Is There Nothing That Obama Can’t Do?

At 8.2% unemployment about 1 in 12 are unemployed.
At 10.9 % about 1 in 9 are unemployed.
When you consider the productive/employed must bear the costs of the unproductive/unemployed (or be deficit financed), a couple of points of variance in unemployment becomes very significant.
And the real number of unemployed is likely significantly higher.

“Significantly higher” may go down as a significant “under – statement.” At the height of the Great Depression the U/E rate was pegged – REALISTICALLY – at around 38%. The 8% or 10% that our governments are telling us now is such crap it’s hard to get past the SMELL let alone the math!!
Taken from: “The Great Depression II: You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet”
By James Quinn
“”* There are 242 million working age Americans and 100 million of them are not working. But don’t concern yourself. The Federal government reports that only 13 million of these people are actually unemployed. The other 87 million are just kicking back and living off their accumulated riches.””

“Forget the official 8.2% unemployment rate. Take a hard look instead at what’s known as the U6 rate, which tracks not only those out of work but those who’ve essentially given up looking for work.
“That rate stands at about 14.6%, or nearly double the official unemployment rate.
“As economists digest the disappointing job numbers released Friday — just 120,000 jobs added in March, well below expectations — some say the U6 figure is the data point people should be focused on.”
Source: http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/04/06/time-to-focus-on-real-unemployment-rate/#ixzz1rIaoeOaE

Even the U-6 number is somewhat low.
Consider the U-3 rate is today’s definition, which was changed by W back during his tenure. Before that, the U-4 number was what was regularly reported, which includes discouraged.
The U-6 still doesn’t include people that want to work, but have been unable to find a job. This rate is near 22.5% (http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts).

The bigger problem is the number of people who have dropped out of the labor force. There were 80-81 million people of working age not in the labor force when Obama took office and that has now increased to nearly 88 million http://www.zerohedge.com/news/nfp-big-miss-120k-expectations-205k-unemployment-82 The labor participation rate just keeps dropping. Also, there in an interesting graph at the Washington Post. If you look at the graph on the right on this link on the number of jobs gained or lost over the last 3 years and things were going real seemed to be getting better pretty fast until March 2010 when Obamacare was passed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/2012/04/06/gIQA46KVzS_graphic.html Just coincidence?

Obama’s election strategy, which is all he is concerned with this year, is Divide-and-Rule-and-Lie.
He has politicised the US Bureau of Employment Statistics and I wouldn’t believe on iota of their announcements.
This article points that out.
I correct myself, he doesn’t have an election strategy, that’s for the lesser minions to take care of. His job is to read the tele-prompter and be George Soros’s house boy.

This is far more informative than all the fudged employment figures and much harder to manipulate:
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Food Stamp Usage At Highest Level Ever
The number of people receiving federal benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program–also known as Food Stamps–hit an all-time high in May, according to the latest figures just released by the US Department of Agriculture. 45,753,078 Americans made use of the benefits; that’s about 1 in 7 people, or 21,581,234 households, at a cost of $6,121,616,913.00. May is the latest month for which figures are available.
In January of 2009, when President Obama entered office, 31,983,716 Americans or 14,499,693 households used Food Stamps, at a cost of $3,633,188,682.00, according to USDA.

I’ve just seen that Obama’s, apparently, getting the “women’s” vote, big time. I’ve worked mainly with women for decades and, I’m sorry to say, this latest statistic confirms my experience that a lot of women are really stupid: maybe really nice, maybe really caring, on an individual basis, but not up to snuff on the issues, and quite often prone to making shallow, unintelligent, emotional decisions. (Yes, there are more and more men who behave that way too . . . Hey, their teachers are the very women I’m talking about!)
Trying to introduce facts and logic with such people is usually a no-win situation: one’s targeted and marginalized as intolerant, while one’s accuser is just as uninformed, shallow, and wrong as when one started. This process happened to me recently with an in-law, who, when asked to document her preposterous thesis, said, “I don’t like this conversation and I’m not going to participate anymore.” OK, have it your own way, you stupid, uninformed, close-minded, arrogant ignoramus! (I didn’t actually say that.)
The women, in my experience, who aren’t shallow, emotional, and intellectually soft tend to be the independent thinking, conservative and libertarian types: no cheap, “I feel so nice” grace there—one pays, big time for not being a sheeple and going along with the big, ultimately cruel and tyrannical, progressive lies.

Pete, and others, you don’t know what the frack you’re talking about.
U-3 is the official unemployment rate: the percentage of people in the labour force who are unemployed. This rate is also used for international comparisons. The BLS changed the Current Population Survey sampling methodology back in 1994 which, if I’m not mistaken, was not during W’s term of office.
U-4 includes discouraged workers in both the numerator and denominator. These are people who have given up looking for work because they believe their search will be unsuccessful. Some of them have obsolete skills, some have been displaced by overproduction, and others were always marginally productive in their chosen professions.
U-5 adds other persons marginally attached to the labor force who haven’t looked for work in the past month. There are many reasons why people haven’t looked in the past month, and not all are associated with economic distress.
U-6 includes with U-5 people who are working part time, but who want full-time employment. It is the broadest measure and certainly includes people who want work but haven’t been able to find a job.
There are economic reasons for not including marginally attached persons in the “official” rate. It’s because they CHOOSE not to seek work. Suppose you have two working spouses and one gets laid off. The family might decide that the laid off spouse might take care of the kids, retrain, go back to school, or enjoy leisure with six months of severence pay. The reason we calculate unemployment rates is to determine how much government intervention is needed to close the output gap leading to unemployment. If you voluntarily drop out of the labor force, you are not a problem the government needs to “fix.” By saying the Us undercount the unemployed, you are implicitly saying “government needs to do more!” Not exactly what you had in mind, was it?
Some people are employed in the black and grey markets. Some part-time workers have two jobs and are counted as part-time employed twice.
Economists and other analysts ARE looking at U1-6, the labor force participation rate by age cohort, and the employment to population ratio. The CPS is also analyzed along with the establishment survey (CES) and covered unemployment wages (QCEW). The latter two measure employment, and separate private sector from government employment. State and local governments have been cutting jobs, so the private sector is doing better than job growth figures suggest. QCEW also provides wage data.
It’s not like you’ve suddenly discovered some “secret” that needs to go viral to better educate mere mortals. You people need to spend a day or two on the BLS website.

I never said it was good. I just said it wasn’t a conspiracy to hide the truth.