You can't really criticize or praise the President on the basis of the economy, he hasn't really had much of a hand in the recovery since the stimulus ended (admittedly, that was when the economy was at its most unstable point). Ben Bernanke can claim far more responsibility via his monetary policies for the existing growth and unemployment rate.
Furthermore, 6% U3 and 2-3% rGDP growth is quite "average" for the U.S. historically, and because unemployment is going down, the Republicans probably do not find it worthwhile to invest the creation of a doom and gloom atmosphere based on the economy. There are many other issues that they can attack the President on, such as his diplomatic crises, achieving far better results with far less effort.
@airshocker said:
It could also be argued that the only reason the economy is doing as well as it is is because of Republican efforts in the house at stopping legislation by Democrats
Yes, that "could be argued", and it would be incorrect. Congressional Republicans have consistently blocked fiscal stimulus efforts, threatened to default on the debt ceiling in favour of tiny spending cuts, promoted an ideological, impractical, economically baseless mantra of debt reduction above all other goals, .etc. Literally all of these actions are detrimental to a recessed economy, by damaging consumer and investor confidence and income. This weakens aggregate demand, which in turn reduces economic and employment growth.
@airshocker said:
You mean "we need lower underemployment rates"?
My only gripe is that the number purposefully gets ignored by every administration. I feel if one number is going to get mentioned, then the other one does too. Not doing so seems disingenuous to me.
It doesn't mean anything. U6 is higher than U3 because it is a broader, more expansive definition of unemployment. It is similar to how "White Americans" is a much larger number than "German Americans". Most administrations and economists simply don't see the point in using a measure that reflects the exact same trends as U3, when both historical precedent and global convention shows blatantly that U3 is the preferred measure.
Log in to comment