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

[Faun]

What definition is that, moron?

LOL

The definition you obviously don't know, fucking moron. One is mandatory spending while the other is discretionary spending.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL

The definition you obviously don't know, fucking moron. One is mandatory spending while the other is discretionary spending.

It's all discretionary, moron.

 

[Faun]

It's all discretionary, moron.

No, fucking moron, it's not.

 

[bripat9643]

No, fucking moron, it's not.

Yes, fucking moron, it is.

 

[Faun]

Yes, fucking moron, it is.

So among other things, the Constitution doesn't require Congress to finance the U.S. military? That's just discretionary to fucking morons? Doesn't require Congress to finance building and maintaining roads? That's just discretionary to fucking morons? Doesn't require Congress to finance post offices? That's just discretionary to fucking morons?

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever?

 

[bripat9643]

So among other things, the Constitution doesn't require Congress to finance the U.S. military?

No, it doesn't.

That's just discretionary to fucking morons? Doesn't require Congress to finance building and maintaining roads?

Nope.

That's just discretionary to fucking morons? Doesn't require Congress to finance post offices?

Nope.

That's just discretionary to fucking morons?

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever?

You just proved that you're a moron. Can you quote the text in the Constitution that says the government must fund the military or the Post Office?

 

[Faun]

No, it doesn't.


Nope.


Nope.


You just proved that you're a moron. Can you quote the text in the Constitution that says the government must fund the military or the Post Office?

Your ignorance is astounding, fucking moron. Yes, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires them to fund a military...

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

And for post offices and roads to deliver the mail...

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

 

[bripat9643]

Your ignorance is astounding, fucking moron. Yes, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires them to fund a military...

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

And for post offices and roads to deliver the mail...

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

Nope. It allows the government to fund a military. It doesn't require it.

You're a king-sized imbecile.

 

[U2Edge]

These rates are averages and very misleading. For example. Bush came into office with 4.2 % unemployment and LEFT WITH 7.8%.
That means Obama came in with 7.8% unemployment, it rose to 10% that year but he left with 4.7% unemployment rate….a huge turn around. The averages don’t tell the story.
It’s the trend over time.
Trump came in with 4.7% and rising to 6.3% when he left.
Biden came in with over 6% and is now down to 3.7%, essentially, full employment.
It’s pretty apparent that democrats are better at creating jobs.
Check the inflation rates too. They were climbing rapidly while Trump was leaving office under a swell of debt. Biden has turned the disasterous Trump economy around, just like Obama did after the Bush disaster.
Trump LOST millions of jobs, Biden has gained millions.
It’s the same story with most GOP economies in modern times vs democrats.

Trends are interesting, but there are likely multiple trends over an 8 year period, especially with 96 monthly unemployment reports. Rarely do these fit into nice tidy boxes, and no, siting a the first month and the last month of a 96th month period is FAR AWAY from telling the whole story of what happened during an 8 year time period. You have to look at ALL the data, and the only way you see that is with the averages.

A sudden economic boom or economic downturn in the last months of an administration can't and should not wipe out good or bad economic performance of the previous 7 years. It all has to be looked at.

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2023 was 3.7%. This is the 35th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 35th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.24% in October 2023 to 4.23% in November 2023.

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

Gerald Ford: 7.77%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Joe Biden: 4.23%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Donald Trump: 5.01%
07. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
08. George W. Bush: 5.27%
09. John Kennedy: 5.98%
10. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
11. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
12. Barack Obama: 7.45%
13. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
14. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

The labor force Participation rate was 62.8% for November 2023, an increase from the 62.7% in October 2023.

It should be noted that this is Joe Biden's 22nd consecutive month with monthly unemployment BELOW 4%. This is getting close to the record for the number of consecutive months unemployed has stayed under 4%, which is 35 months during the Korean War in the early 1950s, followed in second place by a 27 month period during the Vietnam War in the late 1960s. Joe Biden could potentially break the record before the November 2024 Presidential Election.

 

[Dagosa]

Trends are interesting, but there are likely multiple trends over an 8 year period, especially with 96 monthly unemployment reports. Rarely do these fit into nice tidy boxes, and no, siting a the first month and the last month of a 96th month period is FAR AWAY from telling the whole story of what happened during an 8 year time period. You have to look at ALL the data, and the only way you see that is with the averages.

