The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

But Bushed caused the unemployment, and the GOP House has stopped future stimulus.

Most Americans realize this, which is why Mitt lost. Mittens is part of the party most Americans hold responsible for the unemployment, and so they justifiably defeated him.

Conservatives only have themselves to blame.
 
Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

You obviously care given that you responded.

Because it occured while the President was in office. You can debate till the cows come home about the Presidents impact on the economy during his whole time in office, but the fact remains, these were the unemployment conditions for Americans while they were in office.

Obama at 53 months has the worst record since World War II. By the time he is at 96 months and leaves office, he may very well still have the worst average unemployment record since World War II.

So if anything that happens during a president's tenure is the president's fault then we can blame the explosive increase in AIDs cases in the 1980's on Ronald Reagan.
 
Last edited:
The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?

It wasn't the greatest until after we had 5 years of Obama's economic policies.

The economy 5 years after Obama took office is worse than it was when he first took office? :cuckoo:

Damn, son, your Obama Derangement Syndrome is really bad.
 
The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

Not unexpected. Obama is incompetent.

-Geaux
 
Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

You obviously care given that you responded.

Because it occured while the President was in office. You can debate till the cows come home about the Presidents impact on the economy during his whole time in office, but the fact remains, these were the unemployment conditions for Americans while they were in office.

Obama at 53 months has the worst record since World War II. By the time he is at 96 months and leaves office, he may very well still have the worst average unemployment record since World War II.

If you're claiming a cause and effect relationship then the best presidential policy model for employment must be Lyndon Johnson's,

you remember, the guy who started Medicare and Medicaid and the president most closely identified with the war on poverty.
 
The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

But Bushed caused the unemployment, and the GOP House has stopped future stimulus.

Most Americans realize this, which is why Mitt lost. Mittens is part of the party most Americans hold responsible for the unemployment, and so they justifiably defeated him.

Conservatives only have themselves to blame.

Ah yes, lets blame the President who has the most months of any President in US history of unemployment rates below 6% for the worst average unemployment rate since World War II?

Will Hillary Clinton also get to blame Bush when she becomes President in four years for her economic problems? How about the next President after that?
 
Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

You obviously care given that you responded.

Because it occured while the President was in office. You can debate till the cows come home about the Presidents impact on the economy during his whole time in office, but the fact remains, these were the unemployment conditions for Americans while they were in office.

Obama at 53 months has the worst record since World War II. By the time he is at 96 months and leaves office, he may very well still have the worst average unemployment record since World War II.

So if anything that happens during a president's tenure is the president's fault then we can blame the explosive increase in AIDs cases in the 1980's on Ronald Reagan.

You can sure debate it. There are definitely bed-wetting liberals out there that do blame Reagan for the exlposive increase in Aids cases in the 1980s. Whether or not they deserve the blame is another matter.
 
Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

You obviously care given that you responded.

Because it occured while the President was in office. You can debate till the cows come home about the Presidents impact on the economy during his whole time in office, but the fact remains, these were the unemployment conditions for Americans while they were in office.

Obama at 53 months has the worst record since World War II. By the time he is at 96 months and leaves office, he may very well still have the worst average unemployment record since World War II.

If you're claiming a cause and effect relationship then the best presidential policy model for employment must be Lyndon Johnson's,

you remember, the guy who started Medicare and Medicaid and the president most closely identified with the war on poverty.

That is not what Lyndon Johnson is primarily known for. Medicare and Medicaid were relatively small programs back in the 60s compared to today. The best way Johnson fought the war on poverty was by achieving high employment levels through fighting the Vietnam war as well as continuing the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Average defense spending during this time was over 10% of GDP. Millions of men were drafted or volunteered while he was in office. Women were still primarily stay at home moms. The result is the lowest average unemployment rate in US history!
 
The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

Thats horrible.....Did Obama get to choose what the unemployment rate would be when he took office?
 
Did Obama get to choose what the unemployment rate would be when he took office?

yes he did CHOOSE it when HE decided he should RUN for President..
but what did we expect from a JUNIOR SENATOR who never ran anything in his life..
Just more lame excuses for this man.........
 
I wouldn't consider just 4 million jobs added since 2010 to May 2013 an improvement. We need more like 20 to 30 million new jobs to get back on the right track, especially in manufacturing and production.
 
with Obama, mediocre is OK for those who voted for him...as long as he gives lip service about how he cares and is looking out for the, little people under him..

how sad for our country this a ACCEPTABLE now...if this had been a Republican President...he would be crucified..
 
Did Obama get to choose what the unemployment rate would be when he took office?

yes he did CHOOSE it when HE decided he should RUN for President..
but what did we expect from a JUNIOR SENATOR who never ran anything in his life..
Just more lame excuses for this man.........

Yes he sure did..

