Actually, if you look at the more accurate U6 rates, almost 15%.
7.9% per cent is the official U-3 rate.
When President Obama took office in January of 2009, it was actually lower, at 7.8 %.
No incumbent has ever faced voters with these kind of unemployment rates since FDR.
And by the way, the 'official' black unemployment rate is 14.3%. The real U-6 rate is over 20%.
Epic Fail.
'ya know, i'm gonna have to go along with "anon" on this one.
ReplyDeleteoh, you say he/she hasn't posted yet.
let me guess.
who cares?
i mean really. we're talking about how razor thin the margins are, and hussein/bush has a 20% unemployment rate, in the black community. heck let's call it 40% just for s*&ts and giggles.
who cares?
the margins would be exactly the same.
let's say the debt is, oh, how 'bout 26 trillion dollars US.
the margins would be exactly the same.
dumber than a sack of hair.
i bet you won't post this comment.
Yep, here's a statistic. If you're going to unplug your election mode for a minute, you'll see Obama had to ride the worst of the recession, the peak starting december 2008: http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp
ReplyDeleteWait, I'm confused. When the job numbers were good last month, you and Jack Welch and the rest of the tinfoil-hat-crowd were charging conspiracy.
ReplyDeletehttp://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-obama-fudged-jobs-numbers-after.html
Now that this month's numbers aren't as favorable, you're happy as a clam. But what happened to the conspiracy you kooks were so angry about? Why wouldn't 'Obama's Labor Department' cook the books right before the election? So much for consistency. Looks like you owe someone an apology...
Caught in a conundrum like this, I bet you won't post this comment. (Louie told me to say that, along with a bunch of racist stuff about 'Hussein' that I'm afraid to repeat).
Hello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYes, I certainly know you're confused.
Let me try to help.
First of all, if you thought the job numbers last month were 'good', well there's not much I can say. I analyzed (along with some other knowledgeable people) that there were major discrepancies in the figures.
Do you have an answer as to why the White House told everyone that a gain of 118,000 would have resulted in an 8.1% rate but a gain of 114,000 resulted in a 7.8% rate? How do fewer jobs actually result in a lower unemployment rate?
Even the ObamaBots at MSNBC questioned that one.
Second, don't ask me why Barack Obama does anything. You wouldn't like my answer. The probable explanation is that the job numbers are actually a lot worse and this is the spin they could put on it.ADP certainly wasn't fooled and changed their own criteria to be more in line with reality.
Third, if I were you, I'd avoid impugning motives to people like 'happy as a clam' and 'racist'.
It's a dead giveaway.
Make sure to vote November 7th OK?
Anonymous 5:42...bullsh*t.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Bammy wasn't prez in December '08, Bush still was. Bammy didn't start destroying the country until January of '09.
And he inherited what? Oh, wait...since he and his little Dem buddies voted for Bush's programs including two wars and TARP, who are you pointing fingers at?
And anyway, wasn't Bammy elected to fix things, not make them worse?
Keep singing the same stupid song. But I think a lot of people are tired of hearing it.I know I am.