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

[Faun]

President Obama is very close to passing Reagan for UE numbers, if he hasn't already.

They're already tied at 7.9%. You have to go to 100ths of one percent to see Reagan holds a very slim margin over Obama. A margin Obama will hold by the end of this year. At which point, you will never hear another rightard mention this idiotic metric.

Its not clear yet whether Obama will pass Reagan or not. Obama's current average as President is still the worst since World War II. Provided he stays in office the remaining 15 months and unemployment continues to drop, he has a shot. Unemployment could go up though in the remaining months, especially if the Labor Force Participation rate were to improve.

If the labor force participation rate were still at 66%, unemployment would still be at 10%. Obama's unemployment figures have improved largely because the workforce has shrunk as a percentage of the population.

Obama will surpass Reagan in the next month or two. Currently, Obama is about 4/100ths of a point behind Reagan which is essentially a tie anyway.

As far as your nonsense about the labor force participation rate, you cannot prove your claim. It's based on 100% of the folks inclusive in the drop not finding work which is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

 

[Faun]

The current monthly unemployment rate is low, but this is because the labor force participation rate has dramatically declined from 66% under Bush to now just 62.4% under Obama. At least half of this is do to the Baby Boom retirement but there are also people who have left the work force because they were unable to find work. If the labor force participation rate were to rise back to 66% under Bush, the unemployment rate would balloon to over 10% because the current economy is not generating enough jobs to handle a labor force participation rate that high.

The LPR was declining under Bush from 67.2% when he started to 65.7% when he left, and he didn't have Boomers retiring.

There are also other reasons why people leave the workforce besides the small and declining number who have given up looking, family caregivers for exampled. 39% of all US adults were family caregivers in 2012 which was up from 30% in 2010. Only 50% of adult family caregivers work full time.

On average though, the Bush years featured some of the highest labor force participation rates in history. Yes, it declined a little from a record high, but it was still high when he left office. Obama Labor force Participation rate is at nearly a 40 year low. Now that has had a serious impact on Obama's unemployment numbers. The reasons for it don't matter, as the fact remains that Obama's economy could not support a labor force participation rate of 66% without a huge rise in unemployment.

It's sad you have to lie like that. When Bush left office, the rate had fallen to 65.7% -- a nearly 21 year low. And that was without much impact of baby boomer retirement, whose numbers increased dramatically in 2009.

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 7.92%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after 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: 7.92%

641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%

There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.

After 78 months in office...

Reagan ... 7.9%
Obama .... 7.9%

Reagan started at 7.5%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.4 points higher than when he started.

Obama started at 7.8%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.1 point higher than when he started.

Again, picking a one particular month to look at is irrelevant. You need to look at the average of 96 months of data to get the full picture. Were at 81 months in the Obama administration. 15 more months to go. The first month and the last month of a Presidents time in office is irrelevant. What matters is the average over such a long period of time!

I didn't pick 1 month. WTF are you talking about??

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 7.92%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after 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: 7.92%

641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%

There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.

President Obama was given a higher unemployment rate than Reagan and will leave office with a lower unemployment rate than Reagan ever had

No other President on the list was losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office

Obama will also have a much lower labor force participation rate and its not yet clear whether the average unemployment rate over the entire time Obama was in office will be lower or higher than Reagans. Simply sighting the last monthly unemployment rate level Obama has, 1 month out of 96, is meaningless and irrelevant. One much consider all the data when rating a Presidents performance, not just their last month in office.

If the unemployment rate averages out at 5.4% or better over the remainder of Obama's presidency, Obama will finish ahead of Reagan.

Maybe, but even if that were to happen, Obama will not have as good a labor force participation rate as Reagan did. Finally, Obama will never be able to catch George W. Bush who averaged 5.27% over his 96 months in office.

Which only serves to demonstrate just how useless this metric is as Bush has one of the worst records in term of employment.

In his first term, he added paltry 56,000 jobs in his first term and 1.2 million jobs in his second term.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

By the time he left office, there were nearly half a million fewer people working in the private sector than when he started; making him only the second president, with Herbert Hoover, to lose such jobs on his watch.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush had solid unemployment levels for most of the time he was President, averaging 5.27%. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low and people had jobs. That's the record, and its a good one! Most people had jobs or could find one while Bush was President on average. The Unemployment rate was still below 5% at the start of his last year with a labor force participation rate of 66%! That has not been the case while Obama has been sitting in the oval office.

As for creating new jobs, that's easier to do when the economy has bottomed out and your throwing Billions of dollars at the economy to create new ones. You don't need to create many new jobs when the economy is at or near full employment and is staying at the level month after month as the population grows. For the vast majority of Bush's 96 months in office, unemployment was below 6%. No other President in history has as many months of unemployment BELOW 6% as George W. Bush does!

 

[U2Edge]

President Obama is very close to passing Reagan for UE numbers, if he hasn't already.

They're already tied at 7.9%. You have to go to 100ths of one percent to see Reagan holds a very slim margin over Obama. A margin Obama will hold by the end of this year. At which point, you will never hear another rightard mention this idiotic metric.

Its not clear yet whether Obama will pass Reagan or not. Obama's current average as President is still the worst since World War II. Provided he stays in office the remaining 15 months and unemployment continues to drop, he has a shot. Unemployment could go up though in the remaining months, especially if the Labor Force Participation rate were to improve.

If the labor force participation rate were still at 66%, unemployment would still be at 10%. Obama's unemployment figures have improved largely because the workforce has shrunk as a percentage of the population.

