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

[Call Sign Chaos]

You poor thing, the good Lord sure screwed you over. Imbecile... they didn't quote the NBER blaming the CRA for the meltdown. They quoted them stating the CRA led to riskier lending;

And what the fuck do you think led to the collapse you stupid bitch? Risky loans that didn't get payed back that didn't get payed back led to the collapse, god you're dumb.

And while you piss and moan about the author of the study which found only 6% of CRA loans were issued by CRA covered lenders, you have nothing to refute it.

You are citing a report by an agency which didn't find fault with itself think about that for a second you joke of a human being.

Thefact of the matter is, one of the nation's biggest lenders at the time, which controlled some 60% of the market

The CRA fostered the environment of risky and predatory lending.

The Federal Reserve was not the governing body of the CRA. And I didn't say risky loans didn't contribute to the collapse. I showed that CRA loans were a small part of that. Again, the biggest lenders, the ones who wrote the most toxic loans, were not even covered by CRA.

And the bigger issue wasn't risky loans, it was fraudulent loans. Loans the lenders knew were bad when they wrote them, but wrote them anyway because they knew they could sell them off before they went into default. It was a game of 'hot potato.'

I even know someone who already had two mortgages on his home back then who was still offered a deal by a bank who offered to pay him $30K if he would buy a property, sight unseen, and just let it go into default. The bank would wave the down payment and cover the closing costs. My friends only cost was his credit score. The bank was making so much money from deals like that because they would sell that loan before it was in default. Whoever purchased it from the bank would in turn, sell it themselves. And so on and so on. That's what lenders were doing. I have neighbor who hasn't paid her mortgage in about 7 years now. She's contesting it in court because her original loan was sold so many times, the current holder of her loan can't locate the original documents.

That's what crashed the economy. Greed. Not the CRA, which is still in place.

As to your first point the Federal Reserve absolutely was one of the governing regulatory agencies charges with policy creation, implementation, and enforcement:


RegulationsEdit
The same banking agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions are also the agencies that conduct examinations for CRA compliance.[10]These agencies are the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). In 1981, to help achieve the goals of the CRA, each of the Federal Reserve banks established a Community Affairs Office to work with banking institutions and the public in identifying credit needs within the community and ways to address those needs.[6]

Implementation of the CRA by these financial supervisory agencies is enacted by Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); Parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e with the addition of Part 203 as it relates to sections of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).[11]

The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) coordinates inter-agency information about the CRA.[11][34] Information about the CRA ratings of individual banking institutions from the four responsible agencies (Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC and OTS), is publicly available from the website of the FFIEC.[35] These ratings were first made available by the Clinton administration to enable public participation and public comment on CRA performance.[36]

In addition to the regulatory framework in place, each federal financial supervisory agency's Inspector General performs regular audits on any regulatory changes made to see if the intended goals are actually being fulfilled.[37]

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia
As to your second point as pointed out by the NBER, the CRA fostered that environment of risky lending.

 

[healthmyths]

You poor thing, the good Lord sure screwed you over. Imbecile... they didn't quote the NBER blaming the CRA for the meltdown. They quoted them stating the CRA led to riskier lending;

And what the fuck do you think led to the collapse you stupid bitch? Risky loans that didn't get payed back that didn't get payed back led to the collapse, god you're dumb.

And while you piss and moan about the author of the study which found only 6% of CRA loans were issued by CRA covered lenders, you have nothing to refute it.

You are citing a report by an agency which didn't find fault with itself think about that for a second you joke of a human being.

Thefact of the matter is, one of the nation's biggest lenders at the time, which controlled some 60% of the market

The CRA fostered the environment of risky and predatory lending.

The Federal Reserve was not the governing body of the CRA. And I didn't say risky loans didn't contribute to the collapse. I showed that CRA loans were a small part of that. Again, the biggest lenders, the ones who wrote the most toxic loans, were not even covered by CRA.

And the bigger issue wasn't risky loans, it was fraudulent loans. Loans the lenders knew were bad when they wrote them, but wrote them anyway because they knew they could sell them off before they went into default. It was a game of 'hot potato.'

I even know someone who already had two mortgages on his home back then who was still offered a deal by a bank who offered to pay him $30K if he would buy a property, sight unseen, and just let it go into default. The bank would wave the down payment and cover the closing costs. My friends only cost was his credit score. The bank was making so much money from deals like that because they would sell that loan before it was in default. Whoever purchased it from the bank would in turn, sell it themselves. And so on and so on. That's what lenders were doing. I have neighbor who hasn't paid her mortgage in about 7 years now. She's contesting it in court because her original loan was sold so many times, the current holder of her loan can't locate the original documents.

That's what crashed the economy. Greed. Not the CRA, which is still in place.

