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

[rightwinger]

Because the average accounts for EVERY MONTH THE PRESIDENT was in office, in this case 96 months! Your figure only looks at TWO MONTHS. Mine looks at all 96 months.

Is it more accurate to rate a President on two months of work rather than 96? I think not.

Yes, the unemployment rate was low when Bush entered office. But it went up, there was a recession. The unemployment rate went all the way to 6.3% in 2003. Bush brought it back down to 4.4% by 2006. It was still at 4.9% in February 2008, only a few months before Bush left office.

But you see, you miss all that when you only look at the first month and the last month of a Presidency. Guess what, there are 94 other months that have to be looked in order to accurately rate the President.

Students grades are not based on the first week of the semester and the last week of the semester. Employees job performance is not based on the first week of work and the last week of work. Everything in between counts!

It's like playing poker and bragging that for most of the game you were way ahead........but neglecting to tell people you were busted when you left the table.

The economy is not a game, nimrod. If you have 4% unemployment the last year, and 15% unemployment every other year, you haven't won the "game." That means you had long 8 years of untold misery and suffering.

If you were given 15% unemployment and leave with 4% unemployment, you have won the "game"

 

[dblack]

In my view, this issue really shines a light on the hypocrisy of the right. The economy isn't the responsibility of the President. He shouldn't get the blame for a sluggish economy nor the credit for an expanding one. Because he shouldn't be formulating policy to manipulate the economy in the first place.

 

[bripat9643]

It's like playing poker and bragging that for most of the game you were way ahead........but neglecting to tell people you were busted when you left the table.

The economy is not a game, nimrod. If you have 4% unemployment the last year, and 15% unemployment every other year, you haven't won the "game." That means you had long 8 years of untold misery and suffering.

If you were given 15% unemployment and leave with 4% unemployment, you have won the "game"

Not if you had 15% unemployment for most of 8 years. That's a despicable record.

 

[bripat9643]

In my view, this issue really shines a light on the hypocrisy of the right. The economy isn't the responsibility of the President. He shouldn't get the blame for a sluggish economy nor the credit for an expanding one. Because he shouldn't be formulating policy to manipulate the economy in the first place.

The main problem with your theory is that Obama asked for the job. He said his "stimulus" bill would keep unemployment under 8%. Every time any kind of good economic news comes out, turds like you give Obama the credit. Whenever bad economic news comes out, you claim he's not responsible, and you usually blame Bush.

 

[dblack]

In my view, this issue really shines a light on the hypocrisy of the right. The economy isn't the responsibility of the President. He shouldn't get the blame for a sluggish economy nor the credit for an expanding one. Because he shouldn't be formulating policy to manipulate the economy in the first place.

The main problem with your theory is that Obama asked for the job. He said his "stimulus" bill would keep unemployment under 8%. Every time any kind of good economic news comes out, turds like you give Obama the credit. Whenever bad economic news comes out, you claim he's not responsible, and you usually blame Bush.

Find a post where I've given Obama (or Bush for that matter) credit for the economy, good or bad. Otherwise can the bogus accusations. The government shouldn't be interfering in economic matters. Period.

 

[ron4342]

Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.

That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution. Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means? Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?

 

[dblack]

Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.

That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution. Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means? Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?

Yeah, good ole "promote the general welfare", the go to loophole for power mongers since the Constitution was signed..

 

[Avorysuds]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

That's odd, cuz Obama passed a trillion dollar stimulus and claimed republicans were holding the country hostage by not allowing him to pass another.... This all was based on Obama's claim that he in fact could and would influence the UE number. Maybe you should have told Obama that the stimulus wouldn't work seeing as it didn't and you believe Obama couldn't make people work...

Thanks for supporting Obama waste a trillion dollars only to turn on him later. Should have listened to all of us.

 

[ron4342]

Which president was GIVEN the worst unemployment rate since WWII?

By the last day of Bush's last budget, unemployment was over 10%.