He chose to take over an economy that was LOSING 750,000 jobs a month
He chose to take ove an economy with its stock market in collapse
He chose to take over an economy with negative GDP in 5 of the last 6 quarters


For a JUNIOR SENATOR

He is adding close to a million jobs a month more thann he started with
He has DOUBLED the stock market
He has had positive growth for 16 straight quarters
 
Did Obama get to choose what the unemployment rate would be when he took office?

yes he did CHOOSE it when HE decided he should RUN for President..
but what did we expect from a JUNIOR SENATOR who never ran anything in his life..
Just more lame excuses for this man.........

Yes he sure did..

He chose to take over an economy that was LOSING 750,000 jobs a month
He chose to take ove an economy with its stock market in collapse
He chose to take over an economy with negative GDP in 5 of the last 6 quarters


For a JUNIOR SENATOR

He is adding close to a million jobs a month more thann he started with
He has DOUBLED the stock market
He has had positive growth for 16 straight quarters

He has not added 48+ million jobs
He has not doubled the stock market... and perhaps you should look at the issues with the stock market due to increased money printing, etc...
The growth rate is less than that if there were no government intervention into a recovery

But don't let those little things get in the way of your worship
 
yes he did CHOOSE it when HE decided he should RUN for President..
but what did we expect from a JUNIOR SENATOR who never ran anything in his life..
Just more lame excuses for this man.........

Yes he sure did..

He chose to take over an economy that was LOSING 750,000 jobs a month
He chose to take ove an economy with its stock market in collapse
He chose to take over an economy with negative GDP in 5 of the last 6 quarters


For a JUNIOR SENATOR

He is adding close to a million jobs a month more thann he started with
He has DOUBLED the stock market
He has had positive growth for 16 straight quarters

He has not added 48+ million jobs
He has not doubled the stock market... and perhaps you should look at the issues with the stock market due to increased money printing, etc...
The growth rate is less than that if there were no government intervention into a recovery

But don't let those little things get in the way of your worship

-750,000 jobs to +160,000 jobs a month is a net change of close to 1 million
Stock market was at 8150 in Jan 2009 it is over 16,000 today
Your "what ifs" on the growth rate are rightwing fantasies
 
Yes he sure did..

He chose to take over an economy that was LOSING 750,000 jobs a month
He chose to take ove an economy with its stock market in collapse
He chose to take over an economy with negative GDP in 5 of the last 6 quarters


For a JUNIOR SENATOR

He is adding close to a million jobs a month more thann he started with
He has DOUBLED the stock market
He has had positive growth for 16 straight quarters

He has not added 48+ million jobs
He has not doubled the stock market... and perhaps you should look at the issues with the stock market due to increased money printing, etc...
The growth rate is less than that if there were no government intervention into a recovery

But don't let those little things get in the way of your worship

-750,000 jobs to +160,000 jobs a month is a net change of close to 1 million
Stock market was at 8150 in Jan 2009 it is over 16,000 today
Your "what ifs" on the growth rate are rightwing fantasies

There are barely more employed today than what were employed the month before he took office
The stock market is trumped up after additional money printing, bailouts, etc... And gains beyond that have nothing to do with stock market.. lest we not forget the recovery that had to start after the huge drops due to the Clinton era bubble burst, 9/11, etc... but back to the fact that the President does not ultimately cause ups or downs in the market
THE GROWTH RATE IS BELOW THAT WHICH WOULD NORMALLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO NO INTERVENTION WHATSOEVER.. AND THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN NUMEROUS TIMES... as a matter of fact the 'recovery' under Obama is the slowest or second slowest since WWII (depending on which numbers you look at).. the economy remains weak... call us when there is over 3% sustained growth (and you won't be calling us with these policies in place)
 
Last edited:
Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

Then my tax dollars Obama tossed at Solyndra were for what exactly?
 
He has not added 48+ million jobs
He has not doubled the stock market... and perhaps you should look at the issues with the stock market due to increased money printing, etc...
The growth rate is less than that if there were no government intervention into a recovery

But don't let those little things get in the way of your worship

-750,000 jobs to +160,000 jobs a month is a net change of close to 1 million
Stock market was at 8150 in Jan 2009 it is over 16,000 today
Your "what ifs" on the growth rate are rightwing fantasies

There are barely more employed today than what were employed the month before he took office
The stock market is trumped up after additional money printing, bailouts, etc... And gains beyond that have nothing to do with stock market.. lest we not forget the recovery that had to start after the huge drops due to the Clinton era bubble burst, 9/11, etc... but back to the fact that the President does not ultimately cause ups or downs in the market
THE GROWTH RATE IS BELOW THAT WHICH WOULD NORMALLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO NO INTERVENTION WHATSOEVER.. AND THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN NUMEROUS TIMES... as a matter of fact the 'recovery' under Obama is the slowest or second slowest since WWII (depending on which numbers you look at).. the economy remains weak... call us when there is over 3% sustained growth (and you won't be calling us with these policies in place)

Repeating your lies does not make them true
 

Forum List

Back
Top