Recovery?

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The fact is that Bush never needed to talk about the U3 or the U6. The fact is that BECAUSE unemployment is up under Obama he needs to talk about the lower value. It has nothing to do with BUSH (again). This is about Obama and the unemployment rate under the time Obama was in office. Bush was not running around spouting off about how low unemployment was with the lower value because he never had to do it. It was not a problem for him at the time. This whole issue about Bush and the U3 vs the U6 is a complete and total Straw man argument just like dragging DOMA and same sex union is a Straw man. You both lose again.

THIS, merc, is a straw man. Of course unemployment is up - a lot of jobs were lost before Obama took office, a lot were lost after. Maybe it IS legitimate to blame Obama for the current state of the economy. But THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID. Your argument, or at least your link's argument, is that Obama is actively manipulating the numbers, in a way that is dishonest and, more importantly, specific to his administration to make the situation look better than it is.
That. Is. Flat. Out. False. Obama is using the same (sorta-doctored-overly-rosy) data that has ALWAYS been the "standard" number used to define unemployment rates.

Find me ANY case of ANY president citing ANY unemployment statistic that isn't the U3. ONE SINGLE CASE of ANY sitting president citing anything but the U3 as the "unemployment number". Your argument (as i understand it based on your link) is that using the U3 the way the U3 has always been calculated is not only unfair and inaccurate but something Obama did to skew the numbers in his favor. You have not proven that is something Obama did in opposition to standard Presidential procedure.