The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
#1759
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
You are trying to use one number for the rest, and another for Obama if you want to argue that.
Seriously, to try to argue that we should use different unemployment numbers under Obama then we have for every president since Bush Sr/Clinton is disingenuous at best.
P.S. The U6 number in 2001 was over 20%. U6 doesn't mean much in this context.
#1760
Boost Czar
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/admin.png)
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,607
Total Cats: 4,102
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
it doesn't matter about them. all that matters is the current rate is bonkers and not good.
but your facts are wrong:
7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
u6 rate jan - dec 2001. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Unemployment Rate - U6 - 1994 - 2012
but your facts are wrong:
7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
u6 rate jan - dec 2001. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Unemployment Rate - U6 - 1994 - 2012