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

[Dagosa]

HA! Watching your head explode and go on a million tangents is a lot of fun, thanks.

Meanwhile, since Trump said in 2004 that economy seems to do better under Democrats...nothing changed.

Economy posted solid growth under Democrats Obama and Biden, while both Bush W. and Trump presidencies ended in historic recessions.

Better luck next time bub.

Yup, it’s not rocket science. In reality, you’re voting for policies and a party, and not a person. The right has no policies that are supported by a majority of Americans….so why are we talking about Trump vs Biden ? If people don’t like , infrastructure, student loan forgiveness, climate change mitigation, pro choice etc, then vote Republican. That’s why we don’t have Roe v Wade anymore. The right wants you to vote for “ people” and not policies. You can always make one person preferable over another, but you can’t change what they have done with policy

 

[Flopper]

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%

In case you have forgotten your history, the high unemployment rate during the Obama administration was the direct result of the great recession that was underway before he took office. The same situation occurred with most of the very high unemployment on your list.

Blaming presidents for a good or bad economy is mostly undeserved because congress made the Federal Reserve responsible for managing the economy. They purposely gave the FED many tools to simulate economic growth and control inflation. Congress gave presidents no such powers but invariable, the voters hold the president responsible for good and bad economic conditions.

 

[Dagosa]

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%

You are math illiterate. Obama left with a 4.7%
By your infantile reasoning, if you went to the doctor‘s office and weighed 400 lBS at your initial visit and then lost weight and finished the year at 200 lBS….After that visit because your average weight was 300 lBS, you’d still buy clothes for 300 pounder, cause what the hell, that’s who you are.

 

[Dagosa]

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?

Policies help decide and the president sets the agenda.

You’re still infantile. Average is not as important as TREND.
That’s where the a change in value can go from positive to negative or negative to positive….you don’t seem to care if you gained weight and weigh 400 lbs, you can still brag at one time your average weight was just 200 lBS several years ago…That works for fat ass Trump

 

[Flopper]

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!!

Compared to other countries the US is doing well. GDP growth last quarter was 3.4%, personal income up 5.4%, unemployment 3.8%, inflation 3.5%. All these economic indicators are in line with long term averages and indicate a good economy. The likelihood of a recession in 2024 is down signicantly from 6 mons ago.

The only problem in the economy is most of the inflation has occurred in food prices and transportation which has a significant impact on low to medium income families. So far in 2024, food prices at grocery stories are down. However food prices at restaurants are rising due to increases in labor cost.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/13/deflation-heres-where-prices-fell-in-february-2024-in-one-chart.html

 

[Dagosa]

Yup... that's totally 100% correct.
While Donald Trump donated $175,860 more to Democrats than Republicans from 1989 to 2010, his giving to Democrats significantly decreased beginning 2011.

History of Donald Trump's political donations

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

He at various times has voiced support of single-payer health care, a 14.25 percent wealth tax, and an assault weapons ban — all positions that he has reversed. In addition, in 1999, he proclaimed Republicans "too crazy right."

Most of Donald Trump's Political Money Went To Democrats — Until 5 Years Ago

The man making a strong showing for the GOP presidential nomination also has a remarkably inconsistent track record as a conservative.

www.npr.org

So why did Trump become a former Democrat?
Remember Trump experienced the "Great Depression" that was totally caused by Obama's 1995 lawsuit that allowed poor credit borrowers get financed by Fannie and Freddie, Federal government loans guaranteed!
So Trump lived through that as did many Democrats... like Barney Frank of whom it seems many of you Trump haters have NO knowledge of!
Barney Frank was a Democrat, Frank served as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee from 2007 to 2011 and was a leading co-sponsor of the 2010 Dodd–Frank Act.

Barney Frank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In simple terms for commentators like you with minimum knowledge and KNOWN 8.5 seconds attention span... The "great depression" was caused by Democrats who voted for easing up on credit standards to buy homes. And Trump lived through it as DID I!
Again.. 1995 Obama filed lawsuit against Citibank regarding "red lining" and this relaxing of credit standards
for poorer credit borrowers did as the well known Democrat Barney Frank admits!!
Pressure from liberal lawmakers like Barney Frank to buy up risky mortgages was also a factor in triggering the mortgage crisis, judging from a story in the New York Times. For example, “a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers, according to a Congressional source.”
The executives of government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “eventually yielded to those pressures, effectively wagering that if things got too bad, the government would bail them out.