Obama will surpass Reagan in the next month or two. Currently, Obama is about 4/100ths of a point behind Reagan which is essentially a tie anyway.

As far as your nonsense about the labor force participation rate, you cannot prove your claim. It's based on 100% of the folks inclusive in the drop not finding work which is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

Sorry, but that is the impact that the labor force participation rate has on the unemployment numbers. Economist have been repeatedly mentioning this in nearly every monthly unemployment report since Obama has been in office as reported by the AP. Getting testy and insulting others won't change that fact.

 

[Faun]

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 7.92%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after 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: 7.92%

641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%

There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.

After 78 months in office...

Reagan ... 7.9%
Obama .... 7.9%

Reagan started at 7.5%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.4 points higher than when he started.

Obama started at 7.8%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.1 point higher than when he started.

Again, picking a one particular month to look at is irrelevant. You need to look at the average of 96 months of data to get the full picture. Were at 81 months in the Obama administration. 15 more months to go. The first month and the last month of a Presidents time in office is irrelevant. What matters is the average over such a long period of time!

I didn't pick 1 month. WTF are you talking about??

President Obama was given a higher unemployment rate than Reagan and will leave office with a lower unemployment rate than Reagan ever had

No other President on the list was losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office

Obama will also have a much lower labor force participation rate and its not yet clear whether the average unemployment rate over the entire time Obama was in office will be lower or higher than Reagans. Simply sighting the last monthly unemployment rate level Obama has, 1 month out of 96, is meaningless and irrelevant. One much consider all the data when rating a Presidents performance, not just their last month in office.

If the unemployment rate averages out at 5.4% or better over the remainder of Obama's presidency, Obama will finish ahead of Reagan.

Maybe, but even if that were to happen, Obama will not have as good a labor force participation rate as Reagan did. Finally, Obama will never be able to catch George W. Bush who averaged 5.27% over his 96 months in office.

Which only serves to demonstrate just how useless this metric is as Bush has one of the worst records in term of employment.

In his first term, he added paltry 56,000 jobs in his first term and 1.2 million jobs in his second term.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

By the time he left office, there were nearly half a million fewer people working in the private sector than when he started; making him only the second president, with Herbert Hoover, to lose such jobs on his watch.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush had solid unemployment levels for most of the time he was President, averaging 5.27%. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low and people had jobs. That's the record, and its a good one! Most people had jobs or could find one while Bush was President on average. The Unemployment rate was still below 5% at the start of his last year with a labor force participation rate of 66%! That has not been the case while Obama has been sitting in the oval office.

As for creating new jobs, that's easier to do when the economy has bottomed out and your throwing Billions of dollars at the economy to create new ones. You don't need to create many new jobs when the economy is at or near full employment and is staying at the level month after month as the population grows. For the vast majority of Bush's 96 months in office, unemployment was below 6%. No other President in history has as many months of unemployment BELOW 6% as George W. Bush does!

Bush created a total of about 1.2 million jobs in 8 years. And even that nominal gain was thanks to growth in the public sector as the private sector lost jobs under his watch. He actually has the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover gave us the Great Depression, which is why averaging out the UR is completely meaningless. The reason it was as low as it was early on is because Clinton handed him an UR of 4.2%. The two best presidents when it came to job growth were Reagan and Clinton. According to your idiocy, Bush was almost as good as Clinton and far better than Reagan.

Keep in mind, Reagan added about 16 million jobs, Clinton added about 23 million jobs, Bush added about 1 million jobs (all public sector).

That you cling to the idiocy that averaging out the UR only reflects desperation to make Obama look bad, when in reality, Obama will be surpassing Reagan in a month or two.

 

[Faun]

President Obama is very close to passing Reagan for UE numbers, if he hasn't already.

They're already tied at 7.9%. You have to go to 100ths of one percent to see Reagan holds a very slim margin over Obama. A margin Obama will hold by the end of this year. At which point, you will never hear another rightard mention this idiotic metric.

Its not clear yet whether Obama will pass Reagan or not. Obama's current average as President is still the worst since World War II. Provided he stays in office the remaining 15 months and unemployment continues to drop, he has a shot. Unemployment could go up though in the remaining months, especially if the Labor Force Participation rate were to improve.

If the labor force participation rate were still at 66%, unemployment would still be at 10%. Obama's unemployment figures have improved largely because the workforce has shrunk as a percentage of the population.

Obama will surpass Reagan in the next month or two. Currently, Obama is about 4/100ths of a point behind Reagan which is essentially a tie anyway.

As far as your nonsense about the labor force participation rate, you cannot prove your claim. It's based on 100% of the folks inclusive in the drop not finding work which is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

Sorry, but that is the impact that the labor force participation rate has on the unemployment numbers. Economist have been repeatedly mentioning this in nearly every monthly unemployment report since Obama has been in office as reported by the AP. Getting testy and insulting others won't change that fact.

Well then prove it. Prove 100% of the drop in the LFPR is of people who would not have a job if they were still looking for work today....

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 7.92%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after 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: 7.92%

641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%

There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.

After 78 months in office...

Reagan ... 7.9%
Obama .... 7.9%

Reagan started at 7.5%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.4 points higher than when he started.

Obama started at 7.8%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.1 point higher than when he started.

