47 million on Food Stamps, 9% unemployment, cities lining up for bankruptcy, HOSTESS closing and we have no moe Ding-Do#gs. Oh, I forgot. There's still the white house. Yes, we are heading in the right direction.

  • apocalyptoconquistador Nov 16, 4:44 p.m.

    Expect the democrats say all is well right up into they put us back into a 1929 type depression.

  • charmcclainlovesdogs2 Nov 16, 4:28 p.m.

    Look in the mirror for blame.

    vinylcarwraps23

    You told them. like it. :)

  • charmcclainlovesdogs2 Nov 16, 4:24 p.m.

    Good thing Obama gets another 4 years wouldn't you say 47%.

    Nuff z

    For President Obama, it was more than 47%. It was 99.9%. The other percent went to Romney and that is why he lost big time.

  • lb27608 Nov 16, 4:18 p.m.

    "Hostess/Merita closes; a host of other companies close and NC rate goes down?!?! Must be an "Obama Rate"."

    You do realize that Hostess closed TODAY, right? These numbers are for October.

  • Plenty Coups Nov 16, 4:09 p.m.

    "But unlike Reagan, the Barack's unemployment numbers are WORSE than when he took office."

    They're actually about the same, and headed in the right direction.

  • charmcclainlovesdogs2 Nov 16, 3:51 p.m.

    The people have spoken, the Republicans and Independence need to accept that fact and move on.

  • storchheim Nov 16, 3:51 p.m.

    Have the jobless-after-the-election defense contractors been counted yet? And where does 0 get off charging HIS legal fees to us after he broke SEC regs to improve his chances of re-election?

  • Minarchist Nov 16, 3:46 p.m.

    Hostess/Merita closes; a host of other companies close and NC rate goes down?!?! Must be an "Obama Rate". Just like Obama "saved General Motors", but the media won't report that the majority of the bailout $$ went to Japan and GM opened over 6 new plants in JAPAN, not USA! Keep drinkig the "Obama-aide", but I can guarantee you it will really start tasting bitter these next 4 years!
    fbguru
    November 16, 2012 3:24 p.m.
    Report abuse

    Ifyou ROmney libs wouldnt have drank the Romnayaide Obama wouldnt be here. BUT NOOOOOOOOO you braindead libs put up an establishment bought and paid for hack and got squashed. Look in the mirror for blame.

  • Screw WrAl Nov 16, 3:45 p.m.

    too bad we can't say the same for America, that it fell, slightly.

    news you probably haven't heard because local media outlets don't want to report it, for some reason.

    FIRST TIME JOBLESS CLAIMS UP HALF A MILLION.

    STOCK MARKET TANKING LIKE TWINKIEs.

    Wonder where those stories are wral.

    Good thing Obama gets another 4 years wouldn't you say 47%.

  • LucaBrasi Nov 16, 3:36 p.m.

    WRAL you need to read your own news reports...it will be going up next month.

  • charmcclainlovesdogs2 Nov 16, 3:26 p.m.

    don't think it is the republicans

    Pay no attention to these Republicans, they are just soar losers and cannot stand the thought that President Obama won.

  • fbguru Nov 16, 3:24 p.m.

    Hostess/Merita closes; a host of other companies close and NC rate goes down?!?! Must be an "Obama Rate". Just like Obama "saved General Motors", but the media won't report that the majority of the bailout $$ went to Japan and GM opened over 6 new plants in JAPAN, not USA! Keep drinkig the "Obama-aide", but I can guarantee you it will really start tasting bitter these next 4 years!

  • mom97 Nov 16, 3:21 p.m.

    Speaking as one of those currently unemployed people whose benefits will be running out soon--this is not news--this is propaganda.

  • Bartmeister Nov 16, 3:16 p.m.

    Go Obama, 2012. Go Hillary Clinton, 2016!!!!!! Show the bible belt that the rest of the country more than makes up the numbers needed to win. atheistswillrule

    ===========================================

    Wish all you want. It just isn't there. Not today, not tomorrow. Not next year and not next election.

  • Bartmeister Nov 16, 3:15 p.m.

    That means after REMOVING the seasonal jobs, it STILL went down.
    junkmail5

    =======================================

    Oh I get it. Thing is the numbers will reverse in February. Wheres the progress? 0.3%? Really?

  • scg Nov 16, 3:00 p.m.

    Readin the headline itself, I could tell that there would be two sets of comments here.