Barney Frank Used Influence with Fannie Mae, the Failed Mortgage Giant Bailed Out by Taxpayers - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Former House Banking Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) tenaciously opposed efforts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage giants that were bailed out at a cost to taxpayers of between $148 billion and $363 billion. Now it turns out that he got his...

cei.org

BUT NOTE: Barney Frank in 2021 he re-canted his support for Fannie and Freddie MAE!!
Just to repeat this is what Barney said in 2021.... after he and his boyfriend profited ! ...in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that"it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."

Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts | RealClearPolitics

Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time...

www.realclearpolitics.com

So to put as AntonToo said... Let's put in terms people like AntonToo can understand:
When you lower credit standards lending money costs go up... hence those with poor credit did a lot of
flipping. A term used to describe purchasing an asset and quickly reselling (or "flipping") it for profit.
The housing sector led not only the financial crisis, but also the downturn in broader economic activity. Residential investment peaked in 2006, as did employment in residential construction.

The Great Recession and Its Aftermath

Explore the Federal Reserve's history

www.federalreservehistory.org

But knowing this goes way over AntonToo's , head along with other 8.5 second attention span sufferers,
isn't intended for people like them. No it's for people LIKE TRUMP who recognized the Democrat party
is NOT capable to run the economy.
One quick point about Trump's accomplishments as a GOP president...
Again people like AntonToo don't comprehend the term "offshore"...
Trump's accomplishment in reducing taxes on "offshore" account holders of bringing back $1 Trillion that
did this according to the CBO:
So not only has tax revenue from the $1 trillion but what happened to the $1 trillion???

View attachment 930610

View attachment 930612

U.S. Corporations' Repatriation of Offshore Profits: Evidence from 2018

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov

View attachment 930614

Yup.
It’s pretty obvious why Trump became a republican. Conservatives are more unified around their issues because their issues are easier to “ understand”. For example, tax cuts. Everyone loves tax cuts. But they ‘re only federal income tax and too often lead to state and local tax increases with the loss of grants and infrastructure work going to states. That doesn’t compute with conservatives.

Then there is the abortion issue, climate change and / or global responsibilities. These issues are complicated and nuanced and require science. Science IS NOT the strong suit of the gop…. So republicans just say no to everything that makes their head hurt from thinking too much. That’s what unifies the GOP.

So, Trump doesn’t have to do much nuance thinking. Just tell any conservative what you think he wants to hear. Lying is fine. They don’t have a long attention span…

 

[healthmyths]

Yup.
It’s pretty obvious why Trump became a republican. Conservatives are more unified around their issues because their issues are easier to “ understand”. For example, tax cuts. Everyone loves tax cuts. But they ‘re only federal income tax and too often lead to state and local tax increases with the loss of grants and infrastructure work going to states. That doesn’t compute with conservatives.

Then there is the abortion issue, climate change and / or global responsibilities. These issues are complicated and nuanced and require science. Science IS NOT the strong suit of the gop…. So republicans just say no to everything that makes their head hurt from thinking too much. That’s what unifies the GOP.

So, Trump doesn’t have to do much nuance thinking. Just tell any conservative what you think he wants to hear. Lying is fine. They don’t have a long attention span…

Dagosa... you are so stupid! You make the statement "Science IS NOT the strong suit of the gop"...
and you show no PROOF!
For example where is YOUR proof that there is MAN-MADE climate change? Which is what most logical rational people ask? When was the highest level of CO2 in the world? I'm sure you think it is now right?
FACTS which logical reasonable people know:
Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 ppm during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago, and as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can you explain that and what was the effect on the world? Did the world collapse?
The world today is 421.70 ppm

https://www.co2.earth/dailyco2#:~:text=421.70%20ppm&text=This%20table%20presents%20the%20latest,atmospheric%20CO2%20on%20the%20planet.