Again, picking a one particular month to look at is irrelevant. You need to look at the average of 96 months of data to get the full picture. Were at 81 months in the Obama administration. 15 more months to go. The first month and the last month of a Presidents time in office is irrelevant. What matters is the average over such a long period of time!

I didn't pick 1 month. WTF are you talking about??

Obama will also have a much lower labor force participation rate and its not yet clear whether the average unemployment rate over the entire time Obama was in office will be lower or higher than Reagans. Simply sighting the last monthly unemployment rate level Obama has, 1 month out of 96, is meaningless and irrelevant. One much consider all the data when rating a Presidents performance, not just their last month in office.

If the unemployment rate averages out at 5.4% or better over the remainder of Obama's presidency, Obama will finish ahead of Reagan.

Maybe, but even if that were to happen, Obama will not have as good a labor force participation rate as Reagan did. Finally, Obama will never be able to catch George W. Bush who averaged 5.27% over his 96 months in office.

Which only serves to demonstrate just how useless this metric is as Bush has one of the worst records in term of employment.

In his first term, he added paltry 56,000 jobs in his first term and 1.2 million jobs in his second term.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

By the time he left office, there were nearly half a million fewer people working in the private sector than when he started; making him only the second president, with Herbert Hoover, to lose such jobs on his watch.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush had solid unemployment levels for most of the time he was President, averaging 5.27%. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low and people had jobs. That's the record, and its a good one! Most people had jobs or could find one while Bush was President on average. The Unemployment rate was still below 5% at the start of his last year with a labor force participation rate of 66%! That has not been the case while Obama has been sitting in the oval office.

As for creating new jobs, that's easier to do when the economy has bottomed out and your throwing Billions of dollars at the economy to create new ones. You don't need to create many new jobs when the economy is at or near full employment and is staying at the level month after month as the population grows. For the vast majority of Bush's 96 months in office, unemployment was below 6%. No other President in history has as many months of unemployment BELOW 6% as George W. Bush does!

Bush created a total of about 1.2 million jobs in 8 years. And even that nominal gain was thanks to growth in the public sector as the private sector lost jobs under his watch. He actually has the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover gave us the Great Depression, which is why averaging out the UR is completely meaningless. The reason it was as low as it was early on is because Clinton handed him an UR of 4.2%. The two best presidents when it came to job growth were Reagan and Clinton. According to your idiocy, Bush was almost as good as Clinton and far better than Reagan.

Keep in mind, Reagan added about 16 million jobs, Clinton added about 23 million jobs, Bush added about 1 million jobs (all public sector).

That you cling to the idiocy that averaging out the UR only reflects desperation to make Obama look bad, when in reality, Obama will be surpassing Reagan in a month or two.

The average unemployment rate per month is the best measure when it comes to quality of life that Americans are experiencing. Sorry, but BUSH will always crush Obama and Reagan when it comes to unemployment figures and what it was like for the average man on the street, month after month, to either keep his job or get a new one. Its easy to create new jobs when the economy has bottomed out. You don't need to create as many new jobs when your at full employment, the challenge then is staying at that level. Bush did a great job of doing that which is why the average level of unemployment under Bush is one of the lowest in U.S. history.

You obviously don't find this meaningless, otherwise your heavy participation in this thread would not exist.

Also, calling other people names does not strengthen your opinions at all and makes you look rather desperate.

 

[U2Edge]

President Obama is very close to passing Reagan for UE numbers, if he hasn't already.

They're already tied at 7.9%. You have to go to 100ths of one percent to see Reagan holds a very slim margin over Obama. A margin Obama will hold by the end of this year. At which point, you will never hear another rightard mention this idiotic metric.

Its not clear yet whether Obama will pass Reagan or not. Obama's current average as President is still the worst since World War II. Provided he stays in office the remaining 15 months and unemployment continues to drop, he has a shot. Unemployment could go up though in the remaining months, especially if the Labor Force Participation rate were to improve.

If the labor force participation rate were still at 66%, unemployment would still be at 10%. Obama's unemployment figures have improved largely because the workforce has shrunk as a percentage of the population.

Obama will surpass Reagan in the next month or two. Currently, Obama is about 4/100ths of a point behind Reagan which is essentially a tie anyway.

As far as your nonsense about the labor force participation rate, you cannot prove your claim. It's based on 100% of the folks inclusive in the drop not finding work which is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

Sorry, but that is the impact that the labor force participation rate has on the unemployment numbers. Economist have been repeatedly mentioning this in nearly every monthly unemployment report since Obama has been in office as reported by the AP. Getting testy and insulting others won't change that fact.

Well then prove it. Prove 100% of the drop in the LFPR is of people who would not have a job if they were still looking for work today....

I've given multiple examples in this thread of the impact of the Labor Force Participation rate on the unemployment rate. Economist every month report on its impact. If I'm wrong, and the economist are wrong, feel free to prove us wrong.

 

[Faun]

After 78 months in office...


Reagan ... 7.9%

Obama .... 7.9%


Reagan started at 7.5%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.4 points higher than when he started.


Obama started at 7.8%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.1 point higher than when he started.

Again, picking a one particular month to look at is irrelevant. You need to look at the average of 96 months of data to get the full picture. Were at 81 months in the Obama administration. 15 more months to go. The first month and the last month of a Presidents time in office is irrelevant. What matters is the average over such a long period of time!

I didn't pick 1 month. WTF are you talking about??

If the unemployment rate averages out at 5.4% or better over the remainder of Obama's presidency, Obama will finish ahead of Reagan.

