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

[Stephanie]

-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

repeating your's isn't working so you might as well give it up..

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Ok, so you're admitting you cannot show any cause and effect between unemployment rates and Obama being in office.

IOW, your thread is pointless trolling. Obama Derangement Syndrome.

 

[DiamondDave]

-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

NOTHING I sated is a lie...

The employment rolls now are slightly higher than when he took office.. Labor participation rate is 0.1 off of a 30 year LOW
The stock market is artificially high with all that I said going on.. and the other gains have nothing to do with the President.... lest we forget how when the market was gaining with W, you and your ilk said the same exact thing
And the growth rate is below that of what would happen with no intervention... it is also indeed fact that this is the slowest or second slowest recovery since WWII

You are the one continually lying on this shit....

 

[westwall]

Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.

No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!

Talk about a dupe. He turned NOTHING around. The unemployment went down because people quit looking. I am amazed you can feed yourself...

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!

So you're admitting that it's pointless to compare unemployment rates from one president's term to another's since the domestic and international conditions are not the same.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.

No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!

Talk about a dupe. He turned NOTHING around. The unemployment went down because people quit looking. I am amazed you can feed yourself...

So losing 700,000 jobs a month vs. gaining 200,000 jobs a month is about people not looking for work?

lol, are you a mental retard?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

After Bush spent 12 billion a MONTH in Iraq for 5 years straight, that is your big Obama complaint?

lol you phoney fuck.

 

[DiamondDave]

Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.

No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!

Talk about a dupe. He turned NOTHING around. The unemployment went down because people quit looking. I am amazed you can feed yourself...

So losing 700,000 jobs a month vs. gaining 200,000 jobs a month is about people not looking for work?

lol, are you a mental retard?

Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject

Except that is not really true.. now is it???

Nor is WrongWinger's claim of 1MIL per month difference during his term....

Hmmm.. as stated.. not that many more employed now than when he took office.. and the labor participation rate is 0.1% above a 30 year low

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

After Bush spent 12 billion a MONTH in Iraq for 5 years straight, that is your big Obama complaint?

lol you phoney fuck.

Oppose the continuation of the war or not... Military is a charge of the federal government.. propping up private companies is not

 

[DiamondDave]

Game

Set

Match

Championship

 

[U2Edge]

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?

Obama stated that he would be able to keep unemployment from going above 8%.

 

[U2Edge]

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.........

He chose to take over an economy with negative GDP in 5 of the last 6 quarters

Here are the last 6 quarters prior to Obama taking over:

2007 03 2·9531
2007 04 1·7049
2008 01 -1.7652
2008 02 1.3241
2008 03 -3·6629
2008 04 -8·8903

So its NOT 5 of the last 6 quarters with negative GDP growth but 3 of the last 6.

 

[U2Edge]

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

53% of Americans don't even own stock. Yes, the Stock Market is doing well which means the RICH and the Wealthy are doing well.

 

[kwc57]

Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.

No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!

Again, your dog could direct this country to 2.5 percent growth. Record welfare, unemployment, fed pumping billions monthly into stock market, low gdp, 17 trillion in debt aren't exactly "turning it around". This is sub mediocre at best.

You're probably right, though one must consider the judgment of a dog that would stay with Franco.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Ok, so you're admitting you cannot show any cause and effect between unemployment rates and Obama being in office.

IOW, your thread is pointless trolling. Obama Derangement Syndrome.

I never said that. I said that its open to debate. What is not debatable is that while in office, Barack Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. Thats a fact, that most people including yourself were ignorant of but for I posted it. So, its not pointless, as you have become better informed thanks to the thread.

The only people who suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, are those that think Obama is not responsible for anything bad that happens while he is President.

This has to be the first time in US history where supporters of a President were willing to pass off anything bad happening while their guy was in office on a former President, even into his second term!

 

[kwc57]

Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.

No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!

Again, your dog could direct this country to 2.5 percent growth. Record welfare, unemployment, fed pumping billions monthly into stock market, low gdp, 17 trillion in debt aren't exactly "turning it around". This is sub mediocre at best.

You're probably right, though one must consider the judgment of a dog that would stay with Franco.

I'm thinking franco is more of a cat person.......you know, the kind that has a feces encrusted house with 73 cats.

 

[U2Edge]

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!

So you're admitting that it's pointless to compare unemployment rates from one president's term to another's since the domestic and international conditions are not the same.

Not at all. The fact still remains is that was what the job market was like on average under each President. These comparisons are made all the time, and will continue to be made well into the future. Unfortunately for Obama, his record on this account is the worst since World War II, and will likely still be the worst once he leaves office. Be prepared to have that brought up and compared for decades to come!

 

[U2Edge]

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?

After Bush spent 12 billion a MONTH in Iraq for 5 years straight, that is your big Obama complaint?

lol you phoney fuck.

Money well spent and I might add, total US defense spending as a percentage of GDP for defense and the wars while Bush was President, was less than total US defense spending during the peacetime of the 1980s as a percentage of GDP!

 

[kaz]

Stupid talking points and ridiculous insults- the dupes' repertoire lol...

Obama never had a real job, what made you think he could create one?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.

No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!

Again, your dog could direct this country to 2.5 percent growth. Record welfare, unemployment, fed pumping billions monthly into stock market, low gdp, 17 trillion in debt aren't exactly "turning it around". This is sub mediocre at best.

You're probably right, though one must consider the judgment of a dog that would stay with Franco.