Ouch.

Government is paying out unemployment benefite at a rate that suggests that either the unemployed just got a big raise, or the actual unemployment rate (U-3)is around 13%.

Are these books being cooked? You bet!

Should be HIGHER - like 17.3%. After all, since "every vote counts"; how about including those who've given up trying to find work - because there isn't any.

Wow, Hope & Change is off the charts! Whoo Hoo!

Thanks Comrade Ogabe!

Axis should start from 0, not 3.5.

Structurally 0% unemployment is pretty much impossible. Then again 20 years ago economists would have said that unemployment rates as low as we saw in the Clinto and Bush years would have been impossible so who knows?

It would be interesting to see the real unemployment graphed over that same time period. It would also be interesting to see a graphic of average duration of unemployment. Not only is it higher than we've seen in many years, but the average length is much longer than in the past.

Let's be honest here. By the time Jan 2009 rolled around that hockey blade was well under formation. Not Barry's fault for that, nor for most of 2009 for that matter. Jobs aren't created instantly. It will take time to work off the excesses (e.g. mortgages = ATMs) of the 00's.

The reason I said start from 0, is that cherry-picking the range is often used to accentuate the amplitude of a trend you are intending to demonstration, a trick for which global warming alarmists are rightfully derided.

What I want to see is a graph of Obama name-recognition percentages over the same period... it'll also be a hockey stick... maybe even the same shape!

Hmmmm? Really seem's to have spiked since Day1 arrived?

Matt, the general assumption in economics is that it takes about 9 months to effect a change in the economy. By that measure Barry has owned this economy for a full quarter already. When you take into account that he was for virtually all the economic moves that Bush made from October onward he has owned this economy for over half a year already.

Add to that the fact that many economists have suggested that his moves such as the stimulus etc are doing nothing but prolonging the recession (just as it is widely viewed that similar actions taken by FDR did the same to the great depression)

Like it or not Obama is in charge and the current state of the economy is fully his responsibility. If his plans has actually worked then unemployment would have turned around by now instead of continuing to rise. He doesn't know what he is doing. He doesn't understand a free market economy, he understands and believes in socialism where he can just order people to be employed and that's that.

And let's not forget that back in 2005 when republicans were warning of financial problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it was the dems like Frank and Dodd who publicly stated that there were no problems and that the GOP was just fear mongering. If anyone owns that part of the current mess it is the democrats and no one else.

Matt wrote:

Let's be honest here. By the time Jan 2009 rolled around that hockey blade was well under formation. Not Barry's fault for that, nor for most of 2009 for that matter. Jobs aren't created instantly. It will take time to work off the excesses (e.g. mortgages = ATMs) of the 00's.

Look, bandwidth is limited. Just post "It's Bush's fault" from here on out, since you can't think of anything meaningful to say.

Reagan was president it got up to 10.8

You have to take into consideration that we were on the verge of another great depression as Obama took office. During the great depression it was as high as 24.9%.

Oh nooooooo!!!

Hide the ascent!!!!!

:-)

Tina S: "Reagan was president it got up to 10.8"

Bless you 'Tina S' (not something you hear a lot, eh?)

Yup...it did! Reagan "inherited" a crappy economy from Carter...and then TURNED IT AROUND. How? By CUTTING taxes, stimulating growth, and encouraging America to PRODUCE!

Obama "inherited" a crappy economy from Bush...and is DRIVING IT INTO THE GROUND by implementing crushing new entitlement programs and "fundamentally transforming the United States of America".

Big diff...eh?

One SAVED America (Reagan), and one is "DAMNING AMERICA" (Obama)

So Tina, what are you going to say when the unemployment rate continues in the teens? That it's all Bush's fault? Drink some more Kool Aid. Won't make you any smarter, but will probably make you feel better.

As long as Barry and Company tinker with their "redistributionist economic theories" businesses will continue to refrain from hiring/expanding. No need to worry though. Barry and Company will just EXPAND GOVERNMENT. Unfortunately government doesn't create wealth, it just spends it.

Ain't Obamanomics WONDERFUL?

If one looks at the chart and pays attention to when Obama took office you will see most of the rise took place while Bush was president.

Tina, if you pay attention, you will note that the rise starts just as Pelosi and Reid took over Congress. And it accelerates under Obama.

The other thing one must pay attention to is that much of our economy is driven by consumer confidence. As the campaign swung into gear and we began to relize that Obama was going to be president, consumer confidence tanked. Consumer confidence also tanked because the liberal press told us it was in order to elect Obama.

Obama, Reid, and Pelosi OWN this crappy economy, not Bush.

Tina...typical for a liberal....make pronouncements but refuse to look at the context.

Democrats are responsible for the Freddy Mac/Fanny Mae which had a lot to do with the financial problems which led to the unemployment numbers.

You also have to consider that the Democrats were the majority in 2006-2008, and Obama was part of the senate which makes him liable for all the ways that the senate impacted the unmployment numbers. Include that businesses quit hiring as least by the end of September 2008 because they knew that what Obama planned-health care, cap and trade, increased taxes-would financially make things difficult for them. Even just the uncertainty of his plans made those businesses quit hiring. There was quite an increase just from September 2008 to January 2009 when Obama officially took office.