The major problem I have with your comment is the statement "I even know someone".... Geez subjective, personal anecdotal events are NOT the norm!
See I knew a person who knew a person who had an anonymous source tell them that 95% of all the toxic loans were done by former banks that did "redlining"!
See what I mean?
Now for the FACTS... not anecdotal stories, not one offs... but reality.
A) CRA WAS a major cause of lenders FORCED to make such loans. Proof?
In 1995 ACORN/with Obama sued CitiBank forcing them to make loans to people THAT would default on their properties!
Citibank settled out of court but this laid the premise for banks to make sub-prime loans.
So now the banks had a problem.
Forced to make sub-prime loans to people that they were pretty sure not going to pay off the loans they had to do something because the FDIC auditors said all those loans were affecting the banks financial status.
Securitization of loan portfolios..
On one hand courts ordering banks to make bad loans and other hand the bad loans were violating FDIC rules!
2) Banks were forced by FDIC to SELL these TOXIC loans to Fannie/Freddie.. and because in their own words
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) --
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an "effective'' federal guarantee, not the "full faith and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajIEoZCommlk
As a result this is what the current situation still is...
At one time Activity in global OTC derivatives markets fell in the first half of 2015. The notional amount of outstanding contracts declined from $629 trillion at end-December 2014 to $553 trillion at end- June 2015. Even after adjustment for the effect of exchange rate movements on positions denominated in currencies other than the US dollar, notional amounts were still down by about 10%. Trade compression to eliminate redundant contracts was the major driver of the decline.

• http://www.bis.org/publ/otc_hy1511.pdf
  

 

[Faun]

You poor thing, the good Lord sure screwed you over. Imbecile... they didn't quote the NBER blaming the CRA for the meltdown. They quoted them stating the CRA led to riskier lending;

And what the fuck do you think led to the collapse you stupid bitch? Risky loans that didn't get payed back that didn't get payed back led to the collapse, god you're dumb.

And while you piss and moan about the author of the study which found only 6% of CRA loans were issued by CRA covered lenders, you have nothing to refute it.

You are citing a report by an agency which didn't find fault with itself think about that for a second you joke of a human being.

Thefact of the matter is, one of the nation's biggest lenders at the time, which controlled some 60% of the market

The CRA fostered the environment of risky and predatory lending.

The Federal Reserve was not the governing body of the CRA. And I didn't say risky loans didn't contribute to the collapse. I showed that CRA loans were a small part of that. Again, the biggest lenders, the ones who wrote the most toxic loans, were not even covered by CRA.

And the bigger issue wasn't risky loans, it was fraudulent loans. Loans the lenders knew were bad when they wrote them, but wrote them anyway because they knew they could sell them off before they went into default. It was a game of 'hot potato.'

I even know someone who already had two mortgages on his home back then who was still offered a deal by a bank who offered to pay him $30K if he would buy a property, sight unseen, and just let it go into default. The bank would wave the down payment and cover the closing costs. My friends only cost was his credit score. The bank was making so much money from deals like that because they would sell that loan before it was in default. Whoever purchased it from the bank would in turn, sell it themselves. And so on and so on. That's what lenders were doing. I have neighbor who hasn't paid her mortgage in about 7 years now. She's contesting it in court because her original loan was sold so many times, the current holder of her loan can't locate the original documents.

That's what crashed the economy. Greed. Not the CRA, which is still in place.

As to your first point the Federal Reserve absolutely was one of the governing regulatory agencies charges with policy creation, implementation, and enforcement:


RegulationsEdit
The same banking agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions are also the agencies that conduct examinations for CRA compliance.[10]These agencies are the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). In 1981, to help achieve the goals of the CRA, each of the Federal Reserve banks established a Community Affairs Office to work with banking institutions and the public in identifying credit needs within the community and ways to address those needs.[6]

Implementation of the CRA by these financial supervisory agencies is enacted by Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); Parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e with the addition of Part 203 as it relates to sections of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).[11]

The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) coordinates inter-agency information about the CRA.[11][34] Information about the CRA ratings of individual banking institutions from the four responsible agencies (Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC and OTS), is publicly available from the website of the FFIEC.[35] These ratings were first made available by the Clinton administration to enable public participation and public comment on CRA performance.[36]

In addition to the regulatory framework in place, each federal financial supervisory agency's Inspector General performs regular audits on any regulatory changes made to see if the intended goals are actually being fulfilled.[37]

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia
As to your second point as pointed out by the NBER, the CRA fostered that environment of risky lending.

Here's one of the most comprehensive lists of causes of the crash. Risky lending was not the problem and the CRA was not the problem. Greed and opportunity was.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis

 

[Faun]

You poor thing, the good Lord sure screwed you over. Imbecile... they didn't quote the NBER blaming the CRA for the meltdown. They quoted them stating the CRA led to riskier lending;

And what the fuck do you think led to the collapse you stupid bitch? Risky loans that didn't get payed back that didn't get payed back led to the collapse, god you're dumb.

