Obama: Too much debt could fuel double-dip recession

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's right. Would you have preferred doing nothing and we right now being in a deep depression? Unemployment 18-20%? It's obviously not black and white. There's not an economist I've seen that has said the stimulus hasn't helped, nor that it won't continue to help.

The actual real unemployment rate right now is closer to 17-18% right now, since unemployment numbers do not count people that are unemployed that are not eligible for any more benefits. There is a way to create jobs and GOVT Spending has never been a good solution for this.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

The actual real unemployment rate right now is closer to 17-18% right now, since unemployment numbers do not count people that are unemployed that are not eligible for any more benefits.

Yes, and the actual "real" unemployment rate previously has been 8% when it is reported as 4%, etc. Everyone knows that. The unemployment numbers used always do not count them. But using the same numbers, calculated the same way, as we have always measured unemployment rates, makes sense when comparing, hum?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, and the actual "real" unemployment rate previously has been 8% when it is reported as 4%, etc. Everyone knows that. The unemployment numbers used always do not count them. But using the same numbers, calculated the same way, as we have always measured unemployment rates, makes sense when comparing, hum?

So you the unemployment rate really isnt that bad? Or are you trying to say that in times of 4% unemployment there are the same % of workers who dont find work after thier benefits run out as there is in times of 10% unemployment?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So you the unemployment rate really isnt that bad? Or are you trying to say that in times of 4% unemployment there are the same % of workers who dont find work after thier benefits run out as there is in times of 10% unemployment?

Geeshus, none of the freekin' above. I'm saying exactly what I said: that the employment rate has historically been calculated in a certain way, everybody knows what the number includes and what it doesn't, and to try and keep saying, "Yes, but" at this point, calculating it a different way at this point in time, simply to make it seem even larger, is silly.

It's large enough calculated the way it has always been, using it to compare historically with other periods of high unemployment, and everybody knows what it does and doesn't include in that context.