NON EMPLOYMENT rate at 41.6%, Obama Stimulus a Massive Failure

Confounded Interest ^ | 08/18/2012 | Anthony B. Sanders

[whitedog57]

There was an interesting article in Bloomberg on Friday entitled “U.S. Joblessness Rise Broad-Based as 44 States Show Gain.” that’s gain as in a rise in unemployment.

In a nutshell, the jobless rate has exceeded 8 percent for 42 consecutive months, the longest stretch in the post-World War II era.

Then there is the Gallop poll. Gallup’s Daily tracking of the unemployment situation is based on interviews with more than 30,000 adults over the 30 days ending Aug. 15, and shows essentially no change in the unadjusted unemployment rate at 8.3% compared to 8.2% in July. In turn, this suggests that the government’s unadjusted unemployment rate could increase to 8.7% in July from 8.6% in June.

So far, this is unwanted news. But add to the unemployment mayhem the chart from AEI’s Jim Pethokoukis:

There are at least two daunting facts in the chart. First, Obama predicted a 6% unemployment rate for July 2012 if there was NO STIMULUS. And 5.6% unemployment IF STIMULUS PASSED! $700 billion to get an anticipated 0.4% improvement in unemployment?

The second daunting fact is that the unemployment would be 11% as of July 2012 if labor force participation was the same as in January 2009 when President Obama took office.

The civilian employment to population ratio remains stuck at 58.4%, the levels of the Carter recession. Stated differently, we have a 41.6% NON EMPLOYMENT rate in the US.

All in all, the unemployment picture looks miserable. Hence, any housing recovery will be muted by the poor unemployment situation.

But at least Obama can take pride in the Mars landing that generated pictures of the Martian planet surface.

[whitedog57]

Charts are at the source. Good article.

[Focault's Pendulum]

[Dilbert San Diego]

The liberal view, for what it’s worth, is that Porkulus did some good, but it wasn’t enough.

The approx. $800 billion in Porkulus money was not enough, according to liberals. They say that Republicans in Congress forced them to reduce the amount of the bill, so that a watered down stimulus didn’t have the impact it could have.

Liberals are saying this, even though Porkulus passed in Feb. 2009 when Obama had full Democrat control of both House and Senate. It strains believeability that evil Republicans forced them to cut back Porkulus, but that’s the liberal line these days.

[Focault's Pendulum]

The last graph tells it all.

[Texas Fossil]

Real unemployment number (shadowstats.com alternate)

BLS has been cooking the books on the numbers. Note the divergence in the blue line (shadowstats) and the other two beginning in 2009.

Figures do not lie, but LIARS figure.

[UCANSEE2]

Obama Stimulus a Massive Failure

Which word doesn’t belong with the others ?

[krogers58]

My dream is that when Obama loses, a serious audit of all those “stimulus” funds is undertaken, and all those complicit in illegality are jailed. One can only imagine what 800 billion dollars, if spent efficiently, could have done.