Gallup's US Unemployment (U-6) at 19.1%

[Dammy]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153161/Unemployment-February.aspx

Then add those of us working part time but wanting full time:

Combining the two:

Mean while, have you seen what gas and food is costing? How is that "Hope and change" working out for you now?

 

[redrumloa]

Mean while, have you seen what gas and food is costing? How is that "Hope and change" working out for you now?

It's OK Dammy, he's a Democrat. Oh yeah, and black.

Anyone who thinks they are unemployed or underemployed are just racists.

 

[Dammy]

It's OK Dammy, he's a Democrat. Oh yeah, and black.

Anyone who thinks they are unemployed or underemployed are just racists.

Funny part is that unemployment for blacks are far worse, far far worse. I mean the numbers are brutal and if there was a white POTUS in the White House, the black community leaders said they would have been marching already. How much longer can the black community be quiet and suffer massive U-3, never mind U-6 rates?

 

[ilwrath]

Honestly, right now, the graphs are basically stagnant. It was several years ago that the graphs shot up to the insane levels they've been trapped at ever since. Crucifying the current administration for not cleaning up the previous one's mess just doesn't pull many protesters. Especially when that particular group still WANTS to like the current administration, and doesn't have a better alternative. The biggest difference I can find between Romney and Obama IS the skin color. There's surely no difference of substance between them.

 

[faethor]

@Dammy,
What your point is here is that the way to count unemployment is incorrect. Certainly the US fails to do this in a manner similar to the rest of the world. For example, it was in the Reagan Era that the length of time someone stays on the unemployment count was scaled back. (Helped Reagan's #s BTW.) Though it makes it fairly difficult to do a straight foward comparision since inception of the nation. There always has to be a discussion about what is truly unemployment and an agreement on how to adjust the numbers accordingly.

The other point of the discussion is do we include all numbers in the economy? For example GWB's numbers are flat. Though is we take out the massive hiring he commited at the Federal Level we see that private industry was crap during that ~decade. OTOH under Obama the Gov has been laying off people. Take out Federal changes for Obama and we see that private industry is on a positive trend, and doing better than the GWB era. --- Well, if one is a conservative that hates Gov which of these two is the better option? Unfortunately it's not the Republican.

Though we see this fairly consistency - Democratic Presidents almost always do better than Republicans for the economy and prosperity. One exception is Reagan. For example, GDP (growth in the economy) is lead by Clinton, then Kennedy, then Carter , then Reagan. IMO the work of the Clinton Administration to move us to a 'pay as you go' system is in large part the reason for this. Now to be fair that was also a Bush I idea. He was unable to carry it out as well as Clinton did.

 

[Dammy]

My point is without the Admin fudging numbers (like dropping 1.2M people from looking and there by lowering the U-3 numbers), the situation is bad and not getting any better. 19.1% is a threat to society as implosion is now on the verge of happening. You have run away spending couple with run away borrowing and bound by high taxation rates equals doom. Bush cuts are set to expire as Obamacare takes even more money out of the economy will be the finishing touches of the full global melt down as I've been talking about for awhile now.

 

[faethor]

'the Admin' however is really every Admin. 'High Taxation' rates? At least at the Federal Level it's some of the lowest comparitive rates in the last 50 years. We clearly need two things - raise taxes and reduce spending. We're at a point that a one sided do one or the other will not work.