Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,354
- 81,200
LOLOLTo dispel your idiocy.We see what Bush was given and we see what Bush gave back. As far as your meaningless average, Republicans hold the two worst spots.... Ford and Reagan.Of course you can look at where a president starts and where they end up. Don't be ridiculous. . If a president comes in with a fairly healthy economy and low unemployment but leaves with a collapsed economy and very high unemployment -- they failed as president.
Conversely, if a president comes in inheriting a broken economy and high unemployment but leaves with a reasonably healthy economy and full employment -- they are a success.
What you're trying to do, is credit Bush for inheriting a good economy while blaming Obama for Bush's Great Recession. Bush's average is as low as they are because unemployment was at a low 4.2% when he started; and after going up, his housing bubble brought it back down until it ultimately collapsed. Obama's average is as high as it was because he started with the worst recession in modern times which drove the unemployment rate up to double digits.
To highlight how retarded averaging out the unemployment rate is -- Reagan is considered one of the best presidents for taking a crappy economy and turning it into a good economy. Yet his average is the second highest on record. He added 16 million jobs in 8 years. Obama added 15 million in the last 6. Clinton added 23 million in 8 years. Bush added one million in 8 years. And they were ALL public sector jobs.
Again, you are only looking at two months out of 96 months. You can't rate someones performance on only two months, you have to look at all 96 months. Year, after year, the economy faces problems, ups and downs, that the President must deal with. You dismiss all that, when you don't look at all 96 months. Keeping an economy at full employment is just as important as creating new jobs. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy has been in recession, so you are overvaluing that figure grossly. Again, the best and most objective way to look at this information is to look at all of it. You dismiss most of the info by only look at the first month and the last month. You can't rate a student simply by his first month in High School and his last month in High School. The same with any job and yes the same for the President. Your narrow focus on the first month and last month is comforting because it fits something you want to believe. But it does not consider all the information and is far from being objective. My chart considers all the data and is 100% factual. While you dismiss it, you continually come back to this thread which only lends it more significance, and puts doubt in whether you actually believe your own claims.
Well, why do you both to post in this thread if basic factual unemployment averages for the Presidents are so meaningless? The fact that you keep coming back in here time after time shows you think its relevant whether you openly admit it or not.
If its so dumb, you should not need to make any effort to dispel it. Yet, if we count up your post in this thread, you spend a lot of time here. Most informed and intelligent people don't waste their time with things they consider dumb or irrelevant.
Are you kidding? You're the gift that keeps on giving. Why would I miss out on this? Month after month after month, I got to come on this thread and laugh at your nonsense as Obama's average dropped. I even pointed out early on in this thread that Obama's average would fall below Reagan's. According to you numbnuts, Obama did a better job handling in employment than Reagan did.