And while you piss and moan about the author of the study which found only 6% of CRA loans were issued by CRA covered lenders, you have nothing to refute it.

You are citing a report by an agency which didn't find fault with itself think about that for a second you joke of a human being.

Thefact of the matter is, one of the nation's biggest lenders at the time, which controlled some 60% of the market

The CRA fostered the environment of risky and predatory lending.

The Federal Reserve was not the governing body of the CRA. And I didn't say risky loans didn't contribute to the collapse. I showed that CRA loans were a small part of that. Again, the biggest lenders, the ones who wrote the most toxic loans, were not even covered by CRA.

And the bigger issue wasn't risky loans, it was fraudulent loans. Loans the lenders knew were bad when they wrote them, but wrote them anyway because they knew they could sell them off before they went into default. It was a game of 'hot potato.'

I even know someone who already had two mortgages on his home back then who was still offered a deal by a bank who offered to pay him $30K if he would buy a property, sight unseen, and just let it go into default. The bank would wave the down payment and cover the closing costs. My friends only cost was his credit score. The bank was making so much money from deals like that because they would sell that loan before it was in default. Whoever purchased it from the bank would in turn, sell it themselves. And so on and so on. That's what lenders were doing. I have neighbor who hasn't paid her mortgage in about 7 years now. She's contesting it in court because her original loan was sold so many times, the current holder of her loan can't locate the original documents.

That's what crashed the economy. Greed. Not the CRA, which is still in place.

The major problem I have with your comment is the statement "I even know someone".... Geez subjective, personal anecdotal events are NOT the norm!
See I knew a person who knew a person who had an anonymous source tell them that 95% of all the toxic loans were done by former banks that did "redlining"!
See what I mean?
Now for the FACTS... not anecdotal stories, not one offs... but reality.
A) CRA WAS a major cause of lenders FORCED to make such loans. Proof?
In 1995 ACORN/with Obama sued CitiBank forcing them to make loans to people THAT would default on their properties!
Citibank settled out of court but this laid the premise for banks to make sub-prime loans.
So now the banks had a problem.
Forced to make sub-prime loans to people that they were pretty sure not going to pay off the loans they had to do something because the FDIC auditors said all those loans were affecting the banks financial status.
Securitization of loan portfolios..
On one hand courts ordering banks to make bad loans and other hand the bad loans were violating FDIC rules!
2) Banks were forced by FDIC to SELL these TOXIC loans to Fannie/Freddie.. and because in their own words
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) --
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an "effective'' federal guarantee, not the "full faith and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajIEoZCommlk
As a result this is what the current situation still is...
At one time Activity in global OTC derivatives markets fell in the first half of 2015. The notional amount of outstanding contracts declined from $629 trillion at end-December 2014 to $553 trillion at end- June 2015. Even after adjustment for the effect of exchange rate movements on positions denominated in currencies other than the US dollar, notional amounts were still down by about 10%. Trade compression to eliminate redundant contracts was the major driver of the decline.

• http://www.bis.org/publ/otc_hy1511.pdf

I never said it was the norm, nor did I attach a percentage of occurrence. I described just two of the many cases taking place which contributed to the crash.

 

[12icer]

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?

Man this is an old thread to restart.
Their economic policies do,, of course some times policies that were implemented by other entities cause them, like not actually having a budget for three years, and things like that.

 

[12icer]

You poor thing, the good Lord sure screwed you over. Imbecile... they didn't quote the NBER blaming the CRA for the meltdown. They quoted them stating the CRA led to riskier lending;

And what the fuck do you think led to the collapse you stupid bitch? Risky loans that didn't get payed back that didn't get payed back led to the collapse, god you're dumb.

And while you piss and moan about the author of the study which found only 6% of CRA loans were issued by CRA covered lenders, you have nothing to refute it.

You are citing a report by an agency which didn't find fault with itself think about that for a second you joke of a human being.

Thefact of the matter is, one of the nation's biggest lenders at the time, which controlled some 60% of the market

The CRA fostered the environment of risky and predatory lending.

The Federal Reserve was not the governing body of the CRA. And I didn't say risky loans didn't contribute to the collapse. I showed that CRA loans were a small part of that. Again, the biggest lenders, the ones who wrote the most toxic loans, were not even covered by CRA.

And the bigger issue wasn't risky loans, it was fraudulent loans. Loans the lenders knew were bad when they wrote them, but wrote them anyway because they knew they could sell them off before they went into default. It was a game of 'hot potato.'

I even know someone who already had two mortgages on his home back then who was still offered a deal by a bank who offered to pay him $30K if he would buy a property, sight unseen, and just let it go into default. The bank would wave the down payment and cover the closing costs. My friends only cost was his credit score. The bank was making so much money from deals like that because they would sell that loan before it was in default. Whoever purchased it from the bank would in turn, sell it themselves. And so on and so on. That's what lenders were doing. I have neighbor who hasn't paid her mortgage in about 7 years now. She's contesting it in court because her original loan was sold so many times, the current holder of her loan can't locate the original documents.

