By The Right Scoop


While everyone in the media is praising Obama for unemployment falling to 8.5%, saying that it’s trending downward and if it continues he’ll win reelection, Levin points out the unvarnished truth about Obama and the unemployment rate that not even some on the right are saying. In short, Obama’s being praised for a higher unemployment rate now than he had when he came into office and my favorite point that Levin makes is that when Obama came into office, his agenda wasn’t even to fix the economy, but to push his radical agenda. And still he’s being praised:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

    There is much more that is being missed by everyone. I’ve looked at all the BLS numbers I could find and noticed some trends and similarities…..but it all changes when you look at the turn-around.

    Similar peak unemployment numbers to start and then Reagan brought unemployment back down by the end of his first term (with a growing labor participation). Reagan took the unemployment hit two years into his term of office and he managed to fix it within the remaining two years.

    While Reagan was in office, his workforce was actually growing (very slowly), whereas it is currently on the decline. The percentage of people employed is smaller than it was during Jimmy Carter, and by the end of Reagan’s first term, it was already back up to normal levels, even while his workforce was increasing. His economy was outgrowing the population growth (1.6% more employed of the population by the end of his first term)…..currently number [percentage of the population employed] has turned around, but has plateaued at 2010 levels which means that the economic growth is barely keeping up with the new additions to the workforce, even though the actual number of people in the workforce is decreasing.

    I saw a numbers geek post on this site before….it would be nice to have an analysis from the same guy, comparing numbers within those recent recessions. There are many factors that aren’t included, so I’m not qualified to read too much into it, but those economically inclined individuals can account for other factors and give a better analysis—–of course, for some it is enough to spout off about the numbers and claim success, but I would like to see a thorough analysis.

    • Anonymous

      Many of the numbers are confusing and misleading to most of us. What we all understand is this : (unemployment rate=unemployed workers/total labor force).

      Herein lies the problem: we only consider the U3 (when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks),

      without looking at the U4 (U3 + “discouraged workers”, or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them),

      or the U5 (U4 + other “marginally attached workers”, or “loosely attached workers”, or those who “would like” and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently),

      or the U6 {U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment)}.

      The U6 should always be the number we are looking at, as well as considering whether or not the total labor force number has decreased due to people not existing anymore because they gave up looking.

      It’s no wonder that they can manipulate the numbers so easily.

      When the re-employment numbers can’t keep up with the growing population and the unemployment rate still goes down, something is terribly, terribly wrong.

      • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

        I understand all of that….but what I am not sure about is the differences between this recession and the recession of the 80s. What factors are in play that are different now than then?

        Numbers mean jack sh*t if you don’t understand or don’t acknowledge the basis for them…..many people ignore everything except for the reported numbers because any given metric supports their argument. I want to be able to fully understand it so that I can squash it, figuratively speaking.

        • Anonymous

          By what you said I figured you understood the numbers. I just put these out for general consumption so that we could all start considering the proper way of looking at this from now on. They are hiding too much in order to balance their books.

          You watch, each month, from now till the month before the election, they will lower the unemployment rate by 0.1%. Election time will have 7.5% unemployment and Barack will be crowing, ‘I saved you all!’

          • Anonymous

            That’ll be hard to do (even though we both know they want to) because Europe is going to crash and burn before the summer. Then we’re going to find out what bad shape China is really in. And that China has been lying about their financial condition. The unemployment rate for the US will be over 11% by July.

            • Anonymous

              I agree with what you say, but look what they’re saying about inflation even now. They say inflation hasn’t hit us, in spite of the fact that everybody buys groceries and knows darn well inflation has gone through the roof.

              In the face of that, don’t you think they will say the situation is improving, even though 2 out of 3 people on your block will be unemployed?

              • Anonymous

                You’re right they’ll try to lie and put the best face on it. But there is a limit to what can be covered up. Wall street doesn’t knowingly invest money based on lies. Eventually this situation will reach the point where it simply can’t be denied. I think Obama and the dems are counting on the economy holding together until next year. But I think they’re wrong. I think the big crash is going to happen this year.

                • Anonymous

                  My IRA hopes you’re wrong, but my head tells me you’re right.

                • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LBZGB6KPRKUXEVDYADZELN5GLY Jimi

                  Gotta disagree – banks now invest in even the riskiest things – there is no risk for them at all so why not bail out Greece or Italy – the US will bail them out.

                • Anonymous

                  Bail them out with what? More printed money? How much longer do you think we can keep doing that without it having a negative effect?