Maybe, but even if that were to happen, Obama will not have as good a labor force participation rate as Reagan did. Finally, Obama will never be able to catch George W. Bush who averaged 5.27% over his 96 months in office.

Which only serves to demonstrate just how useless this metric is as Bush has one of the worst records in term of employment.


In his first term, he added paltry 56,000 jobs in his first term and 1.2 million jobs in his second term.


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


By the time he left office, there were nearly half a million fewer people working in the private sector than when he started; making him only the second president, with Herbert Hoover, to lose such jobs on his watch.


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush had solid unemployment levels for most of the time he was President, averaging 5.27%. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low and people had jobs. That's the record, and its a good one! Most people had jobs or could find one while Bush was President on average. The Unemployment rate was still below 5% at the start of his last year with a labor force participation rate of 66%! That has not been the case while Obama has been sitting in the oval office.


As for creating new jobs, that's easier to do when the economy has bottomed out and your throwing Billions of dollars at the economy to create new ones. You don't need to create many new jobs when the economy is at or near full employment and is staying at the level month after month as the population grows. For the vast majority of Bush's 96 months in office, unemployment was below 6%. No other President in history has as many months of unemployment BELOW 6% as George W. Bush does!

Bush created a total of about 1.2 million jobs in 8 years. And even that nominal gain was thanks to growth in the public sector as the private sector lost jobs under his watch. He actually has the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover gave us the Great Depression, which is why averaging out the UR is completely meaningless. The reason it was as low as it was early on is because Clinton handed him an UR of 4.2%. The two best presidents when it came to job growth were Reagan and Clinton. According to your idiocy, Bush was almost as good as Clinton and far better than Reagan.


Keep in mind, Reagan added about 16 million jobs, Clinton added about 23 million jobs, Bush added about 1 million jobs (all public sector).


That you cling to the idiocy that averaging out the UR only reflects desperation to make Obama look bad, when in reality, Obama will be surpassing Reagan in a month or two.

The average unemployment rate per month is the best measure when it comes to quality of life that Americans are experiencing. Sorry, but BUSH will always crush Obama and Reagan when it comes to unemployment figures and what it was like for the average man on the street, month after month, to either keep his job or get a new one. Its easy to create new jobs when the economy has bottomed out. You don't need to create as many new jobs when your at full employment, the challenge then is staying at that level. Bush did a great job of doing that which is why the average level of unemployment under Bush is one of the lowest in U.S. history.


You obviously don't find this meaningless, otherwise your heavy participation in this thread would not exist.


Also, calling other people names does not strengthen your opinions at all and makes you look rather desperate.

Huh? What name did I call you?

And I've demonstrated how meaningless it is.

Carter .......... 10 million jobs
Reagan ........ 16 million jobs
GHWBUSH .... 3 million jobs
Clinton ......... 23 million jobs
Bush ............... 1 million jobs
Obama ........... 8 million jobs

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That you think Bush is among the best in terms of unemployment reveals how ridiculous your metric is.

 

[Faun]

They're already tied at 7.9%. You have to go to 100ths of one percent to see Reagan holds a very slim margin over Obama. A margin Obama will hold by the end of this year. At which point, you will never hear another rightard mention this idiotic metric.

Its not clear yet whether Obama will pass Reagan or not. Obama's current average as President is still the worst since World War II. Provided he stays in office the remaining 15 months and unemployment continues to drop, he has a shot. Unemployment could go up though in the remaining months, especially if the Labor Force Participation rate were to improve.

If the labor force participation rate were still at 66%, unemployment would still be at 10%. Obama's unemployment figures have improved largely because the workforce has shrunk as a percentage of the population.

Obama will surpass Reagan in the next month or two. Currently, Obama is about 4/100ths of a point behind Reagan which is essentially a tie anyway.

As far as your nonsense about the labor force participation rate, you cannot prove your claim. It's based on 100% of the folks inclusive in the drop not finding work which is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

Sorry, but that is the impact that the labor force participation rate has on the unemployment numbers. Economist have been repeatedly mentioning this in nearly every monthly unemployment report since Obama has been in office as reported by the AP. Getting testy and insulting others won't change that fact.

Well then prove it. Prove 100% of the drop in the LFPR is of people who would not have a job if they were still looking for work today....

I've given multiple examples in this thread of the impact of the Labor Force Participation rate on the unemployment rate. Economist every month report on its impact. If I'm wrong, and the economist are wrong, feel free to prove us wrong.

Your claim is bullshit and can't be proven. That's why you deflect and insist I need to prove you wrong because you're incapable of proving yourself right.

 

[healthmyths]

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 7.92%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after 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: 7.92%

641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%

There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.

After 78 months in office...

Reagan ... 7.9%
Obama .... 7.9%

Reagan started at 7.5%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.4 points higher than when he started.

Obama started at 7.8%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.1 point higher than when he started.

Again, picking a one particular month to look at is irrelevant. You need to look at the average of 96 months of data to get the full picture. Were at 81 months in the Obama administration. 15 more months to go. The first month and the last month of a Presidents time in office is irrelevant. What matters is the average over such a long period of time!

I didn't pick 1 month. WTF are you talking about??

President Obama was given a higher unemployment rate than Reagan and will leave office with a lower unemployment rate than Reagan ever had

No other President on the list was losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office

Obama will also have a much lower labor force participation rate and its not yet clear whether the average unemployment rate over the entire time Obama was in office will be lower or higher than Reagans. Simply sighting the last monthly unemployment rate level Obama has, 1 month out of 96, is meaningless and irrelevant. One much consider all the data when rating a Presidents performance, not just their last month in office.