If the temperature increases 1.5° ....Droughts are expected to become worse and last longer. Warmer ocean waters mean the number of strong hurricanes is expected to increase, as will the likelihood that they will quickly gain strength as they approach coastlines.

Why it matters that Earth is on the brink of 1.5 degrees Celsius in warming

Earth is already on the brink of surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming since the 1800s, according to new research.

abcnews.go.com

Now when did the temperature increase to 1.5° cause catastrophic events?
A 1968 study by the Stanford Research Institute for the American Petroleum Institute noted:[61]
If the earth's temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur, including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans, and an increase in photosynthesis.
Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 and these could bring about climatic changes.

History of climate change science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hmmm.. what is this year... 2024...
Now melting Antarctic means gulf cities being flooded right NOW?

Jakarta has been described as the world's most rapidly sinking city, and at the current rate, it is estimated that one-third of the city could be submerged by 2050. The main cause is uncontrolled ground water extraction, but it has been exacerbated by the rising Java Sea due to climate change.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/26/1075720551/jakarta-indonesia-sinking-into-java-sea-new-capital#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20described%20as,Sea%20due%20to%20climate%20change.

 

[Dagosa]

Dagosa... you are so stupid! You make the statement "Science IS NOT the strong suit of the gop"...
and you show no PROOF!
For example where is YOUR proof that there is MAN-MADE climate change? Which is what most logical rational people ask? When was the highest level of CO2 in the world? I'm sure you think it is now right?
FACTS which logical reasonable people know:
Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 ppm during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago, and as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can you explain that and what was the effect on the world? Did the world collapse?
The world today is 421.70 ppm

https://www.co2.earth/dailyco2#:~:text=421.70%20ppm&text=This%20table%20presents%20the%20latest,atmospheric%20CO2%20on%20the%20planet.

If the temperature increases 1.5° ....Droughts are expected to become worse and last longer. Warmer ocean waters mean the number of strong hurricanes is expected to increase, as will the likelihood that they will quickly gain strength as they approach coastlines.

Why it matters that Earth is on the brink of 1.5 degrees Celsius in warming

Earth is already on the brink of surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming since the 1800s, according to new research.

abcnews.go.com

Now when did the temperature increase to 1.5° cause catastrophic events?
A 1968 study by the Stanford Research Institute for the American Petroleum Institute noted:[61]
If the earth's temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur, including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans, and an increase in photosynthesis.
Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 and these could bring about climatic changes.

History of climate change science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hmmm.. what is this year... 2024...
Now melting Antarctic means gulf cities being flooded right NOW?

Jakarta has been described as the world's most rapidly sinking city, and at the current rate, it is estimated that one-third of the city could be submerged by 2050. The main cause is uncontrolled ground water extraction, but it has been exacerbated by the rising Java Sea due to climate change.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/26/1075720551/jakarta-indonesia-sinking-into-java-sea-new-capital#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20described%20as,Sea%20due%20to%20climate%20change.

What are you trying to do ? Impress us with your copy paste ?
Polls show as much as 2/3 of republicans DO NOT think AGW is an emerging crisis worthy of immediate attention.

Science is OBVIOUSLY not a strong suit of republicans.
Wow, 1968 study. I’ll amend what I said. Science is not your strong suit….that’s for damn sure.

Science illiterate. I don’t need to pretend I’m a scientist on a freakin political board and argue points you can’t even express yourself correctly. Every single climate science research facility, every accredited university of higher learning, every government in the world agrees with the AGW climate change consensus.

So you in wisdom now think you’re smarter than literally, every climate institution in the world. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit….you’re hilariously science illiterate…

 

[Flopper]

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?

.
A president can do almost nothing to lower unemployment other than spend money authorized by congress. The force that drives the economy and employment is the consumer. The federal reserve can simulate the economy but that's tricky because too much stimulation forces up inflation. Congress can create legislation or cut taxes which can create jobs. However a president can do little other than jawboning and spending money congress has allocated. Yet the economy is almost always a major issue in presidential elections.