Bush's last budget was no longer in force the day they passed the "stimulus," so that's a non sequitur.

And it wasn't just jobs. Republicans fucked up the economy, the country, foreign policy, two other countries, the world economy, the justice department. And you saw the highest jump in health care costs ever and the most bankruptcies. Bush was like Midas. Only everything Bush touched turned to shit.

Everything you spout is horseshit. How much have healthcare costs increased just this year, 50%, 90%?

Then you have the Republicans, even before Obama was sworn in, trying to destroy his presidency, BY ANY MEANS.

That's standard operating procedure for liberals. Pay-back is a bitch, ain't it?

Actually, your statement just shows your ignorance. When gwb took office his poll numbers were average for an incoming president. After 9/11 his poll numbers jumped up into the 90% to 95% range. There were no attempts to sandbag bush or make his presidency fail. His poll numbers came down a bit after Afghanistan but they were still well above average and the Democrats in Congress were not trying to force him from office. In fact, had any Democrat made the statement that they "wanted bush to fail" they would have immediately been attacked by the republicans (and Democrats) for being unpatriotic and un-American.
bush's number dropped a bit more when he took us into Iraq but they were still well above average. His numbers finally started to drop when no WMD were found and knowledge of his lies started coming out. His handling of Katrina was the final nail in his coffin.
Still, during his entire presidency I do not recall Democrats taking the position they would not work with him. Yes, there were occasional filibusters but the number of filibusters during the bush years is well below the records set during Obama's first term. For the most part, Democrats were willing to compromise and work with bush.
In other words, your gloating merely shows your ignorance.
One final thought, the republican party has opened the door for war. If the republicans ever regain the presidency you can expect the Democrats to do exactly what the republicans are doing now. The majority of Democrats will put enormous pressure on their Congressmen NOT to work with the new president and to do everything in their power to obstruct everything he tries to do. THEN THE PHRASE "PAY-BACK IS A BITCH" WILL BE BROUGHT DOWN ON THE REPUBLICANS AND THERE WILL BE CRYING AND GNASHING OF TEETH.

 

[Avorysuds]

President Obama has cut his unemployment rate by 2% while Bush doubled his

Obama has had a net employment increase of 1 million jobs a month since he became president

That's weird, cuz in a few seconds I can prove less people are working today than in say, 2009... Wana go down that road that proves you willfully ignorant? And remember, cuz I know you're a bit stupid, you claimed UE is down 2%.... But then how is it possible less people are working .... HHHmmmMMmmmm.

 

[ron4342]

Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.

That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution. Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means? Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?

Yeah, good ole "promote the general welfare", the go to loophole for power mongers since the Constitution was signed..

You have refused to answer my questions and have tried, unsuccessfully, to dismiss the phrase "promote the general welfare."
"Promote the general welfare" means EXACTLY what it says. It means the government is tasked with trying to make the lives of its citizens better. Wouldn't having jobs make their lives better? Wouldn't having jobs improve the economy for this country and isn't that a good thing, for EVERYONE!!!! Ignore it if you wish to continue to look ignorant but the founding fathers recognized that one of the functions of the government was to improve the lives of its citizens and not to turn their back on them in time of need. Perhaps it was the founder of the republican party who said it best. Wasn't it Lincoln who said that government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." What do you think "for the people means?"
Unfortunately "promote the general welfare" is just one part of the Constitution that conservative choose to ignore.

 

[BobPlumb]

President Obama has cut his unemployment rate by 2% while Bush doubled his

Obama has had a net employment increase of 1 million jobs a month since he became president

That's weird, cuz in a few seconds I can prove less people are working today than in say, 2009... Wana go down that road that proves you willfully ignorant? And remember, cuz I know you're a bit stupid, you claimed UE is down 2%.... But then how is it possible less people are working .... HHHmmmMMmmmm.

The main reason the unemployment rate has gone down is the millions that have left the workforce.

 

[Political Junky]

That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution. Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means? Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?

