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

[Stephanie]

Now why are men out shooting up things? Obamanomics right in our face
Another good chart in the comment section with this article.

SNIP:
Obamanomics in Action: Worst Labor Force Participation Rate Since 1977

Jim Hoft Oct 2nd, 2015 9:49 am 20 Comments


Obamanomics in action–
The Obama economy added only 142,000 jobs in September – much lower than expected.
The US labor participation rate is the lowest it’s been since October 1977.


** After the worst recovery since World War II the US economy is moving towards recession.



CNS News reported:

A record 94,610,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month — an increase of 579,000 from August — and the labor force participation rate reached its lowest point in 38 years, with 62.4 percent of the U.S. population either holding a job or actively seeking one.

In other disappointing news, the economy added only 142,000 jobs in September, well below economists’ expectations, but the unemployment rate remained at 5.1 percent, where it was in August…

…In September, according to the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 251,325,000. Of those, 156,715,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

all of it here:
Obamanomics in Action: Worst Labor Force Participation Rate Since 1977 - The Gateway Pundit

 

[healthmyths]

So you are of the very very simple mind that On March 1,2001 at 12:01 AM the recession started. The GDP immediately dropped below zero.

Here is what the "experts" define as a "recession"
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.

Recession Definition | Investopedia Recession Definition | Investopedia
US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter

TELL ME you idiot... WHERE during the 4 quarters preceding March 2001 are there any quarters with "negative" figures???
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%

NOW YOU want to see "negative GDP"? Hmmmm... Obrama became president in 2009!
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%


US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter
Mar 31, 2015 3.91%
Dec 31, 2014 3.66%
Sep 30, 2014 4.31%
Jun 30, 2014 4.27%
Mar 31, 2014 3.28%
Dec 31, 2013 4.57%
Sep 30, 2013 3.71%
Jun 30, 2013 3.26%
Mar 31, 2013 3.42%
Dec 31, 2012 3.47%
Sep 30, 2012 4.37%
Jun 30, 2012 4.10%
Mar 31, 2012 4.71%
Dec 31, 2011 3.64%
Sep 30, 2011 3.52%
Jun 30, 2011 3.84%
Mar 31, 2011 3.80%
Dec 31, 2010 4.56%
Sep 30, 2010 4.68%
Jun 30, 2010 3.82%
Mar 31, 2010 2.07%
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%
Dec 31, 2008 -0.92%
Sep 30, 2008 1.88%
Jun 30, 2008 2.71%
Mar 31, 2008 3.06%
Dec 31, 2007 4.40%
Sep 30, 2007 4.75%
Jun 30, 2007 4.51%
Mar 31, 2007 4.28%
Dec 31, 2006 5.12%
Sep 30, 2006 5.32%
Jun 30, 2006 6.36%
Mar 31, 2006 6.52%
Dec 31, 2005 6.52%
Sep 30, 2005 6.77%
Jun 30, 2005 6.51%
Mar 31, 2005 6.88%
Dec 31, 2004 6.31%
Sep 30, 2004 6.39%
Jun 30, 2004 7.13%
Mar 31, 2004 6.75%
Dec 31, 2003 6.42%
Sep 30, 2003 5.33%
Jun 30, 2003 3.99%
Mar 31, 2003 3.65%
Dec 31, 2002 3.76%
Sep 30, 2002 3.74%
Jun 30, 2002 2.79%
Mar 31, 2002 3.11%
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
Jun 30, 2000 7.55%
Mar 31, 2000 6.18%
Dec 31, 1999 6.44%
Sep 30, 1999 6.19%
Jun 30, 1999 6.25%
Mar 31, 1999 6.27%
Dec 31, 1998 6.11%
Sep 30, 1998 5.23%
Jun 30, 1998 5.18%
Mar 31, 1998 5.80%
Dec 31, 1997 6.05%
Sep 30, 1997 6.53%
Jun 30, 1997 6.08%
Mar 31, 1997 6.45%

Who knows where on Earth you get your numbers from? But the BEA produced these numbers (notice, they're nowhere near the figures you post):

2000q1 1.2
2000q2 7.8
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
2001q1 -1.1
2001q2 2.1
2001q3 -1.3
2001q4 1.1

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

And you're idiocy of pointing out negative GDP during the beginning of Obama's presidency is beyond idiotic (which is why you post it). Yes, GDP was negative during the Great Bush Recession.

2008q1 -2.7
2008q2 2.0
2008q3 -1.9
2008q4 -8.2
2009q1 -5.4
2009q2 -0.5
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9

FROM the Bureau of Economic Analysis Department of Commerce:
BEA National Economic Accounts

Gross Domestic Product
Percent change from preceding period
For YOU simple mind I've changed the colors to RED when there was negative growth!!!
Clinton's last year....
2000q1 4.3
2000q2 10.2
2000q3 3.1
2000q4 4.5
Bush years..
OH and yea how about THESE EVENTS that no other President ever experienced: 1) Dot.com bust-- 2) 9/11 3) Worst hurricane SEASONS...All of which made
these numbers worse BUT still there was growth!!!
2001q1 1.4
2001q2 5.1
2001q3 0.0
2001q4 2.3
2002q1 5.1
2002q2 3.8
2002q3 3.8
2002q4 2.4
2003q1 4.6
2003q2 5.1
2003q3 9.3
2003q4 6.8
2004q1 5.9
2004q2 6.6
2004q3 6.3
2004q4 6.4
2005q1 8.3
2005q2 5.1
2005q3 7.3
2005q4 5.4
2006q1 8.2
2006q2 4.5
2006q3 3.2
2006q4 4.6
2007q1 4.8
2007q2 5.4
2007q3 4.2
2007q4 3.2
2008q1 -0.5
2008q2 4.0
2008q3 0.8
2008q4 -7.7
Obama's years
2009q1 -4.5
2009q2 -1.2
2009q3 1.2
2009q4 5.2
2010q1 3.2
2010q2 5.8
2010q3 4.6
2010q4 4.7
2011q1 0.2
2011q2 6.0
2011q3 3.3
2011q4 5.2
2012q1 4.9
2012q2 3.8
2012q3 2.7
2012q4 1.7
2013q1 3.6
2013q2 2.1
2013q3 4.9
2013q4 5.6
2014q1 0.6
2014q2 6.9
2014q3 6.0
2014q4 2.2
2015q1 0.8
2015q2 6.1

You are too fucking retarded.

