Well my exact claim was, "It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit." I didn't mention anything about part-time workers specifically. You brought that up. The links I provided proved my claim.
I brought that up because it represents a significant different. I asked you to show that the unemployed were counted in that way because that's the only way the numbers you were throwing around were relevant. The links you provided don't make that point. They say that our current measures underestimate the number of unemployment. You can still believe that's true without the 17 percent number being valid.
When I did start becoming more active Bush was held to the same standards that I hold Obama too.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since I don't know you that well and you seem like a good guy. I will say though that a lot of people who are throwing around the numbers you are were old enough to have clearly stated beleifts then and bashed liberals for "talking down the economy" for talking about underemployment using the same measures they consider "real unemployment" today.
Part-time workers being counted and those workers who have simply given up looking for a job would both be significant and relevant.
I appreciate the benefit of the doubt, and I'd say you're probably right. Much of the talk is partisan in nature. I, however, am not a Republican or a Democrat.
They're relevant, sure, but people working part-time who'd rather be working full-time have never been counted as part of the unemployed. And counting them in that way makes a huge difference in the data.