Yeah, good ole "promote the general welfare", the go to loophole for power mongers since the Constitution was signed..

You have refused to answer my questions and have tried, unsuccessfully, to dismiss the phrase "promote the general welfare."
"Promote the general welfare" means EXACTLY what it says. It means the government is tasked with trying to make the lives of its citizens better. Wouldn't having jobs make their lives better? Wouldn't having jobs improve the economy for this country and isn't that a good thing, for EVERYONE!!!! Ignore it if you wish to continue to look ignorant but the founding fathers recognized that one of the functions of the government was to improve the lives of its citizens and not to turn their back on them in time of need. Perhaps it was the founder of the republican party who said it best. Wasn't it Lincoln who said that government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." What do you think "for the people means?"
Unfortunately "promote the general welfare" is just one part of the Constitution that conservative choose to ignore.

Exactly right. It wasn't easy to have the GOP fighting the administration from the night he was inaugurated.
While the inaugural balls were happening, the GOP was meeting in DC to plot his defeat at every turn.

Rep. Pete Sessions: Taliban is 'a model' for how GOP can become an 'insurgency.' | ThinkProgress

In an interview with Hotline, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) said the Republican party will have to be come an “insurgency” to counter Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and added that the Taliban can serve as “a model”:

“Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban,” Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. “And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes. And these Taliban — I’m not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that’s not what we’re saying. I’m saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with.” [...]
<more>

 

[rightwinger]

President Obama has cut his unemployment rate by 2% while Bush doubled his

Obama has had a net employment increase of 1 million jobs a month since he became president

That's weird, cuz in a few seconds I can prove less people are working today than in say, 2009... Wana go down that road that proves you willfully ignorant? And remember, cuz I know you're a bit stupid, you claimed UE is down 2%.... But then how is it possible less people are working .... HHHmmmMMmmmm.

Math has never been a strong suit for Conservatives

If you go from an economy that was losing 770,000 jobs a month to one that is gaining 230,000 jobs a month, you have a net increase of one million jobs per month

 

[Avorysuds]

That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution. Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means? Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?

Yeah, good ole "promote the general welfare", the go to loophole for power mongers since the Constitution was signed..

You have refused to answer my questions and have tried, unsuccessfully, to dismiss the phrase "promote the general welfare."
"Promote the general welfare" means EXACTLY what it says. It means the government is tasked with trying to make the lives of its citizens better. Wouldn't having jobs make their lives better? Wouldn't having jobs improve the economy for this country and isn't that a good thing, for EVERYONE!!!! Ignore it if you wish to continue to look ignorant but the founding fathers recognized that one of the functions of the government was to improve the lives of its citizens and not to turn their back on them in time of need. Perhaps it was the founder of the republican party who said it best. Wasn't it Lincoln who said that government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." What do you think "for the people means?"
Unfortunately "promote the general welfare" is just one part of the Constitution that conservative choose to ignore.

incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something. Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written... Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government.

 

[ron4342]

Because the average accounts for EVERY MONTH THE PRESIDENT was in office, in this case 96 months! Your figure only looks at TWO MONTHS. Mine looks at all 96 months.

Is it more accurate to rate a President on two months of work rather than 96? I think not.

Yes, the unemployment rate was low when Bush entered office. But it went up, there was a recession. The unemployment rate went all the way to 6.3% in 2003. Bush brought it back down to 4.4% by 2006. It was still at 4.9% in February 2008, only a few months before Bush left office.

But you see, you miss all that when you only look at the first month and the last month of a Presidency. Guess what, there are 94 other months that have to be looked in order to accurately rate the President.

Students grades are not based on the first week of the semester and the last week of the semester. Employees job performance is not based on the first week of work and the last week of work. Everything in between counts!

It's like playing poker and bragging that for most of the game you were way ahead........but neglecting to tell people you were busted when you left the table.

The economy is not a game, nimrod. If you have 4% unemployment the last month, and 15% unemployment every other month, you haven't won the "game." That means you had long 8 years of untold misery and suffering.