Obama also agreed with what President Bush did from a finacial standpoint from that September to January.

But Tina only wants us to look at the chart and not look at all the ways Obama is responsible for the unemployment even while he was not the President.

Unemployment rate Bush entered office 3.9 %
Unemployment rate Bush left office 7.4 %

I only point out the mess (domestic & internationall) Obama inherited when people on the right blame Obama for it. Why is that none of you republicans can accept any blame?

Tina

"If one looks at the chart and pays attention to when Obama took office you will see most of the rise took place while Bush was president."

"
Unemployment rate Bush entered office 3.9 %
Unemployment rate Bush left office 7.4 %"

Unemployment when Obama took office 7.4%
Unemployment now 10%.

See how that goes Tina.

Also didnt Obama say words to the effect that if the stimulus was passed that unemployment wouldnt go above 8%.

Thanks for playing dizbang.

Gotta love libtards that have to look to the past to justify their messiah destroying America.

Tina, Obama has surpassed Carter in the history of the worst presidents and like he says, "You ain't seen nuthin yet".

Your dreamy leader is just getting started and when you are collecting unemployment soon, you will wonder why you and the rest of the 52% voted for change.

It's entirely proper to base the graph at 3.5% unemployment because that is the level that most economists consider "full employment." You can't maintain unemployment any lower without creating labor shortages. A certain number of people are always out of work and looking - students coming into the work force, women who left to have kids, people changing careers, etc. It just doesn't get lower than 3.5%, and when it does on rare occasion, it is not good news.

Funny how the Obamorons want their guy to get a nine months lag on economic responsibility . . . how long did they give Bush, or Reagan? Not to mention, as noted above, Obama supported the Bush policies in the last quarter of 2008, and Bush even first intervened with the auto manufacturers at Obama's urging. Do they not remember Obama's claims for the "stimulus" package? Oh, well, it's rather much to expect consistency from a pack of weaselly America-hating, terrorist-coddling, lying leftist traitors like the Obamorons.

Tina S "You have to take into consideration that we were on the verge of another great depression as Obama took office."

Geesh, nothing like grasping on one of the "great" talking points the left turds have used for a year.

What's the matter, did you forget the one about the worst economy since the Great Depression? [while forgetting about Carter's years]

I'd gladly take back me assertion if and when your show empirical proof we were on the
"cusp of another depression."

'Til then you're nothing more than a walking talking talking point.

Psst tina s "President Clinton took office in 1993, when huge budget deficits weighed heavily on the markets and the economy. Clinton's turn away from liberal spending to balancing the budget brought confidence back to the markets. When telecom and the Internet took off three years later, the economy ignited."

So, there's on of your libturd icons doing what needed to be done, cutting the national debt.

When will obama do the same.

I contend next to never.

Tina S is not a professional economist so she has no right to an opinion on the economy. Tina S is not a professional historian so she has no right to an opinion on political history. Tina S is not a professional chart reader so she has no right to an opinion on the meaning of a chart.

These are all complicated processes, like AGW, too complicated for any lay person to understand. Even a flyover country hick like me knows that.

At the time Reagan took office, we were dealing with severe stagflation. Fed Chief Volker solved this by increasing the interest rates to in order to choke off the inflation - which also had the effect of further slowing the economy (hence the high unemployed).

So simply blurting 'Reagan had 10% unemployment' ignores the context. Barry's not facing 10+% unemployment due to cure stagflation but because of the threat of increased taxes and general uncertainty his amateurish handling of the duties of President is causing.

Wait till January's number are in...This isnt going to improve anytime soon.

Im beginning to think Affirmative action does'nt work.

"[When] Reagan was president it got up to 10.8 [percent]"

Funny you should mention that. The Clinton administration changed how unemployment was measured because a bogus lower number would help them win reelection in 1994. If unemployment was measured today the same way it was in 1981 -- it would be 17.3 percent, the U6 figure that the White House and its lapdog media so studiously ignores. This figure should break 20 percent by the midterm elections.

And just wait until the economy is crushed by 4 to 5 dollar gasoline starting in April. Hopefully Barry's teleprompter will know what to do.

On the upside if there is one, look at all the lost tax revenue Barry and the dems have foregone on their search to a socialist workers paradise.

"And just wait until the economy is crushed by 4 to 5 dollar gasoline starting in April. Hopefully Barry's teleprompter will know what to do."

It wont and He has no clue.

He will never attempt to cut taxe's, use our own energy 200 year supply or defer His BIG socialist utopia agenda. He either get's a quick boot in the ass or were in for 3 more years of an unimagined misery index..

This is the kind of hockey stick that the liberal will want to keep hidden

Reagan was president it got up to 10.8

Reagan pull america out of that wretched UNESCO we need to entirly pull out of the UN

Were going to need another few levels of graph to keep up with Barry's next few years.

And this time, no one is fudging the data.

"Howeve, in typical fashion, the presentation of the data is skewed/fudged. The scale goes from 4 to 10, not 0 to 10, to make the hockey stick effect look more pronounced."r

ARE YOU SAYIN AL GORE LIES??