The “official” U-3 unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted) for June, 2012, remained at 8.2%, unchanged from May, 2012. The U-6 unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted) of 14.9% is the third month of increase in a row. Is that a trend?
Those unemployment rate numbers now have no meaning. Why? Because fearless leader President Barack Hussein Obama, on July 6, 2012, to us to “not read too much” into the unemployment rate numbers. But, as they shout on TV, wait, there’s more! Let’s see… have we heard the phrase “not read too much” before? Why, YES, yes we have. We heard it from the Obama administration first in November, 2009, and literally every month since March, 2010.
The Bush recession “officially” ended in June, 2009. But guess what. The US has seen 41 straight months with the unemployment rate above 8%. So the question is, “With respect to the unemployment rate, when can we start to “read too much” into the numbers?” Inquiring minds want to know.
As this graph shows, the unemployment rate for ALL 39 months (the graph ends in February, 2012) of Obama’s presidency has been higher than in ANY month of the Bush administration. The unemployment rate fell to 8.1% in April, 2012 (everyone in the MSM said that decrease of three months was a trend), but rose back to 8.2% in May, 2012, and stayed there for June, 2012. So much for the MSM’s trend. Long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over), which comprise about 42% of all unemployed, remained at about 5.4 million.
But wait! The graph shows the unemployment rate “dropping,” but not by much before December, 2010. Obama was inaugurated in January, 2009. In February, 2009, he signed the stimulus into law, promising immediate results. Obama said, “I’m confident … our 21st century investments will create jobs immediately. We’ve got shovel-ready projects all across the country.” Then, in June, 2011, Obama laughingly said, “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.”
Obama said on July 6, 2012, in a campaign rally in Ohio, “The problem is we’ve got a stalemate in Washington. This election is about how we break that stalemate.” Let’s see. Regarding the stimulus (which BTW passed) Democrats controlled the House and Senate and gave Obama exactly what he wanted. So how long is the stalemate going to go on? The stimulus, if Obama was to be believed, was supposed to immediately solve the unemployment problem. Is 41 months and over $800 billion spent long enough to break the stalemate? What happened to immediately breaking it?
The U-3 unemployment rate of 8.2% was achieved by having the total labor force participation rate shrink, as the graph below shows. The labor force participation rate has fallen by 8 million since Obama took office. The unemployment rate would be 10.9% had the labor force participation rate not shrunk. But that rate would never do for the lap dogs in the MSM. But the U-6 rate takes that shrinkage into account. So is the unemployment rate actually increasing? And all of this from the guy who said that his economic stimulus had to be passed in order to keep the unemployment rate under 8%.
House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said the Labor Department report [for June, 2012] shows the private sector “clearly isn’t ‘doing fine’ and that President Obama’s policies have failed. Obama bet on a failed ‘stimulus’ spending binge that led to 41 months of unemployment above 8 percent.”
Here is a fact that many of y’all may find interesting: of the seventeen states that elected Republican governors in 2010, ALL saw a decline in unemployment rate. In fact, states that elected Republican governors in 2010 had unemployment rates fall faster than states that elected Democrat governors. And the states that elected Republican governors saw the unemployment rate fall faster than the national rate. Does that say anything about Democrat employment schemes? Your call.
I guess all this unemployment mess is, after 41 months, STILL George Bush’s fault.
But that’s just my opinion.Powered by Sidelines