If the unemployment rate averages out at 5.4% or better over the remainder of Obama's presidency, Obama will finish ahead of Reagan.

Maybe, but even if that were to happen, Obama will not have as good a labor force participation rate as Reagan did. Finally, Obama will never be able to catch George W. Bush who averaged 5.27% over his 96 months in office.

Which only serves to demonstrate just how useless this metric is as Bush has one of the worst records in term of employment.

In his first term, he added paltry 56,000 jobs in his first term and 1.2 million jobs in his second term.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

By the time he left office, there were nearly half a million fewer people working in the private sector than when he started; making him only the second president, with Herbert Hoover, to lose such jobs on his watch.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush had solid unemployment levels for most of the time he was President, averaging 5.27%. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low and people had jobs. That's the record, and its a good one! Most people had jobs or could find one while Bush was President on average. The Unemployment rate was still below 5% at the start of his last year with a labor force participation rate of 66%! That has not been the case while Obama has been sitting in the oval office.

As for creating new jobs, that's easier to do when the economy has bottomed out and your throwing Billions of dollars at the economy to create new ones. You don't need to create many new jobs when the economy is at or near full employment and is staying at the level month after month as the population grows. For the vast majority of Bush's 96 months in office, unemployment was below 6%. No other President in history has as many months of unemployment BELOW 6% as George W. Bush does!

And NO other President had these events occur during that period. Events that really shook the USA and the world. Events NO other President
has ever had to keep the country encouraged. Keep the country enthused about getting up and going to work! These were terrible events.
Events that cost nearly 5,000 lives. Events that costs millions of jobs! Trillions of dollars! Trillions in lost payroll and income taxes!
Think what it must have been like to been one of these people that suffered through 9/11.
a) 3,000 dead, thousands of lives changed forever.
b) No airline traffic for 3 days no flights;
c) No Wall street for 10 days
d) 18,000 businesses loss...businesses that had to either start over or gave up!
e) 2,500,000 job lost. Ongoing uncertainty about the war on terror has contributed to the loss of more than 2.5 million jobs in the 18 months following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John A. Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Job losses since 9/11 attacks top 2.5 million

 

[healthmyths]

Again, picking a one particular month to look at is irrelevant. You need to look at the average of 96 months of data to get the full picture. Were at 81 months in the Obama administration. 15 more months to go. The first month and the last month of a Presidents time in office is irrelevant. What matters is the average over such a long period of time!

I didn't pick 1 month. WTF are you talking about??

Maybe, but even if that were to happen, Obama will not have as good a labor force participation rate as Reagan did. Finally, Obama will never be able to catch George W. Bush who averaged 5.27% over his 96 months in office.

Which only serves to demonstrate just how useless this metric is as Bush has one of the worst records in term of employment.


In his first term, he added paltry 56,000 jobs in his first term and 1.2 million jobs in his second term.


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


By the time he left office, there were nearly half a million fewer people working in the private sector than when he started; making him only the second president, with Herbert Hoover, to lose such jobs on his watch.


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush had solid unemployment levels for most of the time he was President, averaging 5.27%. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low and people had jobs. That's the record, and its a good one! Most people had jobs or could find one while Bush was President on average. The Unemployment rate was still below 5% at the start of his last year with a labor force participation rate of 66%! That has not been the case while Obama has been sitting in the oval office.


As for creating new jobs, that's easier to do when the economy has bottomed out and your throwing Billions of dollars at the economy to create new ones. You don't need to create many new jobs when the economy is at or near full employment and is staying at the level month after month as the population grows. For the vast majority of Bush's 96 months in office, unemployment was below 6%. No other President in history has as many months of unemployment BELOW 6% as George W. Bush does!

Bush created a total of about 1.2 million jobs in 8 years. And even that nominal gain was thanks to growth in the public sector as the private sector lost jobs under his watch. He actually has the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover gave us the Great Depression, which is why averaging out the UR is completely meaningless. The reason it was as low as it was early on is because Clinton handed him an UR of 4.2%. The two best presidents when it came to job growth were Reagan and Clinton. According to your idiocy, Bush was almost as good as Clinton and far better than Reagan.


Keep in mind, Reagan added about 16 million jobs, Clinton added about 23 million jobs, Bush added about 1 million jobs (all public sector).


That you cling to the idiocy that averaging out the UR only reflects desperation to make Obama look bad, when in reality, Obama will be surpassing Reagan in a month or two.

The average unemployment rate per month is the best measure when it comes to quality of life that Americans are experiencing. Sorry, but BUSH will always crush Obama and Reagan when it comes to unemployment figures and what it was like for the average man on the street, month after month, to either keep his job or get a new one. Its easy to create new jobs when the economy has bottomed out. You don't need to create as many new jobs when your at full employment, the challenge then is staying at that level. Bush did a great job of doing that which is why the average level of unemployment under Bush is one of the lowest in U.S. history.


You obviously don't find this meaningless, otherwise your heavy participation in this thread would not exist.


Also, calling other people names does not strengthen your opinions at all and makes you look rather desperate.

Huh? What name did I call you?

And I've demonstrated how meaningless it is.