That's what crashed the economy. Greed. Not the CRA, which is still in place.

The major problem I have with your comment is the statement "I even know someone".... Geez subjective, personal anecdotal events are NOT the norm!
See I knew a person who knew a person who had an anonymous source tell them that 95% of all the toxic loans were done by former banks that did "redlining"!
See what I mean?
Now for the FACTS... not anecdotal stories, not one offs... but reality.
A) CRA WAS a major cause of lenders FORCED to make such loans. Proof?
In 1995 ACORN/with Obama sued CitiBank forcing them to make loans to people THAT would default on their properties!
Citibank settled out of court but this laid the premise for banks to make sub-prime loans.
So now the banks had a problem.
Forced to make sub-prime loans to people that they were pretty sure not going to pay off the loans they had to do something because the FDIC auditors said all those loans were affecting the banks financial status.
Securitization of loan portfolios..
On one hand courts ordering banks to make bad loans and other hand the bad loans were violating FDIC rules!
2) Banks were forced by FDIC to SELL these TOXIC loans to Fannie/Freddie.. and because in their own words
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) --
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an "effective'' federal guarantee, not the "full faith and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajIEoZCommlk
As a result this is what the current situation still is...
At one time Activity in global OTC derivatives markets fell in the first half of 2015. The notional amount of outstanding contracts declined from $629 trillion at end-December 2014 to $553 trillion at end- June 2015. Even after adjustment for the effect of exchange rate movements on positions denominated in currencies other than the US dollar, notional amounts were still down by about 10%. Trade compression to eliminate redundant contracts was the major driver of the decline.

• http://www.bis.org/publ/otc_hy1511.pdf

I never said it was the norm, nor did I attach a percentage of occurrence. I described just two of the many cases taking place which contributed to the crash.

But you did not state THE WHO'S that implemented errant policies, and extortion that directly caused the crash did YOU??? like all liberals always trying to blame anyone but your feeding pump.

 

[Faun]

You poor thing, the good Lord sure screwed you over. Imbecile... they didn't quote the NBER blaming the CRA for the meltdown. They quoted them stating the CRA led to riskier lending;

And what the fuck do you think led to the collapse you stupid bitch? Risky loans that didn't get payed back that didn't get payed back led to the collapse, god you're dumb.

And while you piss and moan about the author of the study which found only 6% of CRA loans were issued by CRA covered lenders, you have nothing to refute it.

You are citing a report by an agency which didn't find fault with itself think about that for a second you joke of a human being.

Thefact of the matter is, one of the nation's biggest lenders at the time, which controlled some 60% of the market

The CRA fostered the environment of risky and predatory lending.

The Federal Reserve was not the governing body of the CRA. And I didn't say risky loans didn't contribute to the collapse. I showed that CRA loans were a small part of that. Again, the biggest lenders, the ones who wrote the most toxic loans, were not even covered by CRA.

And the bigger issue wasn't risky loans, it was fraudulent loans. Loans the lenders knew were bad when they wrote them, but wrote them anyway because they knew they could sell them off before they went into default. It was a game of 'hot potato.'

I even know someone who already had two mortgages on his home back then who was still offered a deal by a bank who offered to pay him $30K if he would buy a property, sight unseen, and just let it go into default. The bank would wave the down payment and cover the closing costs. My friends only cost was his credit score. The bank was making so much money from deals like that because they would sell that loan before it was in default. Whoever purchased it from the bank would in turn, sell it themselves. And so on and so on. That's what lenders were doing. I have neighbor who hasn't paid her mortgage in about 7 years now. She's contesting it in court because her original loan was sold so many times, the current holder of her loan can't locate the original documents.

That's what crashed the economy. Greed. Not the CRA, which is still in place.

The major problem I have with your comment is the statement "I even know someone".... Geez subjective, personal anecdotal events are NOT the norm!
See I knew a person who knew a person who had an anonymous source tell them that 95% of all the toxic loans were done by former banks that did "redlining"!
See what I mean?
Now for the FACTS... not anecdotal stories, not one offs... but reality.
A) CRA WAS a major cause of lenders FORCED to make such loans. Proof?
In 1995 ACORN/with Obama sued CitiBank forcing them to make loans to people THAT would default on their properties!
Citibank settled out of court but this laid the premise for banks to make sub-prime loans.
So now the banks had a problem.
Forced to make sub-prime loans to people that they were pretty sure not going to pay off the loans they had to do something because the FDIC auditors said all those loans were affecting the banks financial status.
Securitization of loan portfolios..
On one hand courts ordering banks to make bad loans and other hand the bad loans were violating FDIC rules!
2) Banks were forced by FDIC to SELL these TOXIC loans to Fannie/Freddie.. and because in their own words
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) --
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an "effective'' federal guarantee, not the "full faith and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajIEoZCommlk
As a result this is what the current situation still is...
At one time Activity in global OTC derivatives markets fell in the first half of 2015. The notional amount of outstanding contracts declined from $629 trillion at end-December 2014 to $553 trillion at end- June 2015. Even after adjustment for the effect of exchange rate movements on positions denominated in currencies other than the US dollar, notional amounts were still down by about 10%. Trade compression to eliminate redundant contracts was the major driver of the decline.