First of all, those numbers don't even match the numbers you posted earlier. So where did you get those earlier numbers from since they obviously didn't come from the BEA?

Secondly, you expose your ignorance by posting nominal figures. Real figures are use to determine recessions, not nominal figures.

Thirdly, you've once again exposed yourself as a complete nutjob who doesn't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.

And lastly, the recession began in March, 2001. Nothing you've posted changes that fact. All you've done is reveal you're disconnected from reality.

First you ignorant lazy dick-head I did provide the source ,dumb f...KK!
HERE it is AGAIN from the post that showed the numbers YOU dispute!!! ---------- US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter

READ closer dumb f..k because almost every time I use any numbers I source them!

But YOU f...king idiots never do so. You spout some numbers with NO substantiation!

YOU know your credibility is SO questionable because YOU don't source YOUR idiotic statement for example: "Recession began in March 2001"!

WHERE IS YOUR link? Your supporting proof that "Recession began in March 2001"?

Especially when the primary source that evidently YOU come with states the below rationale for their non-government definition!

Where is your proof because EVEN when the group that YOU think are the experts and said so and here is the LINK dumb f...k that shows THEY are subjective!!
And it is this non-government group that the MSM uses in reporting recessions even though the financial press refuses their "expertise"
as the definition of a recession is:
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP);
although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.
Recession Definition | Investopedia

So dumb f...k, above with the SOURCE is the classic accepted definition of recession which is 2 consecutive quarters used by the financial press!

The NBER may or not accept 2 quarters...depending on who is in office!!!

NOW idiot, here is the source for NBER's definition -------> The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions
The Business Cycle Dating Committee's general procedure for determining the dates of business cycles

Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?
A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. In 2001, for example, the recession did not include two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP.
In the recession beginning in December 2007 and ending in June 2009, real GDP declined in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first quarter of 2009. The committee places real Gross Domestic Income on an equal footing with real GDP; real GDI declined for six consecutive quarters in the recent recession.

Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?
A: The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP and real GDI, but use a range of other indicators as well. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in the recessions of 2001 and 2007-2009.

NOT the government though! They simply report the increase or decrease of the GDP!

Which is what I was reporting!

Using the Federal government reporting then from this source dummy!!! ----------> BEA National Economic Accounts
and USING GDP percent change based on chained 2009 dollars (Again which you disputed my original submission!!!)
2000q2 7.8%
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
2001q1 -1.1 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2001q2 2.1
2001q3 -1.3 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2001q4 1.1
2002q1 3.7
2002q2 2.2
2002q3 2.0
2002q4 0.3
2003q1 2.1
2003q2 3.8
2003q3 6.9
2003q4 4.8
2004q1 2.3
2004q2 3.0
2004q3 3.7
2004q4 3.5
2005q1 4.3
2005q2 2.1
2005q3 3.4
2005q4 2.3
2006q1 4.9
2006q2 1.2
2006q3 0.4
2006q4 3.2
2007q1 0.2
2007q2 3.1
2007q3 2.7
2007q4 1.4
2008q1 -2.7 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2008q2 2.0
2008q3 -1.9
2008q4 -8.2 NOW THIS IS THE BEGINNING of a "recession " i.e. 2 consecutive quarters of declining GDP!!!
2009q1 -5.4
2009q2 -0.5
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9
2010q1 1.7
2010q2 3.9
2010q3 2.7
2010q4 2.5
2011q1 -1.5
2011q2 2.9
2011q3 0.8
2011q4 4.6
2012q1 2.7
2012q2 1.9
2012q3 0.5
2012q4 0.1
2013q1 1.9
2013q2 1.1
2013q3 3.0
2013q4 3.8
2014q1 -0.9
2014q2 4.6
2014q3 4.3
2014q4 2.1
2015q1 0.6
2015q2 3.9

for all the times you've claimed the 2001 recession as one of the problems the GW Bush had,

when you're defending his record, now you're going to say it never happened?

lol, classic

You are right! I've said the recession that NBER according to their premise never happened under Bush! There never were 2 consecutive quarters.
But the MSM called it a recession based on NBER and the MSM and idiots like you found this a perfect example of Bush malfunctioning.
My point in showing the "MSM/NBER defined recession" though was to show that recessions don't just start on 3/1/2001 which the naive people like you believe.
The "recession" that naive people like you define as starting 3/1/01 was actually a slow down starting with Clinton in
2000q2 7.8%
2000q3 0.5%
2000q4 2.3%
2001q1 -1.1% Started under Clinton But Bush had to contend with it as well as during the rest of his term these gigantic world changing events:


$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes!
So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

People like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to these companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

 

[pinqy]

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

Big big difference btw Reagan and Obama's U.R. calculation method. Slick Willie's administration revised the calculation method and removed essentially the long term unemployed or as they call them the people who stop looking! Obama's labor market has the the lowest labor participation rate in decades.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The definition of u employed under Reagan was "Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days."

This was changed to "All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed."

Please point out where long term unemployed were removed as you claim.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who knows where on Earth you get your numbers from? But the BEA produced these numbers (notice, they're nowhere near the figures you post):

2000q1 1.2
2000q2 7.8
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
2001q1 -1.1
2001q2 2.1
2001q3 -1.3
2001q4 1.1

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

And you're idiocy of pointing out negative GDP during the beginning of Obama's presidency is beyond idiotic (which is why you post it). Yes, GDP was negative during the Great Bush Recession.

2008q1 -2.7
2008q2 2.0
2008q3 -1.9
2008q4 -8.2
2009q1 -5.4
2009q2 -0.5
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9

FROM the Bureau of Economic Analysis Department of Commerce:
BEA National Economic Accounts

