Unemployment 7.6% When Obama Took Office. Now 9.6% Are You Better Off Under Democrats?

Back in January, while Obama was flush in his promises of “hope and change,” unemployment was at 7.6% as George Bush was moving out.

That was high, granted.  Particularly for a president whose average unemployment rate during his eight-year term in office was 5.2%.

Unemployment was high enough that Obama was successful in turning fearmongering into an art form.  As he followed his chief of staff’s advice to “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”  Obama said that if we didn’t vote for his unparalleled in all of human history “stimulus” spending, we would suffer.  But if we passed his stimulus, on the other hand, his administration “predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%.”  Obama called it “the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.”

Virtually every single Republican voted against the “stimulus,” predicting it would fail and make bad turn to worse.  Obama demonized them as “the party of no” and demagogued them as “blocking progress.”

The actual figure that Obama’s “stimulus” will cost America’s future – according to the CBO – is $3.27 TRILLION.

Let me ask you: are you better off than you were the day that Obama took the oath of office and put his feet up in the Oval Office?  Are you better off after Democrats took total control of both the House and the Senate?  Have you experienced “recovery,” or has it been a “wreckovery“?

Obama’s stimulus seems to be a pretty good deal – if you are a dead person or an incarcerated felon.

How high is unemployment under Obama?

The “official” government-reported rate remained unchanged this month at 9.6% in spite of the loss of 95,000 jobs.  But sadly the government under Barack Obama has already proven that he is more than capable of never-before-seen shenanigans.

The actual unemployment rate is probably even more frightening – and very likely to get worse.

Gallup – using the raw “seasonally unadjusted” numbers – calculates that the unemployment rate is now back into double-digit territory at 10.1%.

October 7, 2010
Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.1% in September
Underemployment, at 18.8%, is up from 18.6% at the end of August

by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist

PRINCETON, NJ — Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 10.1% in September — up sharply from 9.3% in August and 8.9% in July. Much of this increase came during the second half of the month — the unemployment rate was 9.4% in mid-September — and therefore is unlikely to be picked up in the government’s unemployment report on Friday.

Certain groups continue to fare worse than the national average. For example, 15.8% of Americans aged 18 to 29 and 13.9% of those with no college education were unemployed in September.

The increase in the unemployment rate component of Gallup’s underemployment measure is partially offset by fewer part-time workers, 8.7%, now wanting full-time work, down from 9.3% in August and 9.5% at the end of July.

As a result, underemployment shows a more modest increase to 18.8% in September from 18.6% in August, though it is up from 18.4% in July. Underemployment peaked at 20.4% in April and has yet to fall below 18.3% this year.

Friday’s Unemployment Rate Report Likely to Understate

The government’s final unemployment report before the midterm elections is based on job market conditions around mid-September. Gallup’s modeling of the unemployment rate is consistent with Tuesday’s ADP report of a decline of 39,000 private-sector jobs, and indicates that the government’s national unemployment rate in September will be in the 9.6% to 9.8% range. This is based on Gallup’s mid-September measurements and the continuing decline Gallup is seeing in the U.S. workforce during 2010.

However, Gallup’s monitoring of job market conditions suggests that there was a sharp increase in the unemployment rate during the last couple of weeks of September. It could be that the anticipated slowdown of the overall economy has potential employers even more cautious about hiring. Some of the increase could also be seasonal or temporary.

Further, Gallup’s underemployment measure suggests that the percentage of workers employed part time but looking for full-time work is declining as the unemployment rate increases. To some degree, this may reflect a reduced company demand for new part-time employees. For example, employers may be converting some existing part-time workers to full time when they are needed as replacements, but may not in turn be hiring replacement part-time workers. Another explanation may relate to the shrinkage of the workforce, as some employees who have taken part-time work in hopes of getting full-time jobs get discouraged and drop out of the workforce completely — going back to school to enhance their education, for example, instead of doing part-time work. It is even possible that some workers may find unemployment insurance a better alternative than part-time work with little prospect of going full time.