A sudden economic boom or economic downturn in the last months of an administration can't and should not wipe out good or bad economic performance of the previous 7 years. It all has to be looked at.

The economic Trends at the end of an administration are an better indication where the economy is headEd. Coming into office is totally dependent upon the previous admin. More often than not, in the end, it’s a result of the previous years of either neglect or worth while investment.

We’re coming near the end of the first year of Biden admin. Inflation is nearly ZERO, unimployment has continued to be very low, growth has been substantial. Worth while invest in infrastructure lead the way. It’s a no brainer that Brydenomics works.

 

[Dagosa]

You have to look at ALL the data, and the only way you see that is with the averages.

Totally bogus. Trends are much more important. Obama came into office with the worse recession since the Great Depression and you want to blame the hemorrhaging of jobs before he’s even passed a budget, on him which resulted in a higher overall average.

Rediculous. The same with the deficit left to him by Bush as well. By the end of his admin, unemployment was trending down and the deficit had been reduced dramatically. It’s hilarious. The Dems come in with recessions from the previous repugnants and repugnant sycophants want to whine because the recovery from their malfeasance has been too slow. It’s a game gop incompetents play. .

Trends are interesting,

Trends are the only way to measure occurrences with any reliability. Medicine is dependent upon them, the economy is built around them, the climate is measure by it and guess what, a sound relationship is dependent upon them.,

Averages are simple math. If you gain weight from 170:to 230, your average weight is much less important than the idea that, you just gained 60:lBS, and are trending Upward. The same with the economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Totally bogus. Trends are much more important. Obama came into office with the worse recession since the Great Depression and you want to blame the hemorrhaging of jobs before he’s even passed a budget, on him which resulted in a higher overall average.

Rediculous. The same with the deficit left to him by Bush as well. By the end of his admin, unemployment was trending down and the deficit had been reduced dramatically. It’s hilarious. The Dems come in with recessions from the previous repugnants and repugnant sycophants want to whine because the recovery from their malfeasance has been too slow. It’s a game gop incompetents play. .

Trends are the only way to measure occurrences with any reliability. Medicine is dependent upon them, the economy is built around them, the climate is measure by it and guess what, a sound relationship is dependent upon them.,

Averages are simple math. If you gain weight from 170:to 230, your average weight is much less important than the idea that, you just gained 60:lBS, and are trending Upward. The same with the economy.

Obama came into office with the worse recession since the Great Depression

That ended in June 2009, before he did anything. DURR

By the end of his admin, unemployment was trending down and the deficit had been reduced dramatically.

He only added $10 trillion to the debt. What a guy!

 

[Dagosa]

Obama came into office with the worse recession since the Great Depression

That ended in June 2009, before he did anything. DURR

what a dufus. Were all those who lost their jobs back to work at their previous level ? Nope. Did all those who went though bankruptcy recover their homes and wealth, nope. How about the millions on em0loyer based HC who lost theirs ? Nope. That was not available until. Obamacare. What a fool you bozos are.

By the end of his admin, unemployment was trending down and the deficit had been reduced dramatically.

He only added $10 trillion to the debt. What a guy!

No he didn’t. He didn’t add it dufus. The debt includes compound interest on the inherited deficits, which came from all precise presidents and Bushes tax cuts idiot. Why don’t you take your finger out of your ears and look up the difference between deficit and debt. Btw, with your logic, Trump added that much in just 4 years math illiterate.

 

[Dagosa]

Trends are interesting, but there are likely multiple trends over an 8 year period, especially with 96 monthly unemployment reports. Rarely do these fit into nice tidy boxes, and no, siting a the first month and the last month of a 96th month period is FAR AWAY from telling the whole story of what happened during an 8 year time period. You have to look at ALL the data, and the only way you see that is with the averages.

A sudden economic boom or economic downturn in the last months of an administration can't and should not wipe out good or bad economic performance of the previous 7 years. It all has to be looked at.

