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

[Stephanie]

the only jobs Obama created was more Government jobs that we the people get to PAY FOR..

he is so thoughtful of us in the country creating more jobs for taxpayers to support, he should be called, the great creator..

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

big 0 didn't run on his economy or UE numbers. big 0 ran on nonsense. constant and ever changing nonsense.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That's a small fraction of what Obama is spending.

 

[regent]

Should the president of the United States be given the power to create jobs, control the economy and prepare America's budget?

 

[AquaAthena]

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%

YES......you are an honorable man who loves his country and as president, wanted to see it prosper, even though you were a bit "spendy."

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!

The monthly jobs numbers have turned around a net 900,000 jobs per months since Obama became president.

No president since WWII has a better record than that.

GDP has turned around by a net +8 percentage points since Obama became president. No president since WWII has a better record than that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That's a small fraction of what Obama is spending.

Really? Then tell us all how much per month Obama is now spending in Iraq.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!

Okay, then post some actual provable cause and effect regarding the unemployment rate and President Obama's policies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!

Money well spent why? Name one vital national interest that necessitated the Iraq War.

 

[U2Edge]

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!

Money well spent why? Name one vital national interest that necessitated the Iraq War.

1. Saddam Hussian's continued threat to the vital energy resources of the Persian Gulf region, particularly in Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia.

2. The errosion of the key measures of containment on Saddam Hussian, sanctions and the
weapons embargo.

3. The fact that starting in the year 2000, Saddam was getting away with selling Billions of dollars worth of oil on the black market.

4. The fact that Russia, China and France were all violating UN Security Council resolutions meant to contain Saddam. China specifically by providing fiber optic communications for Saddam's military as well as improving Saddam's air defense capabilities which meant a greater liklely hood of coalition aircraft being shot down in the no fly zones. Russia and France both restarted commercial flights to Iraq, again in violation of sanctions.

5. Syria completely disbanded all sanctions on its border with Iraq by 2001 allowing anything to pass through. Even Turkey was becoming lax in its enforcement thanks to bribes from Saddam and his growing oil wealth.

6. This erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo meant that containment was no longer possible. Without containment, the only option was regime change.

7. Saddam still posed a threat to the large oil fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This threat would only grow with time now that the sanctions and weapons embargo were crumbling.

8. Saddam's military before he was removed was one of the largest in the middle east. Saddam had over 400,000 people in the armed forces, 2,700 tanks, over 300 combat aircraft, over 2,000 artillery pieces, over 2,000 armored personal carriers. Large stocks of various types of ammunition, rockets, artillery shells, shells for tanks, bombs, cluster bombs, mines, missiles. Total ammunition stocks after Saddam was removed were determined to be larger than any other country in the world except Russia and the United States.

9. The fact that Saddam did maintain the ability to produce Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons in violation of the 1991 UN Ceacefire agreement.

10. The fact that Saddam failed to pay Kuwait and locate THOUSANDS of missing Kuwaiti's from his illegal invasion, occupation, and then annexation of Kuwait in 1990.

11. The fact that Saddam is the only leader since Adolf Hitler to invade and annex another country.

12. The fact that Saddam used WMD not just on his own people but upon foreign troops and upon civilians and soldiers in a foreign country.

13. The fact that Saddam was in violation of 15 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow for the use of military force to bring about compliance.

14. The fact that Saddam was in violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire Agreement.

15. The fact that Saddam had succeeded in surviving and staying in power despite all attempts to remove Saddam short of launching a full scale invasion. The United States bombed Iraq every year from 1991 through 2003. There were even record uses of Cruise Missiles and records for tons of bombs dropped in a matter of days, like operation Desert Fox in 1998.

16. Given all the above, it was absolutely necessary to remove Saddam from power in 2003.


But hey, don't just take my word for it, listen to Democratic President Bill Clinton on Saddam:

President Bill Clinton - December 16, 1998

"the hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors. A government that respects the rights of its people."

"other countries posses weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, with Saddam there is one big difference, he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing scud missiles against the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Barain, and Iran. Not only against foreign enemies, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam will use these terrible weapons again"

"Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world, and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors, he will make war on his own people, and mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them"


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc]President Clinton orders attack on Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

 

[U2Edge]

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!

Okay, then post some actual provable cause and effect regarding the unemployment rate and President Obama's policies.

