Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[JQPublic1]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

 

[Moonglow]

Well don't tell the GOP during an election year, they want it higher.........

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This is the year 2014 & we have a new president. Feel free to break the bonds of that 2007 bubble and join us.

 

[Moonglow]

Yeah it's not like what happened yesterday affects us today...

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

You don't lie about unemployment figures because 16 million Americans who used to have jobs have exhausted their government unemployment benefits. Those people didn't just disappear. They weren't alien abducted.

They're still unemployed or way underemployed. "But they don't count," says the White House. "If they aren't on some kind of government dole, well then that means they're not unemployed." That's the stilted logic of the left. That's the great lie of the left.

How long do you think the left can subsist on a foundation of bullshit? The real unemployment rate in America? Probably 12%. Stop blaming Obama and Bush. The one person responsible for the economic disaster that hit the world in 2007 was Bill Clinton, period.

 

[Zander]

6 years later and it's still BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!

 

[pinqy]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

You don't lie about unemployment figures because 16 million Americans who used to have jobs have exhausted their government unemployment benefits. Those people didn't just disappear. They weren't alien abducted.

They're still unemployed or way underemployed. "But they don't count," says the White House. "If they aren't on some kind of government dole, well then that means they're not unemployed."

What research did you do and what's your source that says that the unemployment rate doesn't include those not receiving benefits?

My guess, you now won't even try to find a source, but just try to insult me. And then I'll post a cite from BLS that shows that Benefits have nothing to do with the unemployment rate.

 

[depotoo]

You inverted your number, it was 4.2

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

 

[saveliberty]

I think the not looking figure is quite high historically speaking.

Yes, the housing bubble, which Democrats played a major role in creating did cause unemployment to go up during the Bush years. The most notable thing is how long recovery has taken under Obama. Due to poor policy decision this has been a very drawn out and poor recovery.

 

[S.J.]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Gawd, you guys are pathetic. He's been in office for 6 fucking years.

 

[jknowgood]

Isn't welfare roles at an all time high?

 

[saveliberty]

...and food stamps.

 

[The Rabbi]

You inverted your number, it was 4.2

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

No, he's looking at a campaign website for Connecticut's 5th district. That isn't the entire country but he's too stupid to figure that out.
Yeah, I guess what happened 4 years ago means less than what happened 6 years ago.
Still, it's nice to get confirmation from the Left that Obama has not solved anything.

 

[JQPublic1]

You inverted your number, it was 4.2

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

No, he's looking at a campaign website for Connecticut's 5th district. That isn't the entire country but he's too stupid to figure that out.
Yeah, I guess what happened 4 years ago means less than what happened 6 years ago.
Still, it's nice to get confirmation from the Left that Obama has not solved anything.

The link was about the unemployment rate in the entire country. Obviously you are too stupid to read the link correctly. That being said, if there is an error it is not mine, its the link. That is why we all should provide links so they can be scrutinized.

However, either way, that still does not detract from the op. Even if Bush inherited a 4.2% unemployment rate it was no where near that when he left office. The unemployment rate under Obama has still declined below the rate it was when he took office.

 

[depotoo]

And Bush had to deal with the tech bubble collapse, unemployment after 9/11, the worst hurricane seasons on record, and the mortgage loan collapse. Yet he still grew jobs

You inverted your number, it was 4.2

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

No, he's looking at a campaign website for Connecticut's 5th district. That isn't the entire country but he's too stupid to figure that out.
Yeah, I guess what happened 4 years ago means less than what happened 6 years ago.
Still, it's nice to get confirmation from the Left that Obama has not solved anything.

The link was about the unemployment rate in the entire country. Obviously you are too stupid to read the link correctly. That being said, if there is an error it is not mine, its the link. That is why we all should provide links so they can be scrutinized.

However, either way, that still does not detract from the op. Even if Bush inherited a 4.2% unemployment rate it was no where near that when he left office. The unemployment rate under Obama has still declined below the rate it was when he took office.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Funny when Bush left office more people were participating in the work force than are now

 

[Two Thumbs]

U.S. National Debt Clock Real Time

the admin is lying about the numbers, they always have been

 

[pinqy]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Funny when Bush left office more people were participating in the work force than are now

No, more people are participating now, but the percent of the population participating is lower.

 

[saveliberty]

]
No, more people are participating now, but the percent of the population participating is lower.

Can you clarify pinqy? The population is probably larger now, but percentage wise less people are employed currently. So we are making a comparision between Bush's highest unemployment rate and Obama's lowest? How is that a fair comparison or even noteworthy?

 

[JQPublic1]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Funny when Bush left office more people were participating in the work force than are now

Care to expound on that?