I'm not quite sure how to read that?? Have another beer brah.
No one is asking for a redefinition of unemployment. As with anything economic, people analyze the root causes. In May of 2016, a RECORD 94.7Million people were not in the workforce. And the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.6%, a THIRTY EIGHT year low.
In 2009, 80.5Million Americans weren't in the workforce. Under Bammy, that number rose by FIFTEEN MILLION.
"By almost every economic measure, America is better off than when I came here at the beginning of my presidency," said President Obama. "We cut unemployment in half, years before a lot of economists thought we would."
What is unemployment? It's been a long argument that the "definition" should include those so destitute, so hopeless at their prospects that they quit searching. They are truly the unemployed.
Anyway, by the current and limited definition, Bammy wasn't incorrect in saying the unemployment rate dropped. He was however putting out one fact that doesn't tell the whole story. Omitting workforce participation tells a greater, more accurate story. Alternative facts. One just not as complete as the other. Which "facts" you display (the thin, incomplete facts or the more complete overall picture of unemployment) depends on what side of the aisle you're on.
to refute something that they are reporting that has photographic evidence that what they are saying is correct. I will say this, anyone that has the balls to do that does indeed have a giant pair of stones swinging underneath him.