"The economy is not a game...."
What a strange statement coming from a member of the party of "NO." Are you saying shuting down the government wasn't a game? Are you saying a record number of filibusters wasn't a game? Are you saying refusing to pass a jobs bill wasn't a game? Are you saying refusing to compromise on ANYTHING wasn't a game? I'm sorry but the republican party has been playing games with America and the economy for the last 5 years even if you are to ignorant to notice. THERE IS A REASON THE CURRENT CONGRESS HAS THE LOWEST RATING IN HISTORY. EVEN FORMER REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERS HAVE CONDEMNED ITS CURRENT LEADERS FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR.

 

[BobPlumb]

Yeah, good ole "promote the general welfare", the go to loophole for power mongers since the Constitution was signed..

You have refused to answer my questions and have tried, unsuccessfully, to dismiss the phrase "promote the general welfare."
"Promote the general welfare" means EXACTLY what it says. It means the government is tasked with trying to make the lives of its citizens better. Wouldn't having jobs make their lives better? Wouldn't having jobs improve the economy for this country and isn't that a good thing, for EVERYONE!!!! Ignore it if you wish to continue to look ignorant but the founding fathers recognized that one of the functions of the government was to improve the lives of its citizens and not to turn their back on them in time of need. Perhaps it was the founder of the republican party who said it best. Wasn't it Lincoln who said that government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." What do you think "for the people means?"
Unfortunately "promote the general welfare" is just one part of the Constitution that conservative choose to ignore.

incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something. Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written... Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government.

Using the powers itemized by the constitution were to promote the general welfare. That did not mean that the federal government has the unlimited power to do anything it sees fit in the name of promoting the general welfare.

 

[Avorysuds]

You have refused to answer my questions and have tried, unsuccessfully, to dismiss the phrase "promote the general welfare."
"Promote the general welfare" means EXACTLY what it says. It means the government is tasked with trying to make the lives of its citizens better. Wouldn't having jobs make their lives better? Wouldn't having jobs improve the economy for this country and isn't that a good thing, for EVERYONE!!!! Ignore it if you wish to continue to look ignorant but the founding fathers recognized that one of the functions of the government was to improve the lives of its citizens and not to turn their back on them in time of need. Perhaps it was the founder of the republican party who said it best. Wasn't it Lincoln who said that government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." What do you think "for the people means?"
Unfortunately "promote the general welfare" is just one part of the Constitution that conservative choose to ignore.

incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something. Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written... Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government.

Using the powers itemized by the constitution were to promote the general welfare. That did not mean that the federal government has the unlimited power to do anything it sees fit in the name of promoting the general welfare.

Correct, and no where in the constitution does it allow the federal Government to create things like Obamacare, MC/MC/SS or food stamps. And now we suffer massive deficits, increased people living in poverty and a division in this country literally divided by those that pay taxes and those that collect "welfare."

 

[Indeependent]

incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something. Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written... Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government.

Using the powers itemized by the constitution were to promote the general welfare. That did not mean that the federal government has the unlimited power to do anything it sees fit in the name of promoting the general welfare.

Correct, and no where in the constitution does it allow the federal Government to create things like Obamacare, MC/MC/SS or food stamps. And now we suffer massive deficits, increased people living in poverty and a division in this country literally divided by those that pay taxes and those that collect "welfare."

So let us know when to tune in and see you protesting on Capitol Hill.

 

[The Rabbi]

Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.

That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution. Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means? Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?

Dunce.
If that were the case then the federal gov't would have unlimited power to "promote the general welfare." They could mandate eating eggplant every day if they wanted. That would eviscerate the idea of limited gov't. If what you wrote was true why does the Constitution lay out what powers Congress has? t would be unnecessary. It could just have said Congress has the power to promote the general welfare and left it at that. But it didnt.
The Preamble is not the functioning legal part of the document. It is a statement of intent.
Geez no wonder Obama got elected twice with nudniks like this running around.