I think you do not understand that most Republicans have a different definition of "unemployment" than you do. Republicans believe in "underemployment," for instance. That's the idea that there's been a net LOSS of employment if a full-time employee becomes a part-time employee. And, under Former-President Obama, there was a huge increase in PART-TIME employees. You liberals don't recognize or question that.
Republicans are also aware of "discouraged workers" - that is, people SUCH AS YOURSELF who have left the workforce because they cannot find work. Admittedly, you never really had a job and therefore didn't truly leave the workforce, but I think you still fall into this category. Remember how, before the Obama administration, you used to tell us about the occasional caretaking stints you were getting? Now you don't get them anymore. Granted, it might have something to do with the time that you forgot to feed the baby that was in your care, but it also might have to do with Obama and policies that made it just a little bit harder for working parents to go out on the town and hire a babysitter.
"Discouraged workers" are not treated as "unemployed" by the federal government. Government only counts people who are actively receiving unemployment benefits. Once those benefits end, the people are no longer considered "unemployed." Does THAT seem right to you? It sure doesn't to Republicans.
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't consider it to be a wash when an American is replaced by an Illegal, either. But our government does - when it reports unemployment as a percent and not as an actual number. See, the unemployment rate can fall even as the number who are unemployed grow. That's how math works. You know - the math you never took because of your little 10th grade "incident."
Just thought I'd help. Let us know if you have any questions. This IS an open board, you know. Feel free to pipe up. Unlike our opinions on your board, reasoned dissent does not frighten this board's regulars.
| 
