Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obama inherited a 7.8% unemployment rate with a shocking free fall of jobs loss rate.
And 5 years later the unemployment rate is 7.3% but that includes the lowest workforce participation rate since the 1980s. Which means it would be about 10% if all the people who gave up looking were still llooking.
So remind me how successful Obama has been after 5 years.
Because, as I said, 2.5x more jobs were created in his 5 years than Bush's 8. Facts are facts.
ANd he tripled down on it and made it worse while blaming his predecessor. Your comrades are STILL claiming it.So, wait. Work with me here.Do I really need to explain to you that Bush had been president for a little under 2 years when 9/11 happened. He didn't inherit 9/11 or the war he started in response.
Wow.....
Bush did not inherit 9/11 or the recession because he was already in office just under 2 years.
But Obama did inherit a mess even though he has been in office over 5 years.
Does this make sense? I mean to someone with 2 functioning brain cells or more.
Obama inherited a 7.8% unemployment rate with a shocking free fall of jobs loss rate.
And 5 years later the unemployment rate is 7.3% but that includes the lowest workforce participation rate since the 1980s. Which means it would be about 10% if all the people who gave up looking were still llooking.
So remind me how successful Obama has been after 5 years.
Because, as I said, 2.5x more jobs were created in his 5 years than Bush's 8. Facts are facts.
That's a non-sequitur. You understand that right?
If that many jobs had been created then the UE rate should be about 5%, or 6%. Not over 7%. And that's just believing the official numbers, which we know are manipulated.
So, wait. Work with me here.
Bush did not inherit 9/11 or the recession because he was already in office just under 2 years.
But Obama did inherit a mess even though he has been in office over 5 years.
Does this make sense? I mean to someone with 2 functioning brain cells or more.
Especially since 9/11/01 was a mere 7 months after Bush took office....
But hey, leftists like Billy got hate sites, they don't need brains....
Because, as I said, 2.5x more jobs were created in his 5 years than Bush's 8. Facts are facts.
That's a non-sequitur. You understand that right?
If that many jobs had been created then the UE rate should be about 5%, or 6%. Not over 7%. And that's just believing the official numbers, which we know are manipulated.
Well it is true we have lost more jobs than we have gained, but steady economic growth is still steady economic growth. The free fall started before Obama came into office. Do you really expect a president alone to curb a free fall within one year?
You completely dismiss where the downturn began. The graph included, and the one at the link show that the downturn began when the Congress went from GOP to Democrat control.Um, no because the evidence says so.
Like this evidence?
Labor Force Participation Under President Obama
Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows an unmistakable decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate under President Obama. The rate dropped from 65.7% in January 2009 to 63.6% in September 2012. The chart below depicts the decline during President Obamas time in office, and it demonstrates that the job situation became worse under his leadership.
Running contrary to the notion that the problem was entirely inherited, the most precipitous drop began approximately six months into President Obamas term. The data shows an acceleration in the number of individuals dropping out of the labor force beginning in July 2009, when the Labor Force Participation Rate was 65.6% with a quick drop to 64.6% by December 2009. By September of this year, the rate had fallen to 63.6%. The chart below compares the Labor Force Participation Rate under President Bush to the rate under President Obama and helps put the decline in perspective.
Yeah the economy was bad in his FIRST year. Obviously the downturn he inherited is going to spill over.
You completely dismiss where the downturn began. The graph included, and the one at the link show that the downturn began when the Congress went from GOP to Democrat control.
Yeah the economy was bad in his FIRST year. Obviously the downturn he inherited is going to spill over.
So, wait. Work with me here.
Bush did not inherit 9/11 or the recession because he was already in office just under 2 years.
But Obama did inherit a mess even though he has been in office over 5 years.
Does this make sense? I mean to someone with 2 functioning brain cells or more.
Especially since 9/11/01 was a mere 7 months after Bush took office....
But hey, leftists like Billy got hate sites, they don't need brains....
A president pretty much owns an economy as soon as he gets elected.
Why? Because businessmen plan. They plan for the future. They set money aside to either be spent or saved based on a number of factors. One of which is who's setting the pace for Business and Job growth in this Country.
When obama was elected, the U6, which is the REAL unemployment number, was right at 13%.
It is now 14%.
People who got nothing got nothing to lose. They run their idiotic fucking mouth like they're experts but they got no skin in the game. All they got is their mouths.
People that got a little something and want it to grow, want it to work for them, pay attention to things like who's in the White House.
I will tell you this, when obama got elected.... I shut her down. I stopped. I quit spending money on everything and took a wait and see attitude.
So did almost everybody I know. Even the uber rich for a time.
Because the really rich aren't hurt by economic fluctuations, they see them as opportunities because -- They are.
They can go around picking off properties, etc at bargain basement prices and wait for the economy to come back. The smart ones waited a couple years because they knew it would only get worse under the Stuttering Clusterfuck.
And it did.
The guy I sold my business to? We were talking about it and he was mulling over whether he should hire two more people to staff his Office.
I advised him not to and he agreed that I was right.
I was. As usual. The economy absolutely TANKED. And it was because of obama.
Most of the new jobs that have been created are either gubmint jobs or part time jobs. Not all, but most.
China is pulling back on production precipitously, Germany has a problem with export goods in inventory, the whole world is looking at a slowing economy.
And it's because of obama.
But like I said, people who ain't got nothing? Experts. They know everything.
Which is why they never will have anything.
That's a non-sequitur. You understand that right?
If that many jobs had been created then the UE rate should be about 5%, or 6%. Not over 7%. And that's just believing the official numbers, which we know are manipulated.
Well it is true we have lost more jobs than we have gained, but steady economic growth is still steady economic growth. The free fall started before Obama came into office. Do you really expect a president alone to curb a free fall within one year?