Next time you’re pulled over for speeding, tell the cop your average speed for the trip was less than the posted speed limit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

what a dufus. Were all those who lost their jobs back to work at their previous level ? Nope. Did all those who went though bankruptcy recover their homes and wealth, nope. How about the millions on em0loyer based HC who lost theirs ? Nope. That was not available until. Obamacare. What a fool you bozos are.


No he didn’t. He didn’t add it dufus. The debt includes compound interest on the inherited deficits, which came from all precise presidents and Bushes tax cuts idiot. Why don’t you take your finger out of your ears and look up the difference between deficit and debt. Btw, with your logic, Trump added that much in just 4 years math illiterate.

Were all those who lost their jobs back to work at their previous level ?

Nope.

No he didn’t. He didn’t add it dufus. The debt includes compound interest on the inherited deficits, which came from all precise presidents and Bushes tax cuts idiot.

You're such a moron.
He added $10 trillion to the debt, but, with interest rates at record low levels, the
$10 trillion he added to the debt was all due to interest?

Show your math. How much was interest on the debt for every year that stuttering fuck was president. Show me that it adds up to $10 trillion.

Why don’t you take your finger out of your ears and look up the difference between deficit and debt.

He added $10 trillion to the debt, not $10 trillion to the deficit.

 

[gipper]

Were all those who lost their jobs back to work at their previous level ?
Nope.

No he didn’t. He didn’t add it dufus. The debt includes compound interest on the inherited deficits, which came from all precise presidents and Bushes tax cuts idiot.

You're such a moron.
He added $10 trillion to the debt, but, with interest rates at record low levels, the
$10 trillion he added to the debt was all due to interest?

Show your math. How much was interest on the debt for every year that stuttering fuck was president. Show me that it adds up to $10 trillion.

Why don’t you take your finger out of your ears and look up the difference between deficit and debt.

He added $10 trillion to the debt, not $10 trillion to the deficit.

“It’s called the American dream because you've got to be asleep to believe it.” - George Carlin

 

[U2Edge]

Totally bogus. Trends are much more important. Obama came into office with the worse recession since the Great Depression and you want to blame the hemorrhaging of jobs before he’s even passed a budget, on him which resulted in a higher overall average.

Rediculous. The same with the deficit left to him by Bush as well. By the end of his admin, unemployment was trending down and the deficit had been reduced dramatically. It’s hilarious. The Dems come in with recessions from the previous repugnants and repugnant sycophants want to whine because the recovery from their malfeasance has been too slow. It’s a game gop incompetents play. .

Trends are the only way to measure occurrences with any reliability. Medicine is dependent upon them, the economy is built around them, the climate is measure by it and guess what, a sound relationship is dependent upon them.,

Averages are simple math. If you gain weight from 170:to 230, your average weight is much less important than the idea that, you just gained 60:lBS, and are trending Upward. The same with the economy.

Again, the logic of only weighing the first month and the last month of 96 month period in office will never make any sense. Its possible to have multiple trending periods during a 96 month period, but you would never KNOW ANY OF THAT, because you only looked at two small data points.

Its like saying Colleges should only look at the first semester of the first year of High School and the last semester of the 4th year of Highschool to determine if a student should be accepted to college.

You could have multiple recessions within a 96 month period of time, but none of them will be recorded or measured at all, if you only look at the first month and the last month.

I've yet to see ANYTHING that says the monthly unemployment average for each President is NOT an important statistic to look at.

I've seen the argument you're making here dozens of times before and each time it is easily refuted.

I'm sorry if its upsetting to you that it makes your favorite President or whatever not look as good, but it is a factual indication of what the job market was like while that President was in office. Yes, it is possible that things turned out better for a President with a high average monthly unemployment, by the time they left office, but that NEVER wipes away the tough years that were experienced.

 

[U2Edge]

Next time you’re pulled over for speeding, tell the cop your average speed for the trip was less than the posted speed limit.

Your free to start your own thread about Presidents that ignores entire years of data where economic hardship happened.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

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%

U2Edge is mumbling. That means he cut Bush's recession unemployment by 4%. How about that?

Obama replaced all the jobs Bush caused to be lost and added even more. How about that?

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in January 2017 was 4.8%