Carter .......... 10 million jobs
Reagan ........ 16 million jobs
GHWBUSH .... 3 million jobs
Clinton ......... 23 million jobs
Bush ............... 1 million jobs
Obama ........... 8 million jobs

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That you think Bush is among the best in terms of unemployment reveals how ridiculous your metric is.

And for people like you to totally totally IGNORE this shows how biased you guys are against GWB!
And NO other President had these events occur during that period. Events that really shook the USA and the world. Events NO other President
has ever had to keep the country encouraged. Keep the country enthused about getting up and going to work! These were terrible events.
Events that cost nearly 5,000 lives. Events that costs millions of jobs! Trillions of dollars! Trillions in lost payroll and income taxes!
Think what it must have been like to been one of these people that suffered through 9/11.
a) 3,000 dead, thousands of lives changed forever.
b) No airline traffic for 3 days no flights;
c) No Wall street for 10 days
d) 18,000 businesses loss...businesses that had to either start over or gave up!
e) 2,500,000 job lost. Ongoing uncertainty about the war on terror has contributed to the loss of more than 2.5 million jobs in the 18 months following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John A. Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Job losses since 9/11 attacks top 2.5 million

 

[Stephanie]

Obama has set us up for the BIG FALL. WE haven't seen anything yet. Its not going to be pretty either.

way to go all you who voted for him

 

[healthmyths]

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 7.92%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after 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: 7.92%

641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%

There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.

After 78 months in office...

Reagan ... 7.9%
Obama .... 7.9%

Reagan started at 7.5%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.4 points higher than when he started.

Obama started at 7.8%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.1 point higher than when he started.

Again, picking a one particular month to look at is irrelevant. You need to look at the average of 96 months of data to get the full picture. Were at 81 months in the Obama administration. 15 more months to go. The first month and the last month of a Presidents time in office is irrelevant. What matters is the average over such a long period of time!

I didn't pick 1 month. WTF are you talking about??

Obama will also have a much lower labor force participation rate and its not yet clear whether the average unemployment rate over the entire time Obama was in office will be lower or higher than Reagans. Simply sighting the last monthly unemployment rate level Obama has, 1 month out of 96, is meaningless and irrelevant. One much consider all the data when rating a Presidents performance, not just their last month in office.

If the unemployment rate averages out at 5.4% or better over the remainder of Obama's presidency, Obama will finish ahead of Reagan.

Maybe, but even if that were to happen, Obama will not have as good a labor force participation rate as Reagan did. Finally, Obama will never be able to catch George W. Bush who averaged 5.27% over his 96 months in office.

Which only serves to demonstrate just how useless this metric is as Bush has one of the worst records in term of employment.

In his first term, he added paltry 56,000 jobs in his first term and 1.2 million jobs in his second term.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

By the time he left office, there were nearly half a million fewer people working in the private sector than when he started; making him only the second president, with Herbert Hoover, to lose such jobs on his watch.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush had solid unemployment levels for most of the time he was President, averaging 5.27%. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low and people had jobs. That's the record, and its a good one! Most people had jobs or could find one while Bush was President on average. The Unemployment rate was still below 5% at the start of his last year with a labor force participation rate of 66%! That has not been the case while Obama has been sitting in the oval office.

As for creating new jobs, that's easier to do when the economy has bottomed out and your throwing Billions of dollars at the economy to create new ones. You don't need to create many new jobs when the economy is at or near full employment and is staying at the level month after month as the population grows. For the vast majority of Bush's 96 months in office, unemployment was below 6%. No other President in history has as many months of unemployment BELOW 6% as George W. Bush does!

Bush created a total of about 1.2 million jobs in 8 years. And even that nominal gain was thanks to growth in the public sector as the private sector lost jobs under his watch. He actually has the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover gave us the Great Depression, which is why averaging out the UR is completely meaningless. The reason it was as low as it was early on is because Clinton handed him an UR of 4.2%. The two best presidents when it came to job growth were Reagan and Clinton. According to your idiocy, Bush was almost as good as Clinton and far better than Reagan.

Keep in mind, Reagan added about 16 million jobs, Clinton added about 23 million jobs, Bush added about 1 million jobs (all public sector).

That you cling to the idiocy that averaging out the UR only reflects desperation to make Obama look bad, when in reality, Obama will be surpassing Reagan in a month or two.

And people like YOU totally ignore these events that neither Reagan, Obama nor any other President had to deal with!
Events that really shook the USA and the world.
Events NO other President has ever had to keep the country encouraged.
Keep the country enthused about getting up and going to work! These were terrible events.
Events that cost nearly 5,000 lives. Events that costs millions of jobs! Trillions of dollars! Trillions in lost payroll and income taxes!
Think what it must have been like to been one of these people that suffered through 9/11.
a) 3,000 dead, thousands of lives changed forever.
b) No airline traffic for 3 days no flights;
c) No Wall street for 10 days
d) 18,000 businesses loss...businesses that had to either start over or gave up!
e) 2,500,000 job lost. Ongoing uncertainty about the war on terror has contributed to the loss of more than 2.5 million jobs in the 18 months following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John A. Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Job losses since 9/11 attacks top 2.5 million

And NOT ONE of you detractors EVER admit these events had a direct affect on unemployment!

 

[pinqy]

Finally, it does not matter why it went down, only that it benefits Obama's unemployment numbers in a way that other Presidents on the list did not experience.

How so? Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford all had lower LFPR than Obama.

It masked the true strength of the economy. Its much easier to have 5% unemployment when the labor force participation rate is 62% than it is to have 5% unemployment when the labor force participation rate is 66%.

