All? 7.4 million, down from 15.4 million in Oct 2009, a decline of 52%.
It's easy to have a high approval rating, when almost the entire mass communications are allies of your political party.
How does that cause unemployment to fall?
it's still a pretty tepid recovery with a 1-2% GDP growth, a lower than most recent administrations.
They didn't inherit the worst economy since the Great Depression. Why did the previous administration grow the economy at just 1.76% annually?
>>While Obama seems to be oblivious to it, his White House can't explain it in any meaningful and satisfactory way.
I'd say they can, and easily. I just did.
>>I think I'd revise your own news feeds to more honest and less partisan ones
What's partisan about reporting a poll result?
"About 2.1 million Americans have been unable to get a job for over half a year."
Depends on what you mean by "about." The figure in May was 1,885,000, down 72% from Apr 2010. That number was higher from Apr 2003 — Mar 2004, and it was higher from May 1982 — Feb 1993, both when the civilian labor force was much smaller. Bush43 had it at 2.1 million in June 2003, 1.4% of the labor force, and Reagan had it at 2.9 million in June 1983, 2.6% of the labor force. It's now 1.2%. Sixty percent of the 7.4 million unemployed have been looking for less than fifteen weeks, and thirty percent less than five weeks.
>>"the reality is wage growth is only 2.5% a year. As Sharon Stark of D.A. Davidson notes, normally when unemployment is this low, wage growth should be humming along at about 4% a year."
It's true that wages haven't been increasing at the rate they did 2003-06, but otoh we're not in a housing bubble that's gonna lead to a severe, eighteen-month-long recession. And the rise is slower than what we had 1986-88, but that was followed by a five-year stretch in which the rate of increase fell back down under three percent and stayed there. I will agree that for the economy's performance to be acceptable on this measure, we need to keep climbing and achieve annual increases of three to four percent.
>>Just because Lord Obama and his cronies "say" the economy is great doesn't mean it "is."
And just because Obummer-haters "say" the economy is lousy doesn't mean it "is."
>>Our government's "unemployment rate" is tragically manipulated and sterilized.
In what sense?
So basically, you're saying "that article is full of lies, and MY articles are all genuine," right?
The numbers are what they are. And you were rather selective in yer excerpts. For example, that article explained the drop in LFPR pretty much along the same lines as upsideguy.
The economy is better than it was in the Great Recession, but not even President Obama is ready to declare it's booming. In a special speech Friday touting the job gains during his presidency, Obama admitted there's more "to tackle."
"This progress is finally starting to translate into bigger paychecks," he said.
"I don't think we're at normal yet," says Sharon Stark, an investment strategist at D.A. Davidson.
So I'd say yer peddling a weak and slanted argument. The GOP SSE Great Recession seriously damaged the economy and nearly led to a worldwide depression. The Negro president's patient, steady leadership in the face of bitter partisan opposition that showed little if any concern for the welfare of the American people has helped bring us back from the abyss, and we are now much better positioned and will hopefully spurn the destructive Republican policies that have piled up a mountain of debt and created two deep recessions in the past thirty-five years.