                • http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

                  Read Ponzi’s life and schemes. I always like to look at what he did to his country. I wonder if the USA, shall end up as the same.

              • http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

                I agree mostly with what you said, but did you really look at store prices? My food bill has tripled, in a year! I declared a depression, the year Obama took office. I compared product prices, with past years, and discovered that, the adjusted US dollar could buy less than in 1930! To get the real adjusted dollar, try comparing what your hourly wage could have bought at least 10 years ago, with today’s. You also need to look at business situations, if you are capable. In other words, you cannot believe any gov statistic. If you care, just start a journal, (not a temporary record). Even if crude, you will see what an hour of your labor can buy, then, and now. You might also consider changing working areas. Obama is affecting every field.

      • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

        I understand all of that….but what I am not sure about is the differences between this recession and the recession of the 80s. What factors are in play that are different now than then?

        Numbers mean jack sh*t if you don’t understand or don’t acknowledge the basis for them…..many people ignore everything except for the reported numbers because any given metric supports their argument. I want to be able to fully understand it so that I can squash it, figuratively speaking.

      • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

        I understand all of that….but what I am not sure about is the differences between this recession and the recession of the 80s. What factors are in play that are different now than then?

        Numbers mean jack sh*t if you don’t understand or don’t acknowledge the basis for them…..many people ignore everything except for the reported numbers because any given metric supports their argument. I want to be able to fully understand it so that I can squash it, figuratively speaking.

      • Anonymous

        Numbers lie and liers figure!!!

        • Anonymous

          “figures lie and liars figure”

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LBZGB6KPRKUXEVDYADZELN5GLY Jimi

        You left out people like my daughter who has a degree in Mechanical Engineering but is working full time at a Target in the mall.

        • http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

          10 likes for you. A very real example, may she remember, always.

  • Anonymous

    Obama is a total fraud….out to destroy or in his words “fundamentally transform America”….sorry Bam…..do not want a dictator in a banana republic…your goal.

  • Dan

    the Lawless Regime is at it again Lying…when will the wenners in the Republican Congress impeach this commie pig….

    http://commieblaster.com/

  • Anonymous

    So if Obama has the books cooked to bring unemployment to let us say 7.9%, then he will be considered a success? Even if that happens it was 7.8% when he took office. That is a complete joke. This guy said he wanted to fix he economy and yet he spent the entire first year of his presidency dealing with healthcare. Do we really need to expand this conversation?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VALWB52BM37C74WMNOAWP4BXLA Neal

    For a more accurate estimate of unemployment: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

  • Anonymous

    I don’t care if the unemployment rate goes down to 4%. If that happens, it will be despite Obama, not because of Obama. Obama still pushed Obamacare down our throats that will push employers to drop coverage altogether and will put private health insurance companies in peril. Intentional purpose….pave the way for nationalized health care. He also has shut down a lot of oil producitivity at the cost of thousands of jobs. No, I don’t care if he delivers a 10 lb. gold bar to my door, I’m voting against him.

    • http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

      How about if the gold bar is worth one bag of beans. Most people cannot see the bottom.

  • HarryOrielly

    I am still stuck on the cover-up of Obama’s FORGED birth certificate- alotta powerful people have helped hide Obama’s past secreted (criminal) history- Obama is a puppet that is controlled and so is the newsmedia- why doesn’t the birth certificate issue just die & go away- It wont because it’s true- Obama has defrauded America- GOOGLE “LARRY SINCLAIR” to hear Obama’s old friend talk about their criminal past- Obama has tried to setup & smear Larry but somehow I believe Larry becaus Obama has hidden his entire past history at the cost of millions- Obama even surrendered his Law license to avoid investigation even his kindergarten records are sealed- the only predsident in history to have an alias- WHY?

    • http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

      Glad you woke up, welcome.

  • http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

    Mark, you seem to have everything lined up. You lightly touched on my theme, so I will amplify. Obama did not do this stuff in the dark. It was in the paper, on the net, but few other places. Obama, shortly after taking power announced he was changing the way to figure most economic statistics, my field. This is bad stuff, because we always consider the past stats. If you change it, just a little, all your comparisons are false. Unemployment, I figured until it passed 20%. After that, the figures were so wrong, any assumsion is wrong. You have used observation, to belie the Obama lying. The problem with your method is, it usually is too mild. If you know a lost job, there many you do not see. Also, Obama is sitting in place, people who will lie in the future, to keep their jobs. FDR was so good at this, he was president for life. Today, CNN revealed it was Democratic all the way. No Demo mentions, just US, reporting the news. Thanks for the summation. God bless you.