Gross Domestic Product
Percent change from preceding period
For YOU simple mind I've changed the colors to RED when there was negative growth!!!
Clinton's last year....
2000q1 4.3
2000q2 10.2
2000q3 3.1
2000q4 4.5
Bush years..
OH and yea how about THESE EVENTS that no other President ever experienced: 1) Dot.com bust-- 2) 9/11 3) Worst hurricane SEASONS...All of which made
these numbers worse BUT still there was growth!!!
2001q1 1.4
2001q2 5.1
2001q3 0.0
2001q4 2.3
2002q1 5.1
2002q2 3.8
2002q3 3.8
2002q4 2.4
2003q1 4.6
2003q2 5.1
2003q3 9.3
2003q4 6.8
2004q1 5.9
2004q2 6.6
2004q3 6.3
2004q4 6.4
2005q1 8.3
2005q2 5.1
2005q3 7.3
2005q4 5.4
2006q1 8.2
2006q2 4.5
2006q3 3.2
2006q4 4.6
2007q1 4.8
2007q2 5.4
2007q3 4.2
2007q4 3.2
2008q1 -0.5
2008q2 4.0
2008q3 0.8
2008q4 -7.7
Obama's years
2009q1 -4.5
2009q2 -1.2
2009q3 1.2
2009q4 5.2
2010q1 3.2
2010q2 5.8
2010q3 4.6
2010q4 4.7
2011q1 0.2
2011q2 6.0
2011q3 3.3
2011q4 5.2
2012q1 4.9
2012q2 3.8
2012q3 2.7
2012q4 1.7
2013q1 3.6
2013q2 2.1
2013q3 4.9
2013q4 5.6
2014q1 0.6
2014q2 6.9
2014q3 6.0
2014q4 2.2
2015q1 0.8
2015q2 6.1

You are too fucking retarded.

First of all, those numbers don't even match the numbers you posted earlier. So where did you get those earlier numbers from since they obviously didn't come from the BEA?

Secondly, you expose your ignorance by posting nominal figures. Real figures are use to determine recessions, not nominal figures.

Thirdly, you've once again exposed yourself as a complete nutjob who doesn't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.

And lastly, the recession began in March, 2001. Nothing you've posted changes that fact. All you've done is reveal you're disconnected from reality.

First you ignorant lazy dick-head I did provide the source ,dumb f...KK!
HERE it is AGAIN from the post that showed the numbers YOU dispute!!! ---------- US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter

READ closer dumb f..k because almost every time I use any numbers I source them!

But YOU f...king idiots never do so. You spout some numbers with NO substantiation!

YOU know your credibility is SO questionable because YOU don't source YOUR idiotic statement for example: "Recession began in March 2001"!

WHERE IS YOUR link? Your supporting proof that "Recession began in March 2001"?

Especially when the primary source that evidently YOU come with states the below rationale for their non-government definition!

Where is your proof because EVEN when the group that YOU think are the experts and said so and here is the LINK dumb f...k that shows THEY are subjective!!
And it is this non-government group that the MSM uses in reporting recessions even though the financial press refuses their "expertise"
as the definition of a recession is:
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP);
although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.
Recession Definition | Investopedia

So dumb f...k, above with the SOURCE is the classic accepted definition of recession which is 2 consecutive quarters used by the financial press!

The NBER may or not accept 2 quarters...depending on who is in office!!!

NOW idiot, here is the source for NBER's definition -------> The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions
The Business Cycle Dating Committee's general procedure for determining the dates of business cycles

Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?
A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. In 2001, for example, the recession did not include two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP.
In the recession beginning in December 2007 and ending in June 2009, real GDP declined in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first quarter of 2009. The committee places real Gross Domestic Income on an equal footing with real GDP; real GDI declined for six consecutive quarters in the recent recession.

Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?
A: The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP and real GDI, but use a range of other indicators as well. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in the recessions of 2001 and 2007-2009.

NOT the government though! They simply report the increase or decrease of the GDP!

Which is what I was reporting!

Using the Federal government reporting then from this source dummy!!! ----------> BEA National Economic Accounts
and USING GDP percent change based on chained 2009 dollars (Again which you disputed my original submission!!!)
2000q2 7.8%
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
2001q1 -1.1 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2001q2 2.1
2001q3 -1.3 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2001q4 1.1
2002q1 3.7
2002q2 2.2
2002q3 2.0
2002q4 0.3
2003q1 2.1
2003q2 3.8
2003q3 6.9
2003q4 4.8
2004q1 2.3
2004q2 3.0
2004q3 3.7
2004q4 3.5
2005q1 4.3
2005q2 2.1
2005q3 3.4
2005q4 2.3
2006q1 4.9
2006q2 1.2
2006q3 0.4
2006q4 3.2
2007q1 0.2
2007q2 3.1
2007q3 2.7
2007q4 1.4
2008q1 -2.7 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2008q2 2.0
2008q3 -1.9
2008q4 -8.2 NOW THIS IS THE BEGINNING of a "recession " i.e. 2 consecutive quarters of declining GDP!!!
2009q1 -5.4
2009q2 -0.5
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9
2010q1 1.7
2010q2 3.9
2010q3 2.7
2010q4 2.5
2011q1 -1.5
2011q2 2.9
2011q3 0.8
2011q4 4.6
2012q1 2.7
2012q2 1.9
2012q3 0.5
2012q4 0.1
2013q1 1.9
2013q2 1.1
2013q3 3.0
2013q4 3.8
2014q1 -0.9
2014q2 4.6
2014q3 4.3
2014q4 2.1
2015q1 0.6
2015q2 3.9

for all the times you've claimed the 2001 recession as one of the problems the GW Bush had,

when you're defending his record, now you're going to say it never happened?

lol, classic

You are right! I've said the recession that NBER according to their premise never happened under Bush! There never were 2 consecutive quarters.
But the MSM called it a recession based on NBER and the MSM and idiots like you found this a perfect example of Bush malfunctioning.
My point in showing the "MSM/NBER defined recession" though was to show that recessions don't just start on 3/1/2001 which the naive people like you believe.
The "recession" that naive people like you define as starting 3/1/01 was actually a slow down starting with Clinton in
2000q2 7.8%
2000q3 0.5%
2000q4 2.3%
2001q1 -1.1% Started under Clinton But Bush had to contend with it as well as during the rest of his term these gigantic world changing events:


$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes!
So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

People like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to these companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

Year over year, tax revenues fell 4 of the 8 years Bush was president.

 

[Stephanie]

Everyone in this country should be PISSED at this Democrat party
we are WORSE off than we were with Bush

snip

After seven years of Obama, who raised taxes, almost doubled the national debt and created massive new government bureaucracies through the Affordable Care Act
America’s RINO Economy: Recovery in name only

By Jeff Crouere -- Bio and Archives October 2, 2015

For the past few years, the Obama lovers in the media have been boasting about the supposedly great economy Americans are enjoying. According to this fictitious narrative, Obama’s strong leadership saved the economy and led to our “recovery,” but, in reality, we face today a RINO or “Recovery in Name Only” economy.

The real economy was exposed in the September labor report. The country created only 142,000 new jobs, much less than expectations. This year, we are adding fewer than 200,000 new jobs each month, well below last year’s average of 260,000 new jobs per month.

The so-called experts blame it on the global economic slowdown, yet, the economy of the United States has been troubled for years. We never recovered from the Great Recession of 2008 and have really been suffering from a prolonged recession.

The stock market only “recovered” because of a massive influx of money from the Federal Reserve. This policy of “Quantitative Easing” was the main reason the market did not totally collapse. Now, interest rates are being kept artificially low because the Federal Reserve is not confident the weak economy can sustain an increase.

They have every reason to be concerned. Weekly earnings fell approximately three dollars to $865.61 and hourly wages decreased one penny last month and have only increased 2.2% this year. Workers are earning less and working less hours as the average work week declined to only 34.5 hours. The old adage of a 40 hour work week is from a bygone era of economic prosperity that does not reflect today’s economic reality.

Some hopelessly positive analysts will cheer that the unemployment rate remained steady at only 5.1%. However, this rate is totally meaningless in an economy with only 148.8 million Americans working and an astounding 94.6 million people outside of the workforce.

Americans outside of the labor force include all people 16 years of age and older who are not employed and have not made any efforts to look for a job. Millions of these individuals are so discouraged about the labor market that they have stopped looking for employment. Many are completely dependent on government assistance. In America today, 50 million Americans are living in poverty, while 46 million people are receiving food stamps, a figure that has been exceeded for 38 straight months. A mere 15 years ago, only 17 million Americans received food stamp benefits.

In the last month, 579,000 Americans left the workforce, a number more than four times higher than the number of new jobs in September. Thus, the labor force participation rate fell to 62.2 percent, the lowest since 1977.

In 1977, the country was suffering from the administration of Jimmy Carter, who ruined our economy. His policies were disastrous for the American people and led to high unemployment, high inflation and high interest rates. Thankfully, Carter was succeeded by President Ronald Reagan who restored economic growth, created over 20 million new jobs, reduced and simplified the federal tax rates and made Americans proud of their country once again.

all of it here:
America’s RINO Economy: Recovery in name only

 

[healthmyths]

FROM the Bureau of Economic Analysis Department of Commerce:
BEA National Economic Accounts

Gross Domestic Product
Percent change from preceding period
For YOU simple mind I've changed the colors to RED when there was negative growth!!!
Clinton's last year....
2000q1 4.3
2000q2 10.2
2000q3 3.1
2000q4 4.5
Bush years..
OH and yea how about THESE EVENTS that no other President ever experienced: 1) Dot.com bust-- 2) 9/11 3) Worst hurricane SEASONS...All of which made
these numbers worse BUT still there was growth!!!
2001q1 1.4
2001q2 5.1
2001q3 0.0
2001q4 2.3
2002q1 5.1
2002q2 3.8
2002q3 3.8
2002q4 2.4
2003q1 4.6
2003q2 5.1
2003q3 9.3
2003q4 6.8
2004q1 5.9
2004q2 6.6
2004q3 6.3
2004q4 6.4
2005q1 8.3
2005q2 5.1
2005q3 7.3
2005q4 5.4
2006q1 8.2
2006q2 4.5
2006q3 3.2
2006q4 4.6
2007q1 4.8
2007q2 5.4
2007q3 4.2
2007q4 3.2
2008q1 -0.5
2008q2 4.0
2008q3 0.8
2008q4 -7.7
Obama's years
2009q1 -4.5
2009q2 -1.2
2009q3 1.2
2009q4 5.2
2010q1 3.2
2010q2 5.8
2010q3 4.6
2010q4 4.7
2011q1 0.2
2011q2 6.0
2011q3 3.3
2011q4 5.2
2012q1 4.9
2012q2 3.8
2012q3 2.7
2012q4 1.7
2013q1 3.6
2013q2 2.1
2013q3 4.9
2013q4 5.6
2014q1 0.6
2014q2 6.9
2014q3 6.0
2014q4 2.2
2015q1 0.8
2015q2 6.1

You are too fucking retarded.

First of all, those numbers don't even match the numbers you posted earlier. So where did you get those earlier numbers from since they obviously didn't come from the BEA?

Secondly, you expose your ignorance by posting nominal figures. Real figures are use to determine recessions, not nominal figures.

Thirdly, you've once again exposed yourself as a complete nutjob who doesn't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.

And lastly, the recession began in March, 2001. Nothing you've posted changes that fact. All you've done is reveal you're disconnected from reality.

First you ignorant lazy dick-head I did provide the source ,dumb f...KK!
HERE it is AGAIN from the post that showed the numbers YOU dispute!!! ---------- US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter

READ closer dumb f..k because almost every time I use any numbers I source them!

But YOU f...king idiots never do so. You spout some numbers with NO substantiation!

YOU know your credibility is SO questionable because YOU don't source YOUR idiotic statement for example: "Recession began in March 2001"!

WHERE IS YOUR link? Your supporting proof that "Recession began in March 2001"?

Especially when the primary source that evidently YOU come with states the below rationale for their non-government definition!

Where is your proof because EVEN when the group that YOU think are the experts and said so and here is the LINK dumb f...k that shows THEY are subjective!!
And it is this non-government group that the MSM uses in reporting recessions even though the financial press refuses their "expertise"
as the definition of a recession is:
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP);
although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.
Recession Definition | Investopedia

So dumb f...k, above with the SOURCE is the classic accepted definition of recession which is 2 consecutive quarters used by the financial press!

The NBER may or not accept 2 quarters...depending on who is in office!!!

NOW idiot, here is the source for NBER's definition -------> The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions
The Business Cycle Dating Committee's general procedure for determining the dates of business cycles

Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?
A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. In 2001, for example, the recession did not include two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP.
In the recession beginning in December 2007 and ending in June 2009, real GDP declined in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first quarter of 2009. The committee places real Gross Domestic Income on an equal footing with real GDP; real GDI declined for six consecutive quarters in the recent recession.

Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?
A: The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP and real GDI, but use a range of other indicators as well. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in the recessions of 2001 and 2007-2009.

NOT the government though! They simply report the increase or decrease of the GDP!

Which is what I was reporting!

Using the Federal government reporting then from this source dummy!!! ----------> BEA National Economic Accounts
and USING GDP percent change based on chained 2009 dollars (Again which you disputed my original submission!!!)
2000q2 7.8%
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
2001q1 -1.1 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2001q2 2.1
2001q3 -1.3 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2001q4 1.1
2002q1 3.7
2002q2 2.2
2002q3 2.0
2002q4 0.3
2003q1 2.1
2003q2 3.8
2003q3 6.9
2003q4 4.8
2004q1 2.3
2004q2 3.0
2004q3 3.7
2004q4 3.5
2005q1 4.3
2005q2 2.1
2005q3 3.4
2005q4 2.3
2006q1 4.9
2006q2 1.2
2006q3 0.4
2006q4 3.2
2007q1 0.2
2007q2 3.1
2007q3 2.7
2007q4 1.4
2008q1 -2.7 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2008q2 2.0
2008q3 -1.9
2008q4 -8.2 NOW THIS IS THE BEGINNING of a "recession " i.e. 2 consecutive quarters of declining GDP!!!
2009q1 -5.4
2009q2 -0.5
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9
2010q1 1.7
2010q2 3.9
2010q3 2.7
2010q4 2.5
2011q1 -1.5
2011q2 2.9
2011q3 0.8
2011q4 4.6
2012q1 2.7
2012q2 1.9
2012q3 0.5
2012q4 0.1
2013q1 1.9
2013q2 1.1
2013q3 3.0
2013q4 3.8
2014q1 -0.9
2014q2 4.6
2014q3 4.3
2014q4 2.1
2015q1 0.6
2015q2 3.9

for all the times you've claimed the 2001 recession as one of the problems the GW Bush had,

when you're defending his record, now you're going to say it never happened?

lol, classic

You are right! I've said the recession that NBER according to their premise never happened under Bush! There never were 2 consecutive quarters.
But the MSM called it a recession based on NBER and the MSM and idiots like you found this a perfect example of Bush malfunctioning.
My point in showing the "MSM/NBER defined recession" though was to show that recessions don't just start on 3/1/2001 which the naive people like you believe.
The "recession" that naive people like you define as starting 3/1/01 was actually a slow down starting with Clinton in
2000q2 7.8%
2000q3 0.5%
2000q4 2.3%
2001q1 -1.1% Started under Clinton But Bush had to contend with it as well as during the rest of his term these gigantic world changing events:


$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes!
So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

People like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to these companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

Year over year, tax revenues fell 4 of the 8 years Bush was president.

WELL I thought I read it all!!!

In one sentence you wrote two opposing statements!
"Year over year" then "4 of the 8 years".... WOW! Please don't show your inability to have at least ONE cogent statement in one sentence!

A) YEAR over YEAR???
Year Federal revenue(billions) increase/ decrease Change Reason
2000 $1,211
2001 $1,145 -$ 66 -5.47% -- remember Wall street closed, no flights 3 days destructions!
2002 $1,006 -$139 -12.14% In spite of dot.com/911 losses tax writes offs..
2003 $ 926 -$ 81 -8.04% dot.com/911 losses tax write offs
2004 $ 998 $ 73 up! 7.87% ^ Tax cuts STARTED.. in spite of tax revenues UP!
2005 $1,206 $207 up! 20.76%^ Again tax cuts in play.. REVENUES UP!!!
2006 $1,398 $192 UP! 15.95%^ AGAIN tax cuts but REVENUES UP!!!
2007 $1,534 $136 UP! 9.72%^ Again tax cuts BUT revenues UP!!!
2008 $1,450 -$ 84 - 5.45% $500 billion pulled out of MMF on 9/18/08 in 2 hours!
And then we had more jobs created in spite of the above events that cost jobs...

3 years of down REVENUES after
1) Recession...
2) Dot.com bust remember $5 trillion in market losses MEANT tax deductions which meant LoWER REVENUE DUMMY!
3) Little event like 9/11occurred! 3 days no flights;10 days no wall street! 18,000 businesses loss
Event like that cost 400,000 jobs that PAID TAXES you dummy!!!

4) $1 trillion in written off losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. Andrew slammed into South Florida in 1992 as a Category 5. It caused 40 deaths and $30 billion in property damage. More than 250,000 people were left homeless and 82,000 businesses were destroyed or damaged.
Hurricane Katrina ALONE! Year 2005: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
On August 25, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the U.S. as a strong Category 3 or low Category 4 storm. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

AND YOU evidently forgot about those events and the direct loss of tax payer jobs. Of tax paying businesses destroyed in 9/11 and worst hurricanes!
AND then you bitch about 3 years of lower tax revenue???
ARE YOU that f...king ignorant of history? Where were you during those times in Cuba???

 

[edthecynic]

Big big difference btw Reagan and Obama's U.R. calculation method. Slick Willie's administration revised the calculation method and removed essentially the long term unemployed or as they call them the people who stop looking!

Typical wing-nut BS and lies!

http://www.bls.gov/cps/revisions1994.pdf

Highlights of findings
The following are highlights of the study comparing data from the parallel survey (using the revised questionnaire and automated collection) with the CPS (using the former questionnaire and procedures) for 1993. • The national unemployment rate as estimated by the parallel survey was higher than the rate obtained by the CPS. This difference averaged 0.5 percentage point (table 1). As shown in table 2, the measured effect was relatively larger for women than for men. The parallel survey also measured more unemployment among teenagers and older workers (65 years and over). • The overall proportion of the population that was working-the employment-population ratio-was essentially the same in the parallel survey and the CPS. However, there were marked differences by gender. For men, the ratio was lower in the parallel survey than in the CPSj for women the ratio based on the parallel survey was higher.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

WELL I thought I read it all!!!

In one sentence you wrote two opposing statements!
"Year over year" then "4 of the 8 years".... WOW! Please don't show your inability to have at least ONE cogent statement in one sentence!

A) YEAR over YEAR???
Year Federal revenue(billions) increase/ decrease Change Reason
2000 $1,211
2001 $1,145 -$ 66 -5.47% -- remember Wall street closed, no flights 3 days destructions!
2002 $1,006 -$139 -12.14% In spite of dot.com/911 losses tax writes offs..
2003 $ 926 -$ 81 -8.04% dot.com/911 losses tax write offs
2004 $ 998 $ 73 up! 7.87% ^ Tax cuts STARTED.. in spite of tax revenues UP!
2005 $1,206 $207 up! 20.76%^ Again tax cuts in play.. REVENUES UP!!!
2006 $1,398 $192 UP! 15.95%^ AGAIN tax cuts but REVENUES UP!!!
2007 $1,534 $136 UP! 9.72%^ Again tax cuts BUT revenues UP!!!
2008 $1,450 -$ 84 - 5.45% $500 billion pulled out of MMF on 9/18/08 in 2 hours!
And then we had more jobs created in spite of the above events that cost jobs...

3 years of down REVENUES after
1) Recession...
2) Dot.com bust remember $5 trillion in market losses MEANT tax deductions which meant LoWER REVENUE DUMMY!
3) Little event like 9/11occurred! 3 days no flights;10 days no wall street! 18,000 businesses loss
Event like that cost 400,000 jobs that PAID TAXES you dummy!!!

4) $1 trillion in written off losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. Andrew slammed into South Florida in 1992 as a Category 5. It caused 40 deaths and $30 billion in property damage. More than 250,000 people were left homeless and 82,000 businesses were destroyed or damaged.
Hurricane Katrina ALONE! Year 2005: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
On August 25, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the U.S. as a strong Category 3 or low Category 4 storm. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

AND YOU evidently forgot about those events and the direct loss of tax payer jobs. Of tax paying businesses destroyed in 9/11 and worst hurricanes!
AND then you bitch about 3 years of lower tax revenue???
ARE YOU that f...king ignorant of history? Where were you during those times in Cuba???

So now you want to say that the tax cuts didn't affect revenues?

lol

 

[Faun]

You're a fucking retard. You think I should believe you and not the NBER???

Need I remind you? When referencing GDP, you used nominal figures, not real figures. Even worse for you, you posted the word, "downturn," next to a quarter showing growth.

We learned two things from this exercise...

1... you're batshit insane.

2... the 2001 recession started in March, 2001.

So you are of the very very simple mind that On March 1,2001 at 12:01 AM the recession started. The GDP immediately dropped below zero.

Here is what the "experts" define as a "recession"
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.

Recession Definition | Investopedia Recession Definition | Investopedia
US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter

TELL ME you idiot... WHERE during the 4 quarters preceding March 2001 are there any quarters with "negative" figures???
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%

NOW YOU want to see "negative GDP"? Hmmmm... Obrama became president in 2009!
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%


US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter
Mar 31, 2015 3.91%
Dec 31, 2014 3.66%
Sep 30, 2014 4.31%
Jun 30, 2014 4.27%
Mar 31, 2014 3.28%
Dec 31, 2013 4.57%
Sep 30, 2013 3.71%
Jun 30, 2013 3.26%
Mar 31, 2013 3.42%
Dec 31, 2012 3.47%
Sep 30, 2012 4.37%
Jun 30, 2012 4.10%
Mar 31, 2012 4.71%
Dec 31, 2011 3.64%
Sep 30, 2011 3.52%
Jun 30, 2011 3.84%
Mar 31, 2011 3.80%
Dec 31, 2010 4.56%
Sep 30, 2010 4.68%
Jun 30, 2010 3.82%
Mar 31, 2010 2.07%
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%
Dec 31, 2008 -0.92%
Sep 30, 2008 1.88%
Jun 30, 2008 2.71%
Mar 31, 2008 3.06%
Dec 31, 2007 4.40%
Sep 30, 2007 4.75%
Jun 30, 2007 4.51%
Mar 31, 2007 4.28%
Dec 31, 2006 5.12%
Sep 30, 2006 5.32%
Jun 30, 2006 6.36%
Mar 31, 2006 6.52%
Dec 31, 2005 6.52%
Sep 30, 2005 6.77%
Jun 30, 2005 6.51%
Mar 31, 2005 6.88%
Dec 31, 2004 6.31%
Sep 30, 2004 6.39%
Jun 30, 2004 7.13%
Mar 31, 2004 6.75%
Dec 31, 2003 6.42%
Sep 30, 2003 5.33%
Jun 30, 2003 3.99%
Mar 31, 2003 3.65%
Dec 31, 2002 3.76%
Sep 30, 2002 3.74%
Jun 30, 2002 2.79%
Mar 31, 2002 3.11%
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
Jun 30, 2000 7.55%
Mar 31, 2000 6.18%
Dec 31, 1999 6.44%
Sep 30, 1999 6.19%
Jun 30, 1999 6.25%
Mar 31, 1999 6.27%
Dec 31, 1998 6.11%
Sep 30, 1998 5.23%
Jun 30, 1998 5.18%
Mar 31, 1998 5.80%
Dec 31, 1997 6.05%
Sep 30, 1997 6.53%
Jun 30, 1997 6.08%
Mar 31, 1997 6.45%

Who knows where on Earth you get your numbers from? But the BEA produced these numbers (notice, they're nowhere near the figures you post):

2000q1 1.2
2000q2 7.8
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
2001q1 -1.1
2001q2 2.1
2001q3 -1.3
2001q4 1.1

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

And you're idiocy of pointing out negative GDP during the beginning of Obama's presidency is beyond idiotic (which is why you post it). Yes, GDP was negative during the Great Bush Recession.

2008q1 -2.7
2008q2 2.0
2008q3 -1.9
2008q4 -8.2
2009q1 -5.4
2009q2 -0.5
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9

FROM the Bureau of Economic Analysis Department of Commerce:
BEA National Economic Accounts

Gross Domestic Product
Percent change from preceding period
For YOU simple mind I've changed the colors to RED when there was negative growth!!!
Clinton's last year....
2000q1 4.3
2000q2 10.2
2000q3 3.1
2000q4 4.5
Bush years..
OH and yea how about THESE EVENTS that no other President ever experienced: 1) Dot.com bust-- 2) 9/11 3) Worst hurricane SEASONS...All of which made
these numbers worse BUT still there was growth!!!
2001q1 1.4
2001q2 5.1
2001q3 0.0
2001q4 2.3
2002q1 5.1
2002q2 3.8
2002q3 3.8
2002q4 2.4
2003q1 4.6
2003q2 5.1
2003q3 9.3
2003q4 6.8
2004q1 5.9
2004q2 6.6
2004q3 6.3
2004q4 6.4
2005q1 8.3
2005q2 5.1
2005q3 7.3
2005q4 5.4
2006q1 8.2
2006q2 4.5
2006q3 3.2
2006q4 4.6
2007q1 4.8
2007q2 5.4
2007q3 4.2
2007q4 3.2
2008q1 -0.5
2008q2 4.0
2008q3 0.8
2008q4 -7.7
Obama's years
2009q1 -4.5
2009q2 -1.2
2009q3 1.2
2009q4 5.2
2010q1 3.2
2010q2 5.8
2010q3 4.6
2010q4 4.7
2011q1 0.2
2011q2 6.0
2011q3 3.3
2011q4 5.2
2012q1 4.9
2012q2 3.8
2012q3 2.7
2012q4 1.7
2013q1 3.6
2013q2 2.1
2013q3 4.9
2013q4 5.6
2014q1 0.6
2014q2 6.9
2014q3 6.0
2014q4 2.2
2015q1 0.8
2015q2 6.1

You are too fucking retarded.

First of all, those numbers don't even match the numbers you posted earlier. So where did you get those earlier numbers from since they obviously didn't come from the BEA?

Secondly, you expose your ignorance by posting nominal figures. Real figures are use to determine recessions, not nominal figures.

Thirdly, you've once again exposed yourself as a complete nutjob who doesn't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.

And lastly, the recession began in March, 2001. Nothing you've posted changes that fact. All you've done is reveal you're disconnected from reality.

First you ignorant lazy dick-head I did provide the source ,dumb f...KK!
HERE it is AGAIN from the post that showed the numbers YOU dispute!!! ---------- US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter

READ closer dumb f..k because almost every time I use any numbers I source them!

But YOU f...king idiots never do so. You spout some numbers with NO substantiation!

YOU know your credibility is SO questionable because YOU don't source YOUR idiotic statement for example: "Recession began in March 2001"!

WHERE IS YOUR link? Your supporting proof that "Recession began in March 2001"?

Especially when the primary source that evidently YOU come with states the below rationale for their non-government definition!

Where is your proof because EVEN when the group that YOU think are the experts and said so and here is the LINK dumb f...k that shows THEY are subjective!!
And it is this non-government group that the MSM uses in reporting recessions even though the financial press refuses their "expertise"
as the definition of a recession is:
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP);
although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.
Recession Definition | Investopedia

So dumb f...k, above with the SOURCE is the classic accepted definition of recession which is 2 consecutive quarters used by the financial press!

The NBER may or not accept 2 quarters...depending on who is in office!!!

NOW idiot, here is the source for NBER's definition -------> The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions
The Business Cycle Dating Committee's general procedure for determining the dates of business cycles

Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?
A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. In 2001, for example, the recession did not include two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP.
In the recession beginning in December 2007 and ending in June 2009, real GDP declined in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first quarter of 2009. The committee places real Gross Domestic Income on an equal footing with real GDP; real GDI declined for six consecutive quarters in the recent recession.

Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?
A: The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP and real GDI, but use a range of other indicators as well. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in the recessions of 2001 and 2007-2009.

NOT the government though! They simply report the increase or decrease of the GDP!

Which is what I was reporting!

Using the Federal government reporting then from this source dummy!!! ----------> BEA National Economic Accounts
and USING GDP percent change based on chained 2009 dollars (Again which you disputed my original submission!!!)
2000q2 7.8%
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
2001q1 -1.1 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2001q2 2.1
2001q3 -1.3 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2001q4 1.1
2002q1 3.7
2002q2 2.2
2002q3 2.0
2002q4 0.3
2003q1 2.1
2003q2 3.8
2003q3 6.9
2003q4 4.8
2004q1 2.3
2004q2 3.0
2004q3 3.7
2004q4 3.5
2005q1 4.3
2005q2 2.1
2005q3 3.4
2005q4 2.3
2006q1 4.9
2006q2 1.2
2006q3 0.4
2006q4 3.2
2007q1 0.2
2007q2 3.1
2007q3 2.7
2007q4 1.4
2008q1 -2.7 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2008q2 2.0
2008q3 -1.9
2008q4 -8.2 NOW THIS IS THE BEGINNING of a "recession " i.e. 2 consecutive quarters of declining GDP!!!
2009q1 -5.4
2009q2 -0.5
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9
2010q1 1.7
2010q2 3.9
2010q3 2.7
2010q4 2.5
2011q1 -1.5
2011q2 2.9
2011q3 0.8
2011q4 4.6
2012q1 2.7
2012q2 1.9
2012q3 0.5
2012q4 0.1
2013q1 1.9
2013q2 1.1
2013q3 3.0
2013q4 3.8
2014q1 -0.9
2014q2 4.6
2014q3 4.3
2014q4 2.1
2015q1 0.6
2015q2 3.9

This is how fucking retarded you are. First, you posted bullshit GDP numbers from some website you found, then you lie and say I don't cite my sources but then quote my source since I actually do cite them; but even worse for your mental instability, here's the definition of a recession YOU posted (red text is my comment)...

DEFINITION of 'Recession'

A significant decline in activity across the economy, lasting longer than a few months (i.e., less than two quarters). It is visible in industrial production, employment, real income and wholesale-retail trade. The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.​

 

[Faun]

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%

Hmmmm.....could that be because Dubya left a flaming pile of shit at Obama's doorstep when he left office?

History does matter, Repug lightweight. Fuck it, you're an idiot.

THIS IS THE HISTORY --- IDIOT!!!
NOT ONE President in history ever had this many earth changing events in one presidency! NEVER!


Recession Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes! So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED! Because of all this economic and personal disasters...
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2008_0.html#usgs302

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

Is it your intention to be sooo retarded, people feel guilty for correcting you?

At the same time you insist the recession started under Clinton, you post this (from your USA Today article)...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.​

 

[Faun]

Now why are men out shooting up things? Obamanomics right in our face
Another good chart in the comment section with this article.

SNIP:
Obamanomics in Action: Worst Labor Force Participation Rate Since 1977

Jim Hoft Oct 2nd, 2015 9:49 am 20 Comments


Obamanomics in action–
The Obama economy added only 142,000 jobs in September – much lower than expected.
The US labor participation rate is the lowest it’s been since October 1977.


** After the worst recovery since World War II the US economy is moving towards recession.



CNS News reported:

A record 94,610,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month — an increase of 579,000 from August — and the labor force participation rate reached its lowest point in 38 years, with 62.4 percent of the U.S. population either holding a job or actively seeking one.

In other disappointing news, the economy added only 142,000 jobs in September, well below economists’ expectations, but the unemployment rate remained at 5.1 percent, where it was in August…

…In September, according to the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 251,325,000. Of those, 156,715,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

all of it here:
Obamanomics in Action: Worst Labor Force Participation Rate Since 1977 - The Gateway Pundit

88 million of them don't want to work. Now where does that leave your talking point?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[healthmyths]

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%

Hmmmm.....could that be because Dubya left a flaming pile of shit at Obama's doorstep when he left office?

History does matter, Repug lightweight. Fuck it, you're an idiot.

THIS IS THE HISTORY --- IDIOT!!!
NOT ONE President in history ever had this many earth changing events in one presidency! NEVER!


Recession Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes! So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED! Because of all this economic and personal disasters...
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2008_0.html#usgs302

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

Is it your intention to be sooo retarded, people feel guilty for correcting you?

At the same time you insist the recession started under Clinton, you post this (from your USA Today article)...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.​

Look it is not me that can't grasp the reality that RECESSIONS are not like a electric switch. You turn a light on and turn off. Recessions aren't like that OK???
They are more like a Oil tanker that takes several miles to turn...i.e a recession didn't start on 3/1/2001 YOU retard!
It started under Clinton!
The biased MSM and NBER were the ones that erroneously said the recession started March 2001.
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP).
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001
The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001

But of course idiots like you translate that into saying The recession started 3/1/2001! How extremely NAIVE!!!
FROM the Bureau of Economic Analysis Department of Commerce: BEA National Economic Accounts
Now being a mindless idiot here let me explain to you the below table....I Know I know it is very complicated for you!

In the year 2000 (and for that matter all the years...) there were 4 periods known as "quarters". Each quarter is made up of 3 months.

2000q1 4.3% Months Jan through March.
2000q2 10.2% Months April through June
2000q3 3.1% Months July through September
2000q4 4.5% Months October through December.
Make sense???

Bush years..
2001q1 1.4% (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2001q2 5.1 (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2001q3 0.0 (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2001q4 2.3 (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2002q1 5.1 (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2002q2 3.8 (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)

NOW note the first quarter of Bush's first year was January through March 2001.
Do you see any period where the growth rate was slower then the previous quarters??? RIGHT!!!
2001q1 1.4% January through March 2001 was less then the December... oh and look 2000 July through September was less the April through June!!!

So explain to me how a Recession could start 3/1/2001 if:
A) the Definition of a recession The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP);

SHOW ME WHERE THERE WERE TWO QUARTERS of Negative economic growth in the above tables!

 

[Faun]

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%

Hmmmm.....could that be because Dubya left a flaming pile of shit at Obama's doorstep when he left office?

History does matter, Repug lightweight. Fuck it, you're an idiot.

THIS IS THE HISTORY --- IDIOT!!!
NOT ONE President in history ever had this many earth changing events in one presidency! NEVER!


Recession Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes! So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED! Because of all this economic and personal disasters...
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

Is it your intention to be sooo retarded, people feel guilty for correcting you?

At the same time you insist the recession started under Clinton, you post this (from your USA Today article)...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.​

Look it is not me that can't grasp the reality that RECESSIONS are not like a electric switch. You turn a light on and turn off. Recessions aren't like that OK???
They are more like a Oil tanker that takes several miles to turn...i.e a recession didn't start on 3/1/2001 YOU retard!
It started under Clinton!

You're a fucking imbecile.... from YOUR OWN link...

The 2001 recession began in March that year​

FROM the Bureau of Economic Analysis Department of Commerce: BEA National Economic Accounts
Now being a mindless idiot here let me explain to you the below table....I Know I know it is very complicated for you!

In the year 2000 (and for that matter all the years...) there were 4 periods known as "quarters". Each quarter is made up of 3 months.

2000q1 4.3% Months Jan through March.
2000q2 10.2% Months April through June
2000q3 3.1% Months July through September
2000q4 4.5% Months October through December.
Make sense???

Now compare those numbers to the ones you posted earlier...

Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
Mar 31, 2000 6.18%
Jun 30, 2000 7.55%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%​

... do you see now why people think you're insane?

Bush years..
2001q1 1.4% (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2001q2 5.1 (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2001q3 0.0 (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2001q4 2.3 (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2002q1 5.1 (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2002q2 3.8 (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)

NOW note the first quarter of Bush's first year was January through March 2001.
Do you see any period where the growth rate was slower then the previous quarters??? RIGHT!!!
2001q1 1.4% January through March 2001 was less then the December... oh and look 2000 July through September was less the April through June!!!

So explain to me how a Recession could start 3/1/2001 if:
A) the Definition of a recession The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP);

SHOW ME WHERE THERE WERE TWO QUARTERS of Negative economic growth in the above tables!

You're a fucking imbecile.

Again... you're posting nominal figures when it's real figures which determine if the economy's in recession.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Pub dupes! How dumb can you get? The attention span of a pygmy shrew...

Decided to peek at your ignored post.....

Why was I not surprised to find you posted nothing of value.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The US middle class lost half ther assets thanks to Bush, and he wrecked the rest of the world too, unlike the .com crash. Obama's policies? LOL, the pubs have blocked all real jobs bills, and everything else, since 2/2010, as well as costing 1% growth by the debt limit crisis and now the sequester...ALWAYS a disaster, dupe.

The middle class has no affect upon it's destiny.

Got it.

You are a victim.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

 

[U2Edge]

Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%

but as we see there are plenty of them in this country

good grief.

There are approximately 7,915,000 unemployed, defined as not working, willing and able to work and looked for work in last 4 weeksn unless on temporary layoff expecting to return..
There are approximately 148,800,000 employed, defined as worked at least one hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business or temporarily absent from a job.
So the labor force is 7,915,000 + 148,800,000 = 156,715,000
7,915,000/156,715,000 = 5.05%, rounded up to 5.1%.
What errors are you seeing?

Someone is lying about the worker participation rate anyway. This idea that there are close to 100 million out of the labor force doesn't add up. The US population is 320 million. 149 million working and 8 million knowingly unemployed. That leaves 163 million. There are 45 million retirees so that brings the number down to 118 million, although there is a small percentage of retirees who still do work. There are about 70 million children under the age of 16 who cannot be counted into the labor force. So now we are down to 48 million. What we have not accounted for are the disabled, full-time college students who do not work, stay at home moms/dads, and anyone who chooses not to work becuase they don't have to.

The labor force participation rate in Bush's last year in office was 66%. The current labor force participation rate is 62.4%. That is the lowest the labor force participation rate has been in 38 years. The current economy under Obama would not be able to support a labor force participation rate of 66% and maintain the current unemployment rate. The unemployment rate would dramatically rise if the labor force participation rate were at 66% again.

You neglected to point out that Labor Force Participation Rate not only dropped under Bush but has dropped for the last 15 years
You also neglected to point out that it is expected to drop until 2025

An oversight on your part?

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, only that it benefits Obama's unemployment numbers in a way that other Presidents on the list did not experience. 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%.