I just read an article at Forbes purporting to demonstrate that Obama-nomics has been way more successful than Reagan-omics was. I should say, “I tried to read an article” cuz the author lost me with his very first graph, which claims to compare Reagan’s Unemployment Rate with Obama’s.
But President Clinton altered the parameters for calculating the Unemployment Rate to make his numbers look better when nothing had really changed. (E.g., he had certain classes of unemployed persons removed from the “Unemployment Rate” data set and shoveled into some other, obscure data set, like “Discouraged Workers.”)
You can’t legitimately compare pre-Clinton and post-Clinton Unemployment Rate data sets; they’re apples and oranges. But the Forbes author does it anyway, without a word of apology. In other words, he is deliberately lying with statistics to make Obama look better than he is. Where oh where is my surprised face?
So far as I know, the Percentage Employed criteria have not been changed, so comparing those for Reagan and Obama should give us some real data. Right off the bat it’s obvious that Reagan’s policies were better. Obama’s percent employed went down while Reagan’s went up. It’s kinda creepy how symmetrical the numbers are, isn’t it?
That Forbes article is named: “Obama outperforms Reagan on jobs growth.” That works only if by “jobs growth” the author means the exact opposite.
- Percent of Employable Americans with Jobs @ http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000