Ignoring the continued and misleading use of the term "Real Unemployment", it's important to note that the U-6 figure currently resides around half a percentage point lower than it did in February of 2009, and around 2.5 percentage points higher than it's peak during October of 2009.
You're tardy to the tune of about 3 years.
Guilt of success is what caused the Depression? Not only is this claim laughably absurd, you seem to be under the impression that economic indicators took a downwards turn after 1932. Perhaps a slight bit of research on your part is due on both counts.
The term of real unemployment is continued, and relevant because it is a fact...If you take all those people that were in the workforce in January of 2009 that have dropped out of even looking for work, then your real number would be around 16% unemployed, worse if you look at minorities. That's not U6 chicanery, that is just plain fact. Look, Obama can't run on achievements, and success, he can't run on foreign policy, he can't run on any plans going forward because American's have heard that lie before, and regardless of phony polls that are weighted in some cases 13% out of whack in favor of libs, Obama is really Carter redux...Get used to it.Ignoring the continued and misleading use of the term "Real Unemployment", it's important to note that the U-6 figure currently resides around half a percentage point lower than it did in February of 2009, and around 2.5 percentage points higher than it's peak during October of 2009.
You're tardy to the tune of about 3 years.
You shouldn't misrepresent what I said, it is a dishonest tactic, and quite transparent.Guilt of success is what caused the Depression?
Well, I hate to break it to you, but regardless of what your ultra liberal professors in your poly sci classes indoctrinated you to believe, FDR extended the great depression further than it needed to be live, and set in place the very disastrous policies of dependency that are breaking us today.Not only is this claim laughably absurd, you seem to be under the impression that economic indicators took a downwards turn after 1932. Perhaps a slight bit of research on your part is due on both counts.
•A 122% increase in food stamp spending to an estimated $89 billion this year from $40 billion in 2008;
•An increase of 3.6 million people receiving Social Security disability payments;
•A 10 million person increase in the number of individuals receiving welfare, to 107 million, or more than one-third of the U.S. population;
• A 34%, $683 billion reduction in the adjusted gross income of the top 1% to $1.3 trillion in 2009 (latest data) from its 2007 peak.
Barack Obama assumed office on Jan. 20, 2009 with the 7 percent rate, which continued to grow to 9.4 percent in August 2010, a three-decade high, and only started to slowly go down throughout 2011 to 8 percent in January 2012 and now to 7.8 percent in February.
Fact Check: Is unemployment rate higher since President Obama took office? | Connecticut 5th District
Hard to make such a claim, when the policies nearly universally derided from the right these days are credited with sparking what growth we experienced during the early stages of the recovery.
Take a gander at the relevant indicators during the first stages of his presidency in contrast with the present day. It's quite obvious that there has been a recovery, albeit a rather anemic one of late.
Hard to categorize the U6 numbers as a fact, or widely accepted for that matter. The figure didn't even come into being till the 90's, and has not been used as the official figure due to a variety of reasons. As stated previously though, even such a figure has improved rather markedly since the recession ended in Q3 of 2009, no matter the stipulations attached.
In what way? Also, how much did the unemployment rate tick up during Carter's term?
Sadly enough, no misrepresentation was necessary to derive such a conclusion, simply an accurate portrayal of your claim.
Actually, no poly sci classes are necessary to refute such a notion, just a simple glance at historical accounts and relevant figures from said time period. One would customarily use economic indicators to demonstrate the worsening of economic conditions in lieu of oft repeated jargon.
Not only was there a pressing need for federal intervention to alleviate legitimate misery during that time period, you've conflated social security with government dependency, while it is anything but.
Actually, that projection was authored by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, and was made with various disclaimers in tow, not the least of which the uncertainty surrounding the peak level of the recession.