We haven't had steady economic growth. GDP growth has been at max 3%, and more typically under 2%. This is despite spending over a trillion dollar on stimulus.
And yet stockholders are wealthier than ever and corporate profits have never been higher under Obama.
Well it is true we have lost more jobs than we have gained, but steady economic growth is still steady economic growth. The free fall started before Obama came into office. Do you really expect a president alone to curb a free fall within one year?
We haven't had steady economic growth. GDP growth has been at max 3%, and more typically under 2%. This is despite spending over a trillion dollar on stimulus.
And yet stockholders are wealthier than ever and corporate profits have never been higher under Obama.
As long as they don't get out of line, but rather tow it without forethought.And yet stockholders are wealthier than ever and corporate profits have never been higher under Obama.
But Dear Leader is there for the little people....
We haven't had steady economic growth. GDP growth has been at max 3%, and more typically under 2%. This is despite spending over a trillion dollar on stimulus.
And yet stockholders are wealthier than ever and corporate profits have never been higher under Obama.
And Democrats typically see that as a problem.
So if you're not a wealthy fat cat union member or CEO then Obama's policies have been a disaster. We get it. Do you?
And yet stockholders are wealthier than ever and corporate profits have never been higher under Obama.
And Democrats typically see that as a problem.
So if you're not a wealthy fat cat union member or CEO then Obama's policies have been a disaster. We get it. Do you?
Leave it to you to change the subject when you lose an argument.
And Democrats typically see that as a problem.
So if you're not a wealthy fat cat union member or CEO then Obama's policies have been a disaster. We get it. Do you?
Leave it to you to change the subject when you lose an argument.
Wow. Just wow.
We talk about unemployment and you switch to GDP growth. We point out poor GDP growth and you switch to the stock market. We point out that the stock market mainly helps the wealthy and you accuse me of changing topics.
You're just a sorry piece of shit, Billy. Not even worth fucking with anymore.
So long, loser. I encourage others here to stick you on iggy to raise the level of debate.
This thread is partly inspired by welfarequeen's poll on how USMB members grade Obama's presidency. The large majority of you gave Obama an F which, in my opinion, is completely unfair and is an obvious indication of willful ignorance.
This is a fair and balanced assessment of how the country has faired under Obama. They are based upon numbers only. Subjective criticism such as his character or leadership skills are not in this article. I highlighted in bold what I consider to be important points. Keep in mind that these figures only represent what has happened UNDER Obama. Which means many factors influence them. Not just Obama.
America is still gaining jobs under President Obama, but millions more live in poverty, typical household incomes have not kept pace with inflation, and the federal debt is up nearly 90 percent and on pace to double before he leaves office. Stockholders, meanwhile, are far wealthier than they were the day he was sworn in.
U.S. oil production continues to boom, as do wind and solar power, while dependence on foreign oil keeps dropping. International opinion of the United States has slipped a bit, but generally remains far higher than before he took office, except in the Muslim world, where it has gotten even worse.
These are among the findings in our latest update of Obamas Numbers.
This is another in our series of regular quarterly updates of key statistical indicators of the Obama presidency. It follows our Obamas Numbers article in October, a pre-election update we posted Nov. 5, and quarterly updates posted April 16 and July 19.
The mix of statistics in these reports will vary. This update includes income and poverty figures that are issued annually, for example. We select other figures that are available monthly or quarterly depending on what we judge to be most topical. Our intent is to provide accurate measures of whats changed for better or worse since Obama first took office in January 2009.
by Brooks Jackson
Obama?s Numbers, October Update
To me the trick is determining how much Obama's policies have influenced these economic numbers. And of course not just him, but Congress as well.
My take on the economy: Things could be better with 7.3% unemployment. However, the economy went into a free fall in 2007. 100,000s of jobs were being lost each month up. The unemployment rate may have gone up under Obama, but there is no denying that Obama has created more jobs than Bush did in his entire 8 years. In other words, a president only has so much control over a nation's economy. In my perspective, the higher unemployment rate has very little to do with Obama's policies. Could he have done more to repair the problem? Maybe, but our do-nothing congress has contributed a great deal to this. Republicans, historically since 2000, have done NOTHING to improve the economy.
Because, as I said, 2.5x more jobs were created in his 5 years than Bush's 8. Facts are facts.
That's a non-sequitur. You understand that right?
If that many jobs had been created then the UE rate should be about 5%, or 6%. Not over 7%. And that's just believing the official numbers, which we know are manipulated.
Well it is true we have lost more jobs than we have gained, but steady economic growth is still steady economic growth. The free fall started before Obama came into office. Do you really expect a president alone to curb a free fall within one year?
Actually? He has a plan. Destroy it. Make dependence the new standard.That's a non-sequitur. You understand that right?
If that many jobs had been created then the UE rate should be about 5%, or 6%. Not over 7%. And that's just believing the official numbers, which we know are manipulated.
Well it is true we have lost more jobs than we have gained, but steady economic growth is still steady economic growth. The free fall started before Obama came into office. Do you really expect a president alone to curb a free fall within one year?
Steady economic growth? Dude, our economy is basically stagnant. It's "growing" at a little over 1% a year.
And Obama's been in office for FIVE YEARS!!! When should we expect him to start working on growing the economy? You're defending a President who essentially hasn't HAD an economic plan for several years now.
Wowee-zowee, batfink!!!
Bush was in Office a whole 40 Days and he caused the recession?
You really are an ignorant fuck.
You completely dismiss where the downturn began. The graph included, and the one at the link show that the downturn began when the Congress went from GOP to Democrat control.Yeah the economy was bad in his FIRST year. Obviously the downturn he inherited is going to spill over.
Where is the evidence that makes a piss bit of difference?