• http://www.bis.org/publ/otc_hy1511.pdf

I never said it was the norm, nor did I attach a percentage of occurrence. I described just two of the many cases taking place which contributed to the crash.

But you did not state THE WHO'S that implemented errant policies, and extortion that directly caused the crash did YOU??? like all liberals always trying to blame anyone but your feeding pump.

Sure I did. It was the greedy lenders, with interest rates bottomed out, who could offer folks 1% ARMs, turn around sell the loan to someone else and make bank. This boomed out of control. It wasn't that lenders were being forced to give loans to minorities -- it was that lenders had the opportunity to make billions while nobody noticed what was happening.

 

[U2Edge]

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%

1. BULLSHIT. Unemployment by year:

• 2009: 9.3 percent.
• 2010: 9.6 percent.
• 2011: 8.9 percent.
• 2012: 8.1 percent.
• 2013: 7.4 percent.
• 2014: 6.2 percent.
• 2015: 5.3 percent.
• 2016: 4.9 percent.

Average of 7.5%

United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

2. It's true, Obama is a total asshole for starting Great Recession.

The 8.86% figure is from an earlier point in his Presidency. This list gets updated in this thread sometimes every month. The current list is here:



Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Donald Trump: 4.52%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
11. Barack Obama: 7.45%
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

It is based on the MONTHLY unemployment rate.

I see you corrected the previous rate you posted, but you must realize the average is actually meaningless, unless you also post the change in unemployment rate.

For example, someone who inherits 4% unemployment, and leaves with 8% unemployment can have an average unemployment rate of 6%

Somebody else inherits 8% unemployment, and leaves with 4%, also can have an average unemployment rate of 6%.

But one doubled unemployment, while the other cut unemployment in half. But the average doesn't tell you that.

1. A President may leave with 8% unemployement, but that rise in unemployment may have only been seen in the last months in office and is not reflective of 90% of their time in office.

2. Also, as always with economics, the fault for a rise or fall in unemployment is not always clear. It could be do to Presidential policy, or something beyond the governments control, or a combination of both.

3. The only fair way to totally compare Presidential Administrations time in office to other Presidents is to look at ALL the data for every month during the time involved and average it. That is the only accurate and objective way to make a comparison.

4. Otherwise, you spend your time cherry picking which months and time periods of various Presidency's to compare.

5. All that is involved here is the data from the Bureau of labor statistics for each President and the average for that data.

6. Typically, you will see a unemployment levels during a Presidency rise and fall multiple times. Given that, it is a mistake to simply cherry pick a few months from the start of one Presidency or the end of another, and attempt to frame that President based on such limited data. Any look at any Presidency should not be based on only 6 months of data but on the full 96 months that a President is in office.

Complete and utter bullshit. In terms of employment, Bush is considered among the worst of presidents. He's the only president to leave office with fewer people working in the private sector since Herbert Hoover achieved that back in the early 30's. If not for government jobs, total job growth would have been negative as well. As it is, while most recent presidents' additions are counted in the millions on an annual average, Bush added an annual average of just 168,375 jobs.

Weakest president when it came to jobs in 80 years.

You are never weak when you have an average unemployment rate of 5.27%. That's just a fact. When the economy is at or near full employment, the rate at which you add new jobs is not as high as when the economy is going through a massive recovery. In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and at least the first half of 2008, it was easier for an unemployed person to come off the street and find a job at an employment agency than at most times while Obama was President.

 

[U2Edge]

1. BULLSHIT. Unemployment by year:

• 2009: 9.3 percent.
• 2010: 9.6 percent.
• 2011: 8.9 percent.
• 2012: 8.1 percent.
• 2013: 7.4 percent.
• 2014: 6.2 percent.
• 2015: 5.3 percent.
• 2016: 4.9 percent.

Average of 7.5%

United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

2. It's true, Obama is a total asshole for starting Great Recession.

The 8.86% figure is from an earlier point in his Presidency. This list gets updated in this thread sometimes every month. The current list is here:



Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Donald Trump: 4.52%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
11. Barack Obama: 7.45%
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

It is based on the MONTHLY unemployment rate.

I see you corrected the previous rate you posted, but you must realize the average is actually meaningless, unless you also post the change in unemployment rate.

For example, someone who inherits 4% unemployment, and leaves with 8% unemployment can have an average unemployment rate of 6%

Somebody else inherits 8% unemployment, and leaves with 4%, also can have an average unemployment rate of 6%.