Regardless, the sharp increase in the unemployment rate during late September does not bode well for the economy during the fourth quarter, or for holiday sales. In this regard, it is essential that the Federal Reserve and other policymakers not be misled by Friday’s jobs numbers. The jobs picture could be deteriorating more rapidly than the government’s job release suggests.

Conservative economist John Lott boldly predicted when the stimulus was past that it would INCREASE unemployment.  Looking at today’s unemployment rate, who was proven right, and who has been proven completely wrong?  That same John Lott also surveyed other countries and demonstrated that those nations which did NOT engage in a massive stimulus like we did have universally fared better than countries that followed Obama.  And other economists have demonstrated that incredibly costly and redistributionist stimulus policies have NEVER stimulated economies.

Obama’s stimulus has been a complete disaster.  His administration assured us that it would create millions of “shovel-ready jobs.”  But the AP discovered that nothing of the sort had happened:

Even within the construction industry, which stood to benefit most from transportation money, the AP’s analysis found there was nearly no connection between stimulus money and the number of construction workers hired or fired since Congress passed the recovery program. The effect was so small, one economist compared it to trying to move the Empire State Building by pushing against it.”

And, of course, it hasn’t just been Obama’s and the Democrats’ stimulus that entirely failed.  Democrat energy policies have resulted in nearly a million jobs just vanishing – possibly forever.

If Gallup’s data is correct, we will likely be seeing another wave of unemployment soon.  The numbers aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse.  We have now experienced unemployment above 9.5% for fourteen consecutive months.  And just to state the obvious, every single one of those months have been on Obama’s watch.

While Obama was on vacation late last August, I compiled some of the disasters that were gripping the US as Obama was gripping a golf club:

Since then, we’ve seen other records, such as “Highest poverty rate in fifty years,” and “Record number of Americans now on food stamps.”  We’ve got bad news measurements such as “Dollar tumbles to 15-year low” and “printing money like mad to ward off deflation.”

Obama spent half his first term passing his ObamaCare boondoggle.  Now Democrats are running against it.  Not one Democrat is campaigning on having passed health care or the stimulus.  Because both are a cause for shame, not pride.

And even liberal labor unions are now pleading for waivers so they don’t go bankrupt trying to live under ObamaCare.

For that matter, even Harry Reid’s OWN SON – who is running for governor as a Democrat – says that his father’s ObamaCare plan will hurt Nevada.

ObamaCare will be a $6.25 TRILLION tax on Americans and on the US economy unless the Republican Party receives enough votes to repeal it.

Economists now realize that FDR’s policies actually prolonged the Great Depression by a whopping seven years.  And that is precisely what the policies of Barack Obama and the Democrats have done – prolong the suffering of Americans.

The last time Republicans actually ran the government in November 2006, unemployment was only 4.5%.  Democrats used the Iraq War and Katrina to demonize Republicans.  And those Democrats have done so well with the government ever since.

The last federal budget passed by Republicans – the FY2007 budget – had a deficit of $161 billion.  The very next year, under Democrat control, the FY2008 budget had a deficit nearly three times higher – $459 billion.  And now Democrats aren’t even bothering to pass budgets, and our annual deficit is estimated at over $1.3 trillion.

These are the dark days that Obama is warning Americans of returning to: Low unemployment and low (certainly by comparison!!!) spending.

Are you better off after 2 years of Obama, and after four years of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

19 Responses to “Unemployment 7.6% When Obama Took Office. Now 9.6% Are You Better Off Under Democrats?”

  1. Harry Says:

    In 2006 when Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats took control of Congress unemployment was at 4.6%. Obama and the Democrats have been regulating the economy for 4 years now.

  2. wm Says:

    well of course it has to be Bush’s fault, the msm told me so and david letterman repeated it. couldn’t be any more true unless the national enquirer said it (actually i apologize to the n.e. they are a better news source than most msm)

  3. ablur Says:

    With congress and BO constantly pushing for changes and regulations, the business world is crumbling. How can anyone plan or prepare for the future when no one can predict what it is going to be.