I'm sorry, that makes no sense. Let's say the Labor Force is 100,000,000. 5 million is still 5 million regardless of whether the population is 161,290,000 or 151,515,000. Why do you think it makes a difference?

 

[edthecynic]

It only declined slightly under Bush and even at its lowest point, was still a relatively record high historically. There is what is predicted for the next 10 years and then what actually happens. Finally, it does not matter why it went down

Actually it does matter!
Bush's LPR was declining even though Boomers were not retiring yet until his wars removed the activated military from the LPR equation. Once Obama ended Bush's wars and the Boomers retired the LPR dropped from Bush's artificial levels. The difference between Bush's LPR and Obama's is due entirely to demographics and not to the economic conditions.

 

[edthecynic]

The average unemployment rate per month is the best measure when it comes to quality of life that Americans are experiencing. Sorry, but BUSH will always crush Obama and Reagan when it comes to unemployment figures and what it was like for the average man on the street, month after month, to either keep his job or get a new one. Its easy to create new jobs when the economy has bottomed out. You don't need to create as many new jobs when your at full employment, the challenge then is staying at that level. Bush did a great job of doing that which is why the average level of unemployment under Bush is one of the lowest in U.S. history.

That is pure hogwash!

Bush's average is low only because of the super strong economy Clinton handed him and it took a long time for Bush to destroy such a strong economy. Clinton averaged 4% UE for the entire year before Bush came to power. Bush nearly doubled the UE rate and did double the number of unemployed from 6 million to 12 million and skyrocketing when he left! Obama has more people working today than ever in the history of this great country and has reduced the number of unemployed to under 8 million from Bush's 12+ million.

That is why you must ride Clinton's economic coattails and use averages to polish Bush's economic turd because he took the economy in the wrong DIRECTION and Obama has turned the economy back in the direction of growth again.

 

[Faun]

I didn't pick 1 month. WTF are you talking about??

Which only serves to demonstrate just how useless this metric is as Bush has one of the worst records in term of employment.


In his first term, he added paltry 56,000 jobs in his first term and 1.2 million jobs in his second term.


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


By the time he left office, there were nearly half a million fewer people working in the private sector than when he started; making him only the second president, with Herbert Hoover, to lose such jobs on his watch.


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush had solid unemployment levels for most of the time he was President, averaging 5.27%. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low and people had jobs. That's the record, and its a good one! Most people had jobs or could find one while Bush was President on average. The Unemployment rate was still below 5% at the start of his last year with a labor force participation rate of 66%! That has not been the case while Obama has been sitting in the oval office.


As for creating new jobs, that's easier to do when the economy has bottomed out and your throwing Billions of dollars at the economy to create new ones. You don't need to create many new jobs when the economy is at or near full employment and is staying at the level month after month as the population grows. For the vast majority of Bush's 96 months in office, unemployment was below 6%. No other President in history has as many months of unemployment BELOW 6% as George W. Bush does!

Bush created a total of about 1.2 million jobs in 8 years. And even that nominal gain was thanks to growth in the public sector as the private sector lost jobs under his watch. He actually has the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover gave us the Great Depression, which is why averaging out the UR is completely meaningless. The reason it was as low as it was early on is because Clinton handed him an UR of 4.2%. The two best presidents when it came to job growth were Reagan and Clinton. According to your idiocy, Bush was almost as good as Clinton and far better than Reagan.


Keep in mind, Reagan added about 16 million jobs, Clinton added about 23 million jobs, Bush added about 1 million jobs (all public sector).


That you cling to the idiocy that averaging out the UR only reflects desperation to make Obama look bad, when in reality, Obama will be surpassing Reagan in a month or two.

The average unemployment rate per month is the best measure when it comes to quality of life that Americans are experiencing. Sorry, but BUSH will always crush Obama and Reagan when it comes to unemployment figures and what it was like for the average man on the street, month after month, to either keep his job or get a new one. Its easy to create new jobs when the economy has bottomed out. You don't need to create as many new jobs when your at full employment, the challenge then is staying at that level. Bush did a great job of doing that which is why the average level of unemployment under Bush is one of the lowest in U.S. history.


You obviously don't find this meaningless, otherwise your heavy participation in this thread would not exist.


Also, calling other people names does not strengthen your opinions at all and makes you look rather desperate.

Huh? What name did I call you?

And I've demonstrated how meaningless it is.

Carter .......... 10 million jobs
Reagan ........ 16 million jobs
GHWBUSH .... 3 million jobs
Clinton ......... 23 million jobs
Bush ............... 1 million jobs
Obama ........... 8 million jobs

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That you think Bush is among the best in terms of unemployment reveals how ridiculous your metric is.

And for people like you to totally totally IGNORE this shows how biased you guys are against GWB!
And NO other President had these events occur during that period. Events that really shook the USA and the world. Events NO other President
has ever had to keep the country encouraged. Keep the country enthused about getting up and going to work! These were terrible events.
Events that cost nearly 5,000 lives. Events that costs millions of jobs! Trillions of dollars! Trillions in lost payroll and income taxes!
Think what it must have been like to been one of these people that suffered through 9/11.
a) 3,000 dead, thousands of lives changed forever.
b) No airline traffic for 3 days no flights;
c) No Wall street for 10 days
d) 18,000 businesses loss...businesses that had to either start over or gave up!
e) 2,500,000 job lost. Ongoing uncertainty about the war on terror has contributed to the loss of more than 2.5 million jobs in the 18 months following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John A. Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Job losses since 9/11 attacks top 2.5 million

And had Bush tried something ... anything ... maybe he could have prevented 9.11 and saved those 3,000 lives and 2.5 million jobs. Thanks for pointing out what a monumental failure Bush was.