But one doubled unemployment, while the other cut unemployment in half. But the average doesn't tell you that.

Yeah, some people just can't be bothered with such pesky details.

Anyone who says Bush did a better job than Reagan in terms of unemployment needs to have their head examined.

For most of the time W was in office, it was easier for the average person on the street to get a job than it was when Reagan was in office. That is just a fact.

Sure, uh-huh. That must explain why Bush comes in dead last among the last 12 presidents with an embarrassing 1% growth; while Reagan was 4th with over 17% growth.

Ranking U.S. presidents for jobs growth - Harry Truman to Barack Obama

Most people had jobs while Bush was President and it stayed that way. The Economy was at or near full employment. Reagan had the highest recorded monthly employment ever, and the recovery process is when most jobs are created. If Bush had 10% unemployment early in his term, then the recovery from that would have pushed his creation of jobs numbers higher. But that is not a statistic you want. Far better to be at or near full employment during your entire time in office than to suffer the impact of 10% unemployment. No President wants to have 10% unemployment!

 

[U2Edge]

3. The only fair way to totally compare Presidential Administrations time in office to other Presidents is to look at ALL the data for every month during the time involved and average it. That is the only accurate and objective way to make a comparison.

Ah, so differentiating between a president walking into office amid economic growth and walking into office amid Great Recession and turning that into stable, growing economy with full employment is NOT FAIR!

If you cannot tell a difference between an argument a total brainless politico tool would make and your own, guess what, you're it.

You don't understand the difference between cherry picking information and being unbiased and objective. The standard in the list is the same for all the Presidents regardless. Monthly unemployment added together and then averaged. That is unbiased and objective.

The unemployment rate can go up and down multiple times, with multiple recessions at or near recessions over a 96 month term. Only looking at 12 Cherry picked months out of that 96 months is not an accurate way to rate any President, which is what you suggest. Perhaps you would like it if your employer rated your performance over the past year and whether to keep you in the job simply based on 12 days out of 300 days of work. Perhaps we should dismiss seeing if your children get to go on to the next grade as defined by GPA and just look at 10 selected days, test or grades and perhaps fail them based on that. Same logic.

 

[U2Edge]

3. The only fair way to totally compare Presidential Administrations time in office to other Presidents is to look at ALL the data for every month during the time involved and average it. That is the only accurate and objective way to make a comparison.

Ah, so differentiating between a president walking into office amid economic growth and walking into office amid Great Recession and turning that into stable, growing economy with full employment is NOT FAIR!

If you cannot tell a difference between an argument a total brainless politico tool would make and your own, guess what, you're it.

The guy just proved he's a complete and utter idiot. He actually said it was easier for people to get a job while Bush was president than while Reagan was president.

Reagan added 16 million jobs while he was president. Bush added 1 million. And the population was smaller when Reagan was president. The numbers themselves show how much easier it was to find a job while Reagan was president.

You call me an idiot, yet you keep coming back to my thread. Interesting! When the unemployment is low in any given month, the probability you will get a job is higher than if the unemployment rate was high. On average, the unemployment rate was lower while Bush was in office than Reagan, meaning it was easier to get a job. There are more help wanted signs when the unemployment rate is 5% than when it is 8%.

 

[AntonToo]

3. The only fair way to totally compare Presidential Administrations time in office to other Presidents is to look at ALL the data for every month during the time involved and average it. That is the only accurate and objective way to make a comparison.

Ah, so differentiating between a president walking into office amid economic growth and walking into office amid Great Recession and turning that into stable, growing economy with full employment is NOT FAIR!

If you cannot tell a difference between an argument a total brainless politico tool would make and your own, guess what, you're it.

You don't understand the difference between cherry picking information and being unbiased and objective. The standard in the list is the same for all the Presidents regardless. Monthly unemployment added together and then averaged. That is unbiased and objective.

The unemployment rate can go up and down multiple times, with multiple recessions at or near recessions over a 96 month term. Only looking at 12 Cherry picked months out of that 96 months is not an accurate way to rate any President, which is what you suggest. Perhaps you would like it if your employer rated your performance over the past year and whether to keep you in the job simply based on 12 days out of 300 days of work. Perhaps we should dismiss seeing if your children get to go on to the next grade as defined by GPA and just look at 10 selected days, test or grades and perhaps fail them based on that. Same logic.

You are not improving on your position, which remains that it doesn't matter that a president walked into office amid Great Recession and walked out of it amid stable growth and full employment.

It's a stupid position and that is where you are stuck. You are willing to play stupid to maintain a position you took for politico, not academic, reasons. Thankfully historians are not an obtuse bunch like that.

Taking into account stark improvement in economy under a president IS NOT CHERRY-PICKING, the suggestion is ridiculous.

 

[U2Edge]

The 8.86% figure is from an earlier point in his Presidency. This list gets updated in this thread sometimes every month. The current list is here:



Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Donald Trump: 4.52%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
11. Barack Obama: 7.45%
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

It is based on the MONTHLY unemployment rate.