    Business thrives with consistency. Employment flourishes with consistency.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Good statement, Harry.

    I suppose someone could use it as the “Reader’s Digest” version if he or she doesn’t want to read the article…

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    At this point, I’m more likely to believe the story about three-headed aliens in the National Enquirer than I am anything that MSNBC says.

    It’s sad when you know history, and see the same things happening all over again that our forefathers died fighting to defeat.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Ablur,

    It’s amazing. Businesses are paralyzed on all sides. They don’t know what their income tax liability is going to be. They don’t know what their health care costs or requirements are going to be. They don’t know what their regulatory burden is going to be. And they don’t know what their energy costs are going to be.

    Most of these massive bills (e.g. health care, the regulatory bill) are only written as a shell-facade, with most of the actual regulation being written later by the Sec’y of Health and Human Services, and by regulators.

    Businesses NEED to know their costs in order to assess risks and make decisions. Democrats don’t understand that.

    Case in point: Take Richard Blumenthal’s asinine answer to “How do you create a job?” He never once even THOUGHT about risk being part of job-creation.

  7. Luke Bendersnap Says:

    Ignoring this site, is probably the most intelligent move anyone can make.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Ignoring this site, is probably the most intelligent move anyone can make.

    Well, ignoring the facts presented by this site – which you clearly are unable to respond to – is probably the most intelligent move a dishonest rat bastard like you can make.

    Otherwise you’d have to have the basic decency to respond to the facts, rather than just being a deceitful little weasel who leaves rabid little drive-by insults, wouldn’t you?

  9. Bob Says:

    I can reply and I can tell you that when Bush and the republicans took office the unemployment rate was 4% and when he left office it had doubled. Also Clinton had a balanced budget and a budget surplus. This site is a republican blowhard joke.

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    Bob, I’m going to take your “I can reply” (“Yes we can!”), wipe my butt with it, and feed it to you.

    Even in your argument, you merely point out how wrong it was for Democrats to attack Bush for the economy.

    Unemployment was NOT 4% when Bush took office; it was 4.2%. And it was 4.2% rather than the 4% you claim because it was RISING.

    From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

    The number of unemployed rose by about 300,000 in January to nearly 6.0 million, pushing the unemployment rate from 4.0 to 4.2 percent.

    You somehow manage in your blindness to entirely overlook the fact that Bush’s and Clinton’s overall unemployment rates were identical at just over 5% over their 8 years. You also seem to lack the ability to see that Bush had an unprecedented period of 52 consecutive months of job growth.

    Clinton handed Bush an economy that was sputtering into recession. In fact:

    George Bush inherited the policies that led to the 9/11 disaster only months into his presidency. George Bush inherited the Dotcom disaster that wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq index along with $7.1 trillion in American wealth that was just vaporized as a result of Bill Clinton’s economy. And rather than spend the next two years blaming his predecessor, Bush cut taxes and turned the economy around. At least until Democrat policies such as the Community Reinvestment Act and Democrat refusal to reform and regulate Democrat-created Fannie and Freddie brought America crashing down.

    You are blind as well as stupid not to assign Bill Clinton any “credit” for the massive Dotcom bubble collapse that he presided over.

    We can also show that the massive 9/11 attack that devastated our economy was a direct result of Bill Clinton’s failed foreign policy. Not only were all the terrorists safely in America and safely undergoing their training during Bill Clinton’s watch, but:

    Osama bin Laden was emboldened by his understanding of America’s lack of credibility, of purpose, of will, to issue his “Declaration of War Against the Americans” in 1996. Obama cited the American retreat from Somalia and said:

    “You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear,” he said. “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.

    We have seen in the last decade the decline of American power and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars, but unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut in 1983 when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia (in 1993).”

    Bin Laden also went on American television to say of the Somalia debacle and retreat, “This proves the U.S. is a paper tiger.”

    And the same liberal mentality that decried and sought to abandon the American commitment to Vietnam; the same liberal mentality that slunk away from Somalia in 1993, is now in power again.