 

[U2Edge]

Finally, it does not matter why it went down, only that it benefits Obama's unemployment numbers in a way that other Presidents on the list did not experience.

How so? Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford all had lower LFPR than Obama.

It masked the true strength of the economy. Its much easier to have 5% unemployment when the labor force participation rate is 62% than it is to have 5% unemployment when the labor force participation rate is 66%.

I'm sorry, that makes no sense. Let's say the Labor Force is 100,000,000. 5 million is still 5 million regardless of whether the population is 161,290,000 or 151,515,000. Why do you think it makes a difference?

Typically, the trend during Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford was that of a RISING Labor Force participation rate, especially as more women entered the workforce. So the economy had to produce more jobs to meet the influx of people into the workforce.

The decline of the labor force participation rate since Obama has been President is the MOST RAPID and consistent rate of decline for the labor force participation rate since World War II!

Here is why the labor force participation rate makes a difference. Say the labor force has 100 people with 10% unemployed. That means 90 people have jobs and 10 are looking waiting for a job to open up, for 10% unemployment. If 9 people leave, your left with a labor force of 91 people of which only 1 is unemployed. So the unemployment rate is now only 1.1% instead of 10% thanks to the labor force shrinking.

Everyone knows when the number of applicants gets smaller relative to the number of job openings, everyone has a better chance of landing a job. Its easier to make sure everyone is set up with a job when the number of people looking for a job is smaller. You'll have a harder time making sure everyone gets a job when the number of job seekers increase relative to the number of jobs.

 

[U2Edge]

Bush had solid unemployment levels for most of the time he was President, averaging 5.27%. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low and people had jobs. That's the record, and its a good one! Most people had jobs or could find one while Bush was President on average. The Unemployment rate was still below 5% at the start of his last year with a labor force participation rate of 66%! That has not been the case while Obama has been sitting in the oval office.


As for creating new jobs, that's easier to do when the economy has bottomed out and your throwing Billions of dollars at the economy to create new ones. You don't need to create many new jobs when the economy is at or near full employment and is staying at the level month after month as the population grows. For the vast majority of Bush's 96 months in office, unemployment was below 6%. No other President in history has as many months of unemployment BELOW 6% as George W. Bush does!

Bush created a total of about 1.2 million jobs in 8 years. And even that nominal gain was thanks to growth in the public sector as the private sector lost jobs under his watch. He actually has the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover gave us the Great Depression, which is why averaging out the UR is completely meaningless. The reason it was as low as it was early on is because Clinton handed him an UR of 4.2%. The two best presidents when it came to job growth were Reagan and Clinton. According to your idiocy, Bush was almost as good as Clinton and far better than Reagan.


Keep in mind, Reagan added about 16 million jobs, Clinton added about 23 million jobs, Bush added about 1 million jobs (all public sector).


That you cling to the idiocy that averaging out the UR only reflects desperation to make Obama look bad, when in reality, Obama will be surpassing Reagan in a month or two.

The average unemployment rate per month is the best measure when it comes to quality of life that Americans are experiencing. Sorry, but BUSH will always crush Obama and Reagan when it comes to unemployment figures and what it was like for the average man on the street, month after month, to either keep his job or get a new one. Its easy to create new jobs when the economy has bottomed out. You don't need to create as many new jobs when your at full employment, the challenge then is staying at that level. Bush did a great job of doing that which is why the average level of unemployment under Bush is one of the lowest in U.S. history.


You obviously don't find this meaningless, otherwise your heavy participation in this thread would not exist.


Also, calling other people names does not strengthen your opinions at all and makes you look rather desperate.

Huh? What name did I call you?

And I've demonstrated how meaningless it is.

Carter .......... 10 million jobs
Reagan ........ 16 million jobs
GHWBUSH .... 3 million jobs
Clinton ......... 23 million jobs
Bush ............... 1 million jobs
Obama ........... 8 million jobs

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That you think Bush is among the best in terms of unemployment reveals how ridiculous your metric is.

And for people like you to totally totally IGNORE this shows how biased you guys are against GWB!
And NO other President had these events occur during that period. Events that really shook the USA and the world. Events NO other President
has ever had to keep the country encouraged. Keep the country enthused about getting up and going to work! These were terrible events.
Events that cost nearly 5,000 lives. Events that costs millions of jobs! Trillions of dollars! Trillions in lost payroll and income taxes!
Think what it must have been like to been one of these people that suffered through 9/11.
a) 3,000 dead, thousands of lives changed forever.
b) No airline traffic for 3 days no flights;
c) No Wall street for 10 days
d) 18,000 businesses loss...businesses that had to either start over or gave up!
e) 2,500,000 job lost. Ongoing uncertainty about the war on terror has contributed to the loss of more than 2.5 million jobs in the 18 months following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John A. Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Job losses since 9/11 attacks top 2.5 million

And had Bush tried something ... anything ... maybe he could have prevented 9.11 and saved those 3,000 lives and 2.5 million jobs. Thanks for pointing out what a monumental failure Bush was.

The American people looked at his response to 9/11 and re-elected him as President of the United States with the first majority in the popular vote since 1988, 16 years!