I see you corrected the previous rate you posted, but you must realize the average is actually meaningless, unless you also post the change in unemployment rate.

For example, someone who inherits 4% unemployment, and leaves with 8% unemployment can have an average unemployment rate of 6%

Somebody else inherits 8% unemployment, and leaves with 4%, also can have an average unemployment rate of 6%.

But one doubled unemployment, while the other cut unemployment in half. But the average doesn't tell you that.

Yeah, some people just can't be bothered with such pesky details.

Anyone who says Bush did a better job than Reagan in terms of unemployment needs to have their head examined.

For most of the time W was in office, it was easier for the average person on the street to get a job than it was when Reagan was in office. That is just a fact.

Half a fact....
Remember the Misery Index that Reagan inherited from Carter?
Let's see because I lived through it!
US Misery Index - Index by President
The end of Carter and start of Reagan the HIGHEST in history at 19.72!
So Reagan had a lot to overcome. Inflation and unemployment both historical highs at
the end of Carter and I stupidly enough voted for Carter the first time! Thinking this very smart nuclear engineer could be a good president. Instead we got the "sweater talks"... etc. Look up Carter "sweater talks"!!!
View attachment 138371

Stop lying. Unemployment was not at a historical high when Reagan became president. It was higher when Obama became president.

Both Obama and Reagan experienced historic high unemployment during the first two years in office. Unemployment was less than 8% when Obama became President and is not a historic high. Obama also claimed unemployment would not go over 8%, but it did.

 

[U2Edge]

3. The only fair way to totally compare Presidential Administrations time in office to other Presidents is to look at ALL the data for every month during the time involved and average it. That is the only accurate and objective way to make a comparison.

Ah, so differentiating between a president walking into office amid economic growth and walking into office amid Great Recession and turning that into stable, growing economy with full employment is NOT FAIR!

If you cannot tell a difference between an argument a total brainless politico tool would make and your own, guess what, you're it.

I agree that Obama had some economic issues to over come.
But he didn't help! You can't have a President who offers these statements and expect robust economic growth. The economy overcame IN SPITE of really anti-growth comments like these:
- Obama wanted to bankrupt 1,400 companies, that pay $100 billion a year in taxes and unemployed 450,000 people that work for these companies! (Obama told us he favored a "single payer health system"... so what happens to the above?)
- " if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”
(Pretty easy way of increasing unemployment.)
- "I prefer higher gas prices". (And Obama proved it by signing 40% fewer Federal oil lease exploration then Bush).
- Obama "Brazil to develop oil and that the USA will be their best customer"!
- "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (That certainly puts a dent in the pocketbook...

It truly is a wonder that with this anti-business statements the economy grew in spite of
Obama's economic ignorances and WISHES!

LOL

Liar. In fact, we had a streak of 76 consecutive months of job growth under Obama. Unprecedented.

Easier to do that when so many people are on the sidelines not working.

 

[AntonToo]

I see you corrected the previous rate you posted, but you must realize the average is actually meaningless, unless you also post the change in unemployment rate.

For example, someone who inherits 4% unemployment, and leaves with 8% unemployment can have an average unemployment rate of 6%

Somebody else inherits 8% unemployment, and leaves with 4%, also can have an average unemployment rate of 6%.

But one doubled unemployment, while the other cut unemployment in half. But the average doesn't tell you that.

Yeah, some people just can't be bothered with such pesky details.

Anyone who says Bush did a better job than Reagan in terms of unemployment needs to have their head examined.

For most of the time W was in office, it was easier for the average person on the street to get a job than it was when Reagan was in office. That is just a fact.

Half a fact....
Remember the Misery Index that Reagan inherited from Carter?
Let's see because I lived through it!
US Misery Index - Index by President
The end of Carter and start of Reagan the HIGHEST in history at 19.72!
So Reagan had a lot to overcome. Inflation and unemployment both historical highs at
the end of Carter and I stupidly enough voted for Carter the first time! Thinking this very smart nuclear engineer could be a good president. Instead we got the "sweater talks"... etc. Look up Carter "sweater talks"!!!
View attachment 138371

Stop lying. Unemployment was not at a historical high when Reagan became president. It was higher when Obama became president.

Both Obama and Reagan experienced historic high unemployment during the first two years in office. Unemployment was less than 8% when Obama became President and is not a historic high. Obama also claimed unemployment would not go over 8%, but it did.

Only one of them experienced Great Recession - equivalency is false, they were different recessions, for different economic reasons. different responses on monetary policy side and correspondingly different recovery.

 

[U2Edge]

3. The only fair way to totally compare Presidential Administrations time in office to other Presidents is to look at ALL the data for every month during the time involved and average it. That is the only accurate and objective way to make a comparison.