    1. This shows that economy is moving and President Obama is doing a good job.
    2. This is hoax, made up number, mud covered in chocolate icing to make it look like a cake.

    Look at the line next week for Black Friday sale.

  • whatelseisnew Nov 16, 2:56 p.m.

    "don't think it is the republicans without jobs not trying. I think it is the Obama supporters taking what they can get while they got it. . jricky1

    can you explain this please?"

    You need to have that explained?

  • junkmail5 Nov 16, 2:50 p.m.

    Reagan fixer, 0bama blamer.
    storchheim

    No, Reagan was a blamer too... he blamed Carter for everything-

    "First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend"- 1982 State of the Union

    "The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."- 1983 State of the Union Address

    The Blame Game has been used by BOTH parties for generations.

  • ndadszucs Nov 16, 2:48 p.m.

    "Just stand by, one of the dems around here will explain to you how liberal math works so you can undertsand how they fudge
    numbers" - Crumps Br0ther

    Is that anything like math you do as a republican to make yourself feel better?

  • atheistswillrule Nov 16, 2:42 p.m.

    Go Obama, 2012. Go Hillary Clinton, 2016!!!!!! Show the bible belt that the rest of the country more than makes up the numbers needed to win.

  • junkmail5 Nov 16, 2:42 p.m.

    Reagan fixer, 0bama blamer.- storchheim

    Any yet Obamas actual results are better than Reagans per the graphs provided.

    Funny that.

    But unlike Reagan, the Barack's unemployment numbers are WORSE than when he took office

    There's a little thing called "improvement" and "direction".-TruthBKnown Returned

    No, they aren't.

    There's a little thing called facts. Look into em.

    Jan 1981- 7.5%
    Couple months before Reagan re-election- 7.5%

    Jan 2009- 7.8%
    Coulple months before Obama re-election: 7.8%

  • denali42 Nov 16, 2:42 p.m.

    http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

  • 101jackson101 Nov 16, 2:21 p.m.

    What about Hostess employees who went on strike?

  • junkmail5 Nov 16, 2:17 p.m.

    It doesn't tell the whole story because it's a news report, not a detailed statistical analysis.

    Amazingly though, unlike so many posters here, the story tells you were you can get more detailed info... and look, here it is!

    http://www.ncesc1.com/PMI/Rates/PressReleases/State/NR_Oct_2012_StRate_M.pdf

  • storchheim Nov 16, 2:10 p.m.

    "But Reagan good Obama bad. junkmail5"

    Reagan fixer, 0bama blamer.

  • wakemom Nov 16, 2:07 p.m.

    don't think it is the republicans without jobs not trying. I think it is the Obama supporters taking what they can get while they got it. .
    jricky1

    can you explain this please?

  • TruthBKnown Banned Again01 Nov 16, 2:06 p.m.

    "Yup, just like they re-elected Reagan, despite his record being WORSE on unemployment in his first term."

    But unlike Reagan, the Barack's unemployment numbers are WORSE than when he took office.

    There's a little thing called "improvement" and "direction".

  • storchheim Nov 16, 2:05 p.m.

    jricky, that exhibit comes on here with nothing to offer but boasts and an abusive mouth. Here's a much more likely scenario:

    Criminal, maybe illegal immigrant uncle lies about identity and/or background, gets hired by shady contractor for cash under table at a pitiful rate. E-verify report comes back OR felon is caught threatening/stealing from other emps/boss/homeowner. Felon gets fired.

    Criminal uncle lies about name and/or identity, gets hired by new shady contractor for cash at a pitiful rate...

  • Hip-Shot Nov 16, 2:04 p.m.

    It's probably a combination of things... Seasonal employment for the holidays and people having been unemployed so long that they no longer draw benefits and are therefore uncounted.

    With IBC/Merita going out of business it'll probably inch up a tiny bit in the Nash-Edgecombe area.

  • storchheim Nov 16, 1:52 p.m.

    babedan, the 7.9% was the lie for the country, not the lie for the state. B0 said if the UE rate wasn't under 8% he'd wouldn't deserve a second term or words to that effect. In one month, 880,000 people suddenly found employment. That couldn't be verified because it's measured via phone survey.

    This doesn't tell the whole story anyway. I count 10,900 jobs in the sectors detailed; what about the other 32,800 people in NC who were lucky enough to find work? What sector is THAT?

  • junkmail5 Nov 16, 1:42 p.m.