    We can thank Bill Clinton for emboldening Osama bin Laden to attack America, and we can further thank Bill Clinton for allowing al Qaeda to get all their pieces to attack America into position under Clinton’s nose. Clinton set Bush up to take a massive hit. But you’re far too blind to see that.

    Furthermore, you dumbass, just why did the American people overwhelmingly and historically reject Bill Clinton in 1994??? Are you going to argue to me that it was because we were just tired of the streets being paved with gold??? Or was it because he had failed and the Democrat Party had failed???

    Here’s an article all about that: Obama Turns To Clinton To Advance The ‘Democrats As Party Success’ Myth As His Economy Turns to Crap

    You have to be a complete drooling moron not to understand that when Bill Clinton said, “The era of big government is over,” it was NOT because that had been his policy all along, but rather because his liberal policy had been rejected and he was acknowledging superior Republican policy. And yet here you are, a drooling moron.

    Why was it that it was AFTER Republicans took both the House and the Senate in 1994 and acted under their first point in their Contract with America that we ended up with this balanced budget and this budget surplus that you talk about??? The very fact that you mention these things proves that if you had so much as a functioning neuron in your clueless skull you’d be voting Republican.

  11. Henry Says:

    The blame game, do people realize, America is going through the same thing that destroyed the “Roman Empire” to much politics, when you hope a president fail you are saying you hope your country fail, shut the News Media down, run everyone in washington out of the country and recovery will start, that includes all (Democrates, Republicans and the “Rope of Dope Republicans call the Tea Party”. We need people who care about America.

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    Henry,

    All I know is I am literally surrounded by people who demonized George Bush who are now demanding I support Obama “for the good of the country.”

    It comes down to this: Democrats are evil; they are genuinely evil. They have murdered going on 60 million babies on top of literally imploding America (the greatest nation in the history of the world) with utterly unsustainable policies and ruinous Keynesian economic dogma that is a PROVEN FAILURE.

    And they are total demagogues. If I hold my fire, it is simply a fact that they will merely demonize all the more. They’ve been doing it for 40 years now – and they won’t stop until America is in ruins.

    You need to talk to someone else about your “let’s all just get along.” As long as Democrats murder inocent babies and demonize successful people even as they create a house-of-cards society based on exploiting the very people they demonize, your kumbaya crap will fall on deaf ears here.

  13. Patrick Says:

    i don’t understand how people are still arguing more taxes vs. less taxes after Reagan.
    Fact: Unemployment was 7.6% when Reagan took office, it peaked at 10.2% and was at 5.4% when he left office.
    Fact: Inflation was at 13.5% when Reagan took office, 4.1% when he left.
    Fact: Median family income increased by $4,000 in Reagan’s presidency.
    Fact: The nation’s Gross National product grew by nearly 20% from 1980-1987
    Fact: Tax REVENUE increased by 99.4% in the 80’s.

    Now if you want to cite the percentage of people below the poverty level as Reagan’s downfall, take into consideration percentage increase in population as well. When you do, you will see that the percentage of people below the poverty line increased by 0.05% over Reagan’s years.

    I can already hear you saying that he never balanced the budget, which is true. I just want you to take into account the fact that his method on handling the Soviets ended a cold war that had persisted since 1946. He obliterated the greatest threat the US has ever faced. Reagan ended the possibility of a war that, should it have occured, would have destroyed humanity as we know it.

    Now isn’t that worth 8 years of not having a balanced budget? So where is the argument when under Obama, the nation has experienced an increase in unemployment from 7.6% to 9.1% so far. His “job creation” is costing the US $1,000,000 PER JOB. His promise of “shovel ready” jobs for everyone in America has become a joke even to him and his promise that unemployment would not go over 8% is obviously BS as it now stands at 9.1%.

    4 years of Carter gave us 8 years of Reagan, I can only dream about what 4 years of Obama will give us.

  14. Michael Eden Says:

    Patrick,

    THAT is one ass-kicking assessment.