Why don't you go ahead and prove to us that Obama has had NO impact on any of the economic figures the country has had for the past 53 months. I'm just stating the facts of what people have experienced since he has been in office compared to all the Presidents since World War II. What I presented in my first post, the topic of this thread, are irrefutable facts!

 

[bripat9643]

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

lol you phoney fuck.

That's a small fraction of what Obama is spending.

Really? Then tell us all how much per month Obama is now spending in Iraq.

Did I use the word "Iraq" in my post?

 

[DiamondDave]

Love how they get caught in the misdirection or flat out lies and they scurry like cockroaches when the light turns on

 

[RKMBrown]

-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

Yeah that's right there have been no bailouts, no quantitative easing, no dot com bubble, no 9/11...

Are you on drugs?

 

[DiamondDave]

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

Yeah that's right there have been no bailouts, no quantitative easing, no dot com bubble, no 9/11...

Are you on drugs?

Wrongwinger is a habitual liar.. He has been nailed to the wall again on it... so he will scurry... and he will repeat the same debunked bullshit in another thread

 

[Jarhead]

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!

Money well spent why? Name one vital national interest that necessitated the Iraq War.

Simply put.....

If you threaten someone with a gun, you better be prepared to use it.

Hussein was in breach of his treaty.

We told him he will suffer the consequences if he did not abide by the terms of the treaty.

He dared us.

If we did nothing?

Our word would mean squat in the international arena.

That in itself is detrimental to our national security.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

The president doesnt decide whether GM sells cars. The president doesn't decide to find bin Laden. The president doesnt decide how high the Dow is.
Why is it everything good is due to Obama. Everything bad is either not due to Obama or due to Bush? Do you guys ever take responsibility for bad stuff?

 

[lynn63]

Obama is definitely responsible for the worst record for unemployment. His insurance mandate has stalled the economy. If you review each state, you will find that half of the 18-64 age bracket is employed and the other half is not employed.

A few of the States, there are more unemployed than their are employed. We need at least 20 to 30 million new jobs, preferably in manufacturing and production to get us back on track. That doesn't appear remotely possible at the moment or in the near future.

 

[Jarhead]

Obama is definitely responsible for the worst record for unemployment. His insurance mandate has stalled the economy. If you review each state, you will find that half of the 18-64 age bracket is employed and the other half is not employed.

A few of the States, there are more unemployed than their are employed. We need at least 20 to 30 million new jobs, preferably in manufacturing and production to get us back on track. That doesn't appear remotely possible at the moment or in the near future.

Whereas I agree with you as it pertains to policy and how the current administration policies are hindering economic growth, I need to offer my sentiments as it pertains to overall job creation....

The recession actually opened the eyes of many employers. They found they were overstaffed to begin with.

Example.....

In 1995 a company had 50 employees broken down this way:

2 receptionists/clericals
8 exempt employees (managers/supervisors)
5 order processors
5 Warehouse/shipping and receiving personnel
30 machinists turning lathes and making product from stock

From 1995-2007 they never adjusted their staff size. They were prosperous and ...well.....you dont fix it if it aint broken.

However, during that time, they installed a new phone systemn with direct line voice mail; they installed a new inventory program (high tech) and they installed CNC and eliminated manual lathe turning.

Then the recession hit. Orders went down, and they laid off....

Gone is one receptionist
Gone are 3 warehouse personnel
Gone are 10 machinists

So in 2009, they now had 35 employees....and that staff met the decrease in demand.

Then demand increased again.....

But....

with direct line voice mail, they realized they do not need another receptionist
with the high tech inventory system, they dont need to rehire anyone else in the warehouse
With CNC lathes, each machinists puts out twice the prodcut they used to manually

So output increases, but the need for an increase in personnel is not there.

Unless we ENCOURAGE people to start new busineeses, I believe we will see 7.5% unemployment as the new normal.

That brings me back to policies.

Obam,a is not encouraging risk taking. Thats a problem.

 

[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?

The president doesnt decide whether GM sells cars. The president doesn't decide to find bin Laden. The president doesnt decide how high the Dow is.
Why is it everything good is due to Obama. Everything bad is either not due to Obama or due to Bush? Do you guys ever take responsibility for bad stuff?

Do you give Obama credit for getting the country out of recession within 6 months of taking office?

Clue: that's a yes or no question.