Way to go Obama. You are fundamentally changing America.

More lib math, its really under 8% but you have to keep one eye closed and a patch on the other.

I remember the good ol days under Clinton when it was only 4%.

Say what you will but Clinton was probably the best president in terms of fiscal policy since Reagan.

Too bad Obama is a socialist.

When you consider those who have either quit looking/quit reporting in and those who took less than full time work just to have a job, the rate is likely going to be pushing the upper teens.

I did not agree with a lot of political issues with Clinton, but I have to agree that he did do a pretty good job on certain things.

Spin it as much as you want, the voters that had elections the other day told the powers that be to change their definition of change. With unemployent numbers like this or close to it, even some hardcore democratic folks are saying it will be a slaughter come mid term elections.

quote:

With unemployent numbers like this or close to it, even some hardcore democratic folks are saying it will be a slaughter come mid term elections.

Yup and Obama has made it clear just how drastic a change we need in Washington.

Far be it from me to defend the Obamites, but the statement that the actual unemployment rate is higher because those who either quit looking or quit reporting are not counted, is not true. I pointed this out to the lefties during the Bush adminstration and will do so again.

The methodology the Department of Commerce uses does account for those who have quit reporting or are discouraged from seeking employment.

" To measure the unemployment rate, the U.S, Department of Labor surveys 60,000 homes each month. Each household must answer a series of questions, and from these the breakdown in the table below is derived. Excluded from any consideration in determining employment-unemployment status are all those under 16 years of age and those in penal or mental institutions, sanatoriums, and homes for the infirm, aged, or needy. People are considered not in the labor force if they are not working for pay and have no interest in finding a job. Examples are retired persons, some housewives and students, and disabled persons. People are considered employed if they work for pay any time in the week that includes the 12th day of the month, or if they worked unpaid fifteen hours or more in a family-operated business, or if they were temporarily absent from a regular job because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reason. People are considered unemployed if they do not work during the week containing the 12th day of the month, are available for work (except for temporary illness), and have looked for jobs within the preceding four weeks. Also considered as unemployed are those who do not look for jobs because they are on layoff or because they are waiting to start a new job within thirty days."

http://ingrimayne.com/econ/Mea...ng/Unemployment.html

That said, the Obamites are employing many of the same tactics used by FDR. That resulted in unemployment rates of 17 to 25 percent.

quote:

I remember the good ol days under Clinton when it was only 4%.

quote:

Say what you will but Clinton was probably the best president in terms of fiscal policy since Reagan.

Guys, have you ever heard of this thing called a "peace dividend"?

quote:

President Clinton plans to submit a balanced budget for 1999; but neither he nor the Republican Congress should get the credit, says columnist Robert J. Samuelson. That the budget is nearly balanced is mostly due to the "peace dividend" -- the reduction in defense spending since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

A growing economy and increased tax revenues -- $72 billion more than forecast by the Congressional Budget Office a year ago -- closed the last of the budget gap, but without the decline in defense spending as a portion of the national output and federal spending, massive deficits would endure.

Also, the defense budget is the only area of federal spending that has been restrained, says Samuelson.

* In fiscal 1998, defense spending will total about $266 billion or roughly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
* A decade ago, defense spending was 6 percent of GDP a year -- a difference amounting to an additional $260 billion a year.
* While defense spending fell between 1988 and 1998, entitlement spending went from 10.2 percent of GDP to an estimated 11.3 percent, and domestic discretionary spending rose from 3.2 to 3.4 percent of GDP.
* Thus since 1988, spending on domestic discretionary programs has risen about 25 percent after adjusting for inflation.

Some defense analysts are concerned that defense has been cut too far. Since 1990, the number of army divisions has dropped from 18 to 10; the navy's combat fleet has shrunk from 546 to 357 ships; and the number of active air-force tactical fighter wings (72 planes each, without spares) has shrunk from 24 to 13.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/in...php?Article_ID=13414

Since we are now in a world war (Or police action per Lord Barry!) there is no more peace dividend. Therefore the economy of the 90's cannot be recreated without Congress drastically cutting non-defense spending. Since this spending is mostly for entitlements, I don't think much will change.

Everybody knows that anything that's wrong with this country today and for the next 100 years is G.W.'s fault.

If the figure is not truly 10.2%, what do you all say about the countless people out of work and desperately looking, willing to accept jobs way below what they're capable of making - in terms of salary - and below current skill level. They just don't exist.

I also read that the ones receiving unemployment benefits have been doing so for nearly seven months. But the data is skewed?

As long as we're talking incorrect data calculations, how about the way the poverty level is calculated? That's a joke. $28K for a family of four? One person could barely live on that.

The employment picture in this country is getting more shameful by the day. We've exported so many good paying jobs and are left with basically just retail positions that pay nothing. It doesn't matter how cheap the products are that are made overseas, then imported for Americans to buy. You can't buy the products if you don't have a job. Duh!