Skip to main content

Misleading Facebook post regarding unemployment numbers

Following President Obama's State of the Union Address and his claim that our nation is "stronger," I've seen several posts on Facebook from Republican friends of mine about this claim. What has their focus been on exactly? The unemployment rate, where they showcased that we've had more months of being at over 8.0% unemployment under President Obama than we had in all the years before him since 1948.

These numbers may be true on the surface, but once again, don't tell the whole story. The unemployment rate was 4.6% on January 1st of 2007, 5.0% on January 1st of 2008, and 7.7% on January 1st of 2009, just before Obama took the reigns away from George W. Bush. See which way those numbers are moving? Obama was then handed the keys to the car which was going 90 mph and inching ever closer to a cliff. The unemployment rate continued to increase at an unheard of rate (outside of the Great Depression) to 9.7% as of January 1st of 2010. However, the unemployment rate has decreased in each of the past three years - to 9.0% on January 1st of 2011, 8.3% on January 1st of 2012, and 7.9% on January 1st of 2013. Things continue to gradually be getting better, so this trend should continue.

Do these Republicans seriously believe that if Bush had stayed in office or John McCain had defeated Obama in the 2008 election, they would have been able to magically hold the unemployment rate under 8.0% throughout the course of the next four years? One key factor in the slowing down of job losses and gradually reversing the trend was the passing of the stimulus package. What are the chances that Bush or McCain would have passed and signed a similar stimulus? It's possible, I suppose, but I don't think it's all too likely, at least at the fairly early stage that Obama got it signed. Even if they did get a stimulus bill passed and signed, is there any chance it would have been a larger package than the one Obama signed? That's highly unlikely. In other words, it's very likely that if a Republican were in office from the years of 2008-2012, the unemployment rate would have been just as high if not higher than what it has been these past four years.

Every economist and historian called this the worst recession since The Great Depression. Some even went as far as to say it was a depression, but most have called it The Great Recession. This recession started under Republican President George W. Bush. Lucky for him, he stepped out of office just when things were about to get really bad. Of course, many Republicans will say, "As of January 20th of 2009, Obama is the president, so he's responsible for everything from this point forward!" In a way, that's true, but how can one be held responsible for another's decisions which have placed him at a temporary disadvantage? When a college football team has been awful for many years and they hire a new coach, who goes 1-11 in his first year there, and 2-10 in his second year, is he to be fully blamed for those poor records? No. We'll only be able to fairly grade the guy if we give him time to recruit, coach, and see what kind of improvements are made. If the team goes winless in the third or fourth year, then chances are he's not the right guy for the job and they may want to look elsewhere. However, if he takes the team to a 4-8 and 6-6 record, significant improvements would have been made and it would seem painfully obvious that the combined 3-21 record in the first couple years as coach at the school were much more the doing of the previous coach than his. Under President Obama, the economy has stabilized some, and been gradually improving (getting "stronger"), as we've gone from a 9.7% unemployment rate to 7.9%.

Of course, this Facebook post conveniently leaves out the numbers from The Great Depression years. Monthly unemployment numbers only started being recorded in 1948. However, there are still annual unemployment numbers we can look at when The Great Depression hit this country. Franklin D. Roosevelt was president from 1933, when The Great Depression was at its peak, until 1945. The unemployment rate was at 25.0% in 1933 (up from 8.7% in 1930). It decreased quite substantially to 14.3% as of 1936, before increasing following spending cuts in 1937 to 19.0%. However, by 1942, the unemployment rate had fallen to 4.7%. How many months was the U.S. at or above 8.0% unemployment during the Franklin D. Roosevelt years? Many more than we've experienced under Obama. However, under his leadership, he helped this country get things turned around, and is ranked as the 3rd best president in the history of the United States according to 65 historians and professional observers. So, anytime Republicans want to bring up those numbers again, simply point at a picture of Franklin D. Roosevelt and walk away.

http://www.multpl.com/unemployment/table

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/14/phil-gingrey/unemployment-rate-comparable-great-depression-cong/

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29216774/#.URz2Xmf-W5I

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"