    While of course MANY liberals are just plain lazy useless and stupid failures who want someone else to pay their way, even the SMART ones are profoundly stupid. This is because they are committed to a depraved and foolish Marxist-based view of the world that has been proven to be a) evil and b) self-destructive every single time it has ever been tried.

    As you point out, tax revenues have gone UP every single time we have EVER cut the tax rates going back a hundred years. CUTTING TAX RATES MEANS MORE TAX REVENUE.

    Liberals respond by idiotically saying that if liberals spend that money, that it actually means that there was somehow less money to begin with.

    This is like my having no job, and then getting a job that pays me $20 million a year. And I buy five mansions, 100 sports cars, 3 yachts, etc. etc. etc. And then one day I realize that I’m in debt, and I conclude to myself, “You know, I was making more money when I didn’t even HAVE a job.” And so I quit my $20 million/year job and go back to live in my mommy’s basement.

  15. Wesley Dean Shipp Says:

    Actually the unemployment rate when adjusted was 8.5% when Obama took office. That was the accurate rate at the time of his swearing in. The other factors were that the rate was heading upward at a good pace when Obama took office officially. So early in 2009 the rate hit over 9% and the adjusted rate for that year was actually believed to be above 10%! Those are the facts given by many sources and still today if you use your reasoning abilities it’s not hard to understand that many believed the rate was actually near 20% if all factors were taken into account. So the rate is only accurate to the way it was arrived at, reality is always different than corporate figures which have many variables that they don’t publish. So when considering what the true rate of unemployement is, using reasoning ability is the only way to actually know the truth. Means you have to examine what part of the population was actually not signed up for unemployment at the time of consideration, those who had givin up looking or those who were kicked off unemployment because they used their full share. Then we have to ask ouselves what kind of wage was earned by those who were lucky enough to find work, mostly they were desperate and took whatever they could, that is why when you go to MC to get work you are competing with those who have college degrees and are making a wopping minimum wage instead of 60 to 100k a year like before. Who’s fault is that? Did Obama really cause all this by his little old lonesome? Does our government play a much larger role in the laws that are made than just one man or just one President? Who really is to blame? Remember when considering these questions that having knowledge of the way our government makes laws helps to come to an accurate decision. In other words, put aside the emotional blame issue and look at the real problem, no man made government can solve our many problems, greed always gets in the way, like Romney said, “it sucks to be poor”! And he is not about ot be fair when it comes to making money, he along with all the other 1% will make sure you don’t get back what you lost because it’s in their bank accounts now! WS

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    Bullcrap.

    The unemployment rate when Obama took office was 7.6%. The BLS IS the official source for unemployment numbers, and they declare you to be a liar.

    http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/feb/wk2/art02.htm
    February 10, 2009 (The Editor’s Desk is updated each business day.)

    Increase in unemployment rate in January 2009

    Both the number of unemployed persons (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 4.1 million and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.7 percentage points.

    That is a fact. You are a liar for trying to “adjust” it.

    So there really isn’t much of a point in my wasting another nanosecond reading the rest of your drivel given that you are already recklessly disregarding the truth from your very first words.

    You people just swim in an ocean filled with your own lies.

    What you are probably doing is conflating the official U-3 rate with some other measure in a deceitful attempt to falsely make it appear that the unemployment rate was worse than it actually was when Obama took office. But you are a liar. And the unemployment rate was truly 7.6% when Obama took office. Just as Bush’s overall unemployment rate was 5.26% when he left office. Just as you liberal turds who demonize Bush mock him and his economic policies when his “failed policies” ran CIRCLES around YOUR failed policies.

    Now get lost. You don’t get to tell documented lies on this blog twice.

  17. Joe VanEAton Says:

    I declare Michael Eden the smartest man online agree totally with you

  18. Joe VanEAton Says:

    When I have more time I will explain my reasons for my excellent thinking.

  19. Michael Eden Says:

    Joe VanEAton,

    Thanks for the kind words.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: