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

[rightwinger]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

 

[edthecynic]

The monthly unemployment rate for October 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 82nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months to the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 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: 7.88%

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: 7.88%

646.4/81 = 7.8829 = 7.88%

There are 14 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate stayed the same in October at 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago

This crapola is just as stupid now as when you first posted it.

Its a list o f the average monthly unemployment figures for each President since World War II. Its not crap or stupid, but factual data from the bureau of labor statistics!

It is stupid and a way to mislead with statistics, but you knew that already. Bush was handed a strong stable economy and he turned it into a disaster passing it to Obama in mid descent. So Bush's average takes advantage of Clinton's economy and Obama's average is crippled by Bush's cluster fuck.

 

[edthecynic]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

The LPR is even more useless in evaluating economic health than your average crap. The LPR is affected by demographics and if the demographic effects are not filtered out, which BLS does NOT do, then it is completely worthless as an economic barometer.

 

[U2Edge]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

 

[rightwinger]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

No shit Sherlock

You think Obama went from 10% to 5% in one month?
But there is a big difference starting your Presidency with an economy losing 700,000 jobs a month. You don't turn that around overnight

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for October 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 82nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months to the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 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: 7.88%

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: 7.88%

646.4/81 = 7.8829 = 7.88%

There are 14 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate stayed the same in October at 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago

This crapola is just as stupid now as when you first posted it.

Its a list o f the average monthly unemployment figures for each President since World War II. Its not crap or stupid, but factual data from the bureau of labor statistics!

It is stupid and a way to mislead with statistics, but you knew that already. Bush was handed a strong stable economy and he turned it into a disaster passing it to Obama in mid descent. So Bush's average takes advantage of Clinton's economy and Obama's average is crippled by Bush's cluster fuck.

The economy broke down because of deregulation policies and the biggest one was the repeal of Glass-Steagall which was done by Clinton and not Bush. Bush did very well with the economy for most of the time he was in office and the American people voted to re-elect him!

 

[U2Edge]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

The LPR is even more useless in evaluating economic health than your average crap. The LPR is affected by demographics and if the demographic effects are not filtered out, which BLS does NOT do, then it is completely worthless as an economic barometer.

Economist discuss the LPR and its impact every month on unemployment because it is very RELEVANT to what is happening!

 

[edthecynic]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

 

[edthecynic]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

The LPR is even more useless in evaluating economic health than your average crap. The LPR is affected by demographics and if the demographic effects are not filtered out, which BLS does NOT do, then it is completely worthless as an economic barometer.

Economist discuss the LPR and its impact every month on unemployment because it is very RELEVANT to what is happening!

No, only Right-wing "economists" discuss the LPR without filtering out the influence of demographics because they are paid to find some fault with Obama's economy no matter how meaningless and IRRELEVANT because they know their suckers will mindlessly swallow it whole without ever questioning the effects of demographics on the LPR.

Of course, if ever a Republican is elected you will never hear the LPR discussed by the Right without a discussion of the need to filter out the effect of demographics on the LPR.

 

[rightwinger]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

By his methodology, a president who starts at 10% and ends at 5% has the same "average" as a president who starts at 5% and ends at 10%

 

[edthecynic]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

By his methodology, a president who starts at 10% and ends at 5% has the same "average" as a president who starts at 5% and ends at 10%

Exactly, but that logic will elude him.

It is obviously more important to know the condition of the economy when a president started and the condition it was in when he passed it on to the next president than to know the average.

 

[Faun]

The monthly unemployment rate for October 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 82nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months to the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 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: 7.88%

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: 7.88%

646.4/81 = 7.8829 = 7.88%

There are 14 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate stayed the same in October at 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago

Now I see why so many righties refer to Obama as "messiah."

After 81 months in office, both Obama and Reagan are tied at 7.88. Since the unemployment rate is now 5.0% while it was 6.0% at this same point during Reagan's presidency, Obama passes Reagan next month. And since so many righties think of Reagan as some sort of demigod, Shirley they think that of Obama too since Obama will have a better record than Reagan when it comes to unemployment.

 

[rightwinger]

The monthly unemployment rate for October 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 82nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months to the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 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: 7.88%

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: 7.88%

646.4/81 = 7.8829 = 7.88%

There are 14 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate stayed the same in October at 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago

Now I see why so many righties refer to Obama as "messiah."

After 81 months in office, both Obama and Reagan are tied at 7.88. Since the unemployment rate is now 5.0% while it was 6.0% at this same point during Reagan's presidency, Obama passes Reagan next month. And since so many righties think of Reagan as some sort of demigod, Shirley they think that of Obama too since Obama will have a better record than Reagan when it comes to unemployment.

Reagan never saw 5% unemployment
Reagan also had a blank check to increase military spending and government employment

 

[edthecynic]

Reagan never saw 5% unemployment
Reagan also had a blank check to increase military spending and government employment

That's right! Obama has brought UE down to 5% through the private sector hiring not by growing the government like St Ronnie.

 

[U2Edge]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

The average is used because it is the best way to asses the entire Presidency lasting 96 months.

 

[U2Edge]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

The LPR is even more useless in evaluating economic health than your average crap. The LPR is affected by demographics and if the demographic effects are not filtered out, which BLS does NOT do, then it is completely worthless as an economic barometer.

Economist discuss the LPR and its impact every month on unemployment because it is very RELEVANT to what is happening!

No, only Right-wing "economists" discuss the LPR without filtering out the influence of demographics because they are paid to find some fault with Obama's economy no matter how meaningless and IRRELEVANT because they know their suckers will mindlessly swallow it whole without ever questioning the effects of demographics on the LPR.

Of course, if ever a Republican is elected you will never hear the LPR discussed by the Right without a discussion of the need to filter out the effect of demographics on the LPR.

Its not right or left, just economist describing what is happening to the economy to the public and business's so they can plan for the future. Reuters and the AP always have articles and discussions with economist every month about Unemployment figures. Its in these discussions that the labor force participation rate is often mentioned and its impact on the unemployment rate explained.

 

[edthecynic]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

The average is used because it is the best way to asses the entire Presidency lasting 96 months.

As has been shown, the average is almost as worthless as the LPR in determining the health of the economy.

 

[edthecynic]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

The LPR is even more useless in evaluating economic health than your average crap. The LPR is affected by demographics and if the demographic effects are not filtered out, which BLS does NOT do, then it is completely worthless as an economic barometer.

Economist discuss the LPR and its impact every month on unemployment because it is very RELEVANT to what is happening!

No, only Right-wing "economists" discuss the LPR without filtering out the influence of demographics because they are paid to find some fault with Obama's economy no matter how meaningless and IRRELEVANT because they know their suckers will mindlessly swallow it whole without ever questioning the effects of demographics on the LPR.

Of course, if ever a Republican is elected you will never hear the LPR discussed by the Right without a discussion of the need to filter out the effect of demographics on the LPR.

Its not right or left, just economist describing what is happening to the economy to the public and business's so they can plan for the future. Reuters and the AP always have articles and discussions with economist every month about Unemployment figures. Its in these discussions that the labor force participation rate is often mentioned and its impact on the unemployment rate explained.

Reuters and AP both have Right-wing "economists" who are nothing more than GOP shills selling the BS that the economy can never acknowledged as improving when a Democrat is president.

If ever a Republican is elected president those same "economists" will insist the the LPR must be adjusted for demographics to measure "REAL" economic health.

 

[Faun]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

The average is used because it is the best way to asses the entire Presidency lasting 96 months.

No, it's not. As another poster pointed out, a president taking the unemployment rate from 4% to 11% at the same rate another president takes it from 11% to 4%, looks like they've performed exactly the same according to your idiocy. And it's precisely because averaging out the unemployment rate hides what a president inherits compared to what they leave for their successor which is why you do it. To hide the reality that Bush inherited a good economy but dumped one of the worst economies on Obama.

 

[rightwinger]

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce.

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

The average is used because it is the best way to asses the entire Presidency lasting 96 months.

So explain an average that started at 5% and ended at 10% vs an average that started at 10% and ended at 5%

They are the same to you right?