 

[HikerGuy83]

In case you have forgotten your history, the high unemployment rate during the Obama administration was the direct result of the great recession that was underway before he took office. The same situation occurred with most of the very high unemployment on your list.

Blaming presidents for a good or bad economy is mostly undeserved because congress made the Federal Reserve responsible for managing the economy. They purposely gave the FED many tools to simulate economic growth and control inflation. Congress gave presidents no such powers but invariable, the voters hold the president responsible for good and bad economic conditions.

Thank you.

Bidenomics immediately came to mind.

 

[Couchpotato]

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?

Right, wrong or indifferent Presidents get credit and blame for all kinds of shit they really don’t control. Comes with the job. I was surprised that Obama had the highest. If he had the lowest he’d take credit for it. Just like every other guy on that list.

 

[Couchpotato]

In case you have forgotten your history, the high unemployment rate during the Obama administration was the direct result of the great recession that was underway before he took office. The same situation occurred with most of the very high unemployment on your list.

Blaming presidents for a good or bad economy is mostly undeserved because congress made the Federal Reserve responsible for managing the economy. They purposely gave the FED many tools to simulate economic growth and control inflation. Congress gave presidents no such powers but invariable, the voters hold the president responsible for good and bad economic conditions.

Ah yes the “if it’s good it’s because of my guy and if it’s bad it’s the other guys fault” schtick.

 

[Dagosa]

president can do almost nothing to lower unemployment other than spend money authorized by congress.

Passing a big infrastructure bill does a lot towards reducing unemployment.

 

[Dagosa]

In case you have forgotten your history, the high unemployment rate during the Obama administration was the direct result of the great recession that was underway before he took office. The same situation occurred with most of the very high unemployment on your list.

Blaming presidents for a good or bad economy is mostly undeserved because congress made the Federal Reserve responsible for managing the economy. They purposely gave the FED many tools to simulate economic growth and control inflation. Congress gave presidents no such powers but invariable, the voters hold the president responsible for good and bad economic conditions.

He doesn’t care. He’s just running with Fix News tripe

 

[Libby von H]

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!!

You need an Economics course. Economies don't lose x jobs/month on the analogy of a car doing X miles/hour. An 'economy' is not a rational willing agent. Try to picture some force metering out job loss and you will see you have made a mistake

 

[Dagosa]

You need an Economics course. Economies don't lose x jobs/month on the analogy of a car doing X miles/hour. An 'economy' is not a rational willing agent. Try to picture some force metering out job loss and you will see you have made a mistake

They are both rates. That’s the anology.

 

[Flopper]

Ah yes the “if it’s good it’s because of my guy and if it’s bad it’s the other guys fault” schtick.

Yep that's politics.

 

[Couchpotato]

Yep that's politics.

Yes and anyone who's paying attention knows that half the shit Presidents take credit for have nothing to do with anything they did or didn't do. That said it's hard to take seriously a person who says all this good stuff that happened while I was in office is because of things I did but all this bad shit is either the last guy's fault or someone else's fault. It's anything but mine. Even for a politician that's a tough sell. Unless you're selling to the blindly partisan. I don't recall that being a thing prior to the Obama admin though I could be mistaken. It certainly wasn't nearly as prevalent.

 

[Flopper]

Yes and anyone who's paying attention knows that half the shit Presidents take credit for have nothing to do with anything they did or didn't do. That said it's hard to take seriously a person who says all this good stuff that happened while I was in office is because of things I did but all this bad shit is either the last guy's fault or someone else's fault. It's anything but mine. Even for a politician that's a tough sell. Unless you're selling to the blindly partisan. I don't recall that being a thing prior to the Obama admin though I could be mistaken. It certainly wasn't nearly as prevalent.

Every since I started voting in the 60's the incumbent would publish a long list of all the things they have done, which is mostly activities that congress has funded. Foreign, not domestic affairs absorbs most of a president's time. A president has almost complete control of our foreign policy and national defense and almost no control of the economy. His success in areas of foreign policy and defense are critical to the nation, yet voters have little interest.