    And people re-elected Obama. Wow.
    TruthBKnown Returned

    Yup, just like they re-elected Reagan, despite his record being WORSE on unemployment in his first term.

  • junkmail5 Nov 16, 1:40 p.m.

    Obama has left all of GWs policies in place and things have gotten better, right? But Bush bad Obama good?
    Crumps Br0ther

    Nope. You don't see me blaming Bush for the current unemployment rate either.

    The economy is cyclical. The president has far less ability to impact it in most cases than people think.

    That was the point of posting the Reagan data. Obamas record in his first term on unemployment is similar to, but _better than_ Ronald Reagans.

    Neither really did a ton to help or hurt that beyond let the normal cycle run though.

    So blaming Obama for unemployment going up then slowly decreasing is just as dumb as blaming Reagan when the same thing, only worse, happening in his first term. And is just as dumb as blaming Bush for todays unemployment numbers too.

    (hint: If you point out one sides argument is dumb, it doesn't mean the other side isn't also making different, equally dumb, arguments)

  • TruthBKnown Banned Again01 Nov 16, 1:30 p.m.

    The jobs being added are not even keeping up with population growth.

  • WolfPackAlum Nov 16, 1:27 p.m.

    >>"well when you stop counting certain people for certain reasons in order to project a number thats better than it really is that is fudging."

    That "certain reason" with regards to NCESC unemployment statistics is that they only use data they have readily available, i.e. the number of people drawing unemployment insurance benefits. If they wanted to count the number of unemployed people not receiving benefits, the states would have to dedicate additional resources to conduct a monthly household-by-household poll solely for this reason. Given that the Federal Gov't already conducts a poll, hiring more employees and spending more money at the state level in order to get a slightly more accurate figure seems like a waste of resources. Perhaps you feel otherwise, since you consider this to be 'fudging'. I would suggest writing you representative and asking them to support hiring additional Government employees to conduct and analyze this poll.

  • TruthBKnown Banned Again01 Nov 16, 1:25 p.m.

    Wow, ALL THE WAY DOWN..... to 9.3% ?????

    And people re-elected Obama. Wow.

  • Crumps Br0ther Nov 16, 1:22 p.m.

    But Reagan good Obama bad.
    junkmail5

    Obama has left all of GWs policies in place and things have gotten better, right? But Bush bad Obama good?

  • junkmail5 Nov 16, 1:18 p.m.

    It is seasonal. All postal companies and department stores.
    jricky1

    Do you guys not understand what 'seasonally adjusted' means?

    Seasonal adjustment is a statistical method for removing the seasonal component of a time series

    The seasonally adjusted unemployment figure went down.

    That means after REMOVING the seasonal jobs, it STILL went down.

  • jricky1 Nov 16, 1:02 p.m.

    I don't think it is the republicans without jobs not trying. I think it is the Obama supporters taking what they can get while they got it. It is seasonal. All postal companies and department stores.

  • junkmail5 Nov 16, 12:55 p.m.

    well when you stop counting certain people for certain reasons in order to project a number thats better than it really is that is fudging.

    Which people did they stop counting?

    Specificially which do they not count that they did count under previous presidents, since you imply they're doing something new here?

    By the way, here's unemployment under Obamas first 3.5 years-
    http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp?fromYear=2009&toYear=2012

    Now here's Ronald Reagans first 4 years in office-

    http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp?fromYear=1981&toYear=1984

    Obamas is actually better. Regans was flat to slight decline when he came in, then skyrocketed a few months later and kept climbing steeply for a few years, finally only at the end of his term coming back close to what it was.

    Obamas was already climbing before he took office, then didn't spike as far as Reagans numbers and began coming back down much sooner.

    But Reagan good Obama bad.

  • TeenDad4_WorldTour Nov 16, 12:54 p.m.

    All the republicans without jobs should just try harder, jeez. Stop being so whiny and lazy.

  • mjk111259 Nov 16, 12:51 p.m.

    You call this good news. Nothing has changed, The unemployment rate hasn't come enoughtfor you could make it a news story!

  • RethinkThat Nov 16, 12:47 p.m.

    Yeah, but are you watching the stock market take a free fall which shows a "no confidence" indicator in this administration?
    paultaylorsr100
    November 16, 2012 11:15 a.m.
    Report abuse

    I guess all those green numbers under Market Watch mean something different than I thought they did!

Oldest First