IcebergSlim
Diamond Member
- Oct 11, 2013
- 10,886
- 9,142
Ah, yes, the golden days of Clinton. True, Obama is not Clinton when it comes to adding jobs, but he's no Bush either.Riiight ... because the BLS changed their methodologies when Obama became president.First off, may FDR rot in torment. Worst president ever. right up there with bamma, carter and booosh. anyway, from the Clinton years into the Bush years, joblessness was not the issue it is now. Speaking of Bush, I seem to remember they tried counting McDonalds and temp jobs as full time employment. He got a ton of crap for that, yet, here is Barry O saying fast food and walmart is gainful employment ? Libs are stupid, never figured yall were that stupid.
You have no concept of how employment figures are counted. They are reported the same as they have been for decades
Meh. I know people were happy during Clinton and Bush, during Obama most i know have had two or more jobs in any year since 2008. How ever they are counted they are bullshit.![]()
Dont know. but the fact remains, more people are unemployed or are underemployed now then there were 16 years ago. Likely why sone are a bit put off at the prospect of four more years of Bamma.
There were 15.4 million people under/unemployed (U-6 rate) when they first started the current methodology in 1994.
There were 10.5 million when Clinton left office.
There 21.9 million when Bush left office.
There were 25.5 million at the end of Bush's Great Recession.
There are 15.4 million today.
___________________________________
Numberwise, there are 15.4 million under/unemployed, just as there was in January, 1994 ... only now the civilian non-institutional population is 29% larger.
Just looking at that, one would be obliged to conclude that Scrub really sucked....