Ah, so differentiating between a president walking into office amid economic growth and walking into office amid Great Recession and turning that into stable, growing economy with full employment is NOT FAIR!

If you cannot tell a difference between an argument a total brainless politico tool would make and your own, guess what, you're it.

You don't understand the difference between cherry picking information and being unbiased and objective. The standard in the list is the same for all the Presidents regardless. Monthly unemployment added together and then averaged. That is unbiased and objective.

The unemployment rate can go up and down multiple times, with multiple recessions at or near recessions over a 96 month term. Only looking at 12 Cherry picked months out of that 96 months is not an accurate way to rate any President, which is what you suggest. Perhaps you would like it if your employer rated your performance over the past year and whether to keep you in the job simply based on 12 days out of 300 days of work. Perhaps we should dismiss seeing if your children get to go on to the next grade as defined by GPA and just look at 10 selected days, test or grades and perhaps fail them based on that. Same logic.

You are not improving on your position, which remains that it doesn't matter that a president walked into office amid Great Recession and walked out of it amid stable growth and full employment.

It's a stupid position and that is where you are stuck. You are willing to play stupid to maintain a position you took for politico, not academic, reasons. Thankfully historians are not an obtuse bunch like that.

Taking into account stark improvement in economy under a president IS NOT CHERRY-PICKING, the suggestion is ridiculous.

There is nothing better than being at full employment or near full employment. There for, the struggle is staying at that point, not improving on it because that is impossible. Presidents would much rather prefer being at full employment or near full employment during their entire term than experience 10% unemployment and the struggle of fixing massive 10% unemployment.

Its far better to maintain great physical condition, then to be suddenly overweight and have to lose 60 pounds. Sure, and Athletic person never loses all the weight that an out of shape person does when getting into shape, but that does not mean its good to become obese and then lose the weight. Far better to maintain near peak physical performance and ideal weight than to go through all that.

 

[U2Edge]

Yeah, some people just can't be bothered with such pesky details.

Anyone who says Bush did a better job than Reagan in terms of unemployment needs to have their head examined.

For most of the time W was in office, it was easier for the average person on the street to get a job than it was when Reagan was in office. That is just a fact.

Half a fact....
Remember the Misery Index that Reagan inherited from Carter?
Let's see because I lived through it!
US Misery Index - Index by President
The end of Carter and start of Reagan the HIGHEST in history at 19.72!
So Reagan had a lot to overcome. Inflation and unemployment both historical highs at
the end of Carter and I stupidly enough voted for Carter the first time! Thinking this very smart nuclear engineer could be a good president. Instead we got the "sweater talks"... etc. Look up Carter "sweater talks"!!!
View attachment 138371

Stop lying. Unemployment was not at a historical high when Reagan became president. It was higher when Obama became president.

Both Obama and Reagan experienced historic high unemployment during the first two years in office. Unemployment was less than 8% when Obama became President and is not a historic high. Obama also claimed unemployment would not go over 8%, but it did.

Only one of them experienced Great Recession - equivalency is false, they were different recessions, for different economic reasons. different responses on monetary policy side and correspondingly different recovery.

Great recession is a political term, not an economic one. Both experienced recessions that produced 10.8% unemployment in Reagans case and 10% unemployment in Obama's case. That's a fact regardless of the reasons or any differences between the recessions.

 

[AntonToo]

For most of the time W was in office, it was easier for the average person on the street to get a job than it was when Reagan was in office. That is just a fact.

Half a fact....
Remember the Misery Index that Reagan inherited from Carter?
Let's see because I lived through it!
US Misery Index - Index by President
The end of Carter and start of Reagan the HIGHEST in history at 19.72!
So Reagan had a lot to overcome. Inflation and unemployment both historical highs at
the end of Carter and I stupidly enough voted for Carter the first time! Thinking this very smart nuclear engineer could be a good president. Instead we got the "sweater talks"... etc. Look up Carter "sweater talks"!!!
View attachment 138371

Stop lying. Unemployment was not at a historical high when Reagan became president. It was higher when Obama became president.

Both Obama and Reagan experienced historic high unemployment during the first two years in office. Unemployment was less than 8% when Obama became President and is not a historic high. Obama also claimed unemployment would not go over 8%, but it did.

Only one of them experienced Great Recession - equivalency is false, they were different recessions, for different economic reasons. different responses on monetary policy side and correspondingly different recovery.

Great recession is a political term, not an economic one. Both experienced recessions that produced 10.8% unemployment in Reagans case and 10% unemployment in Obama's case. That's a fact regardless of the reasons or any differences between the recessions.

Economists see it as the biggest recession since the Great Depression, that is why it is called Great.

But ok, I give up, you win - Obama was an economic failure...like Reagan. Neither of those dunces can hold a candle to the genius that is Trump and his stellar, 100% objective, economic record of 4% unemployment.

 

[Faun]

1. BULLSHIT. Unemployment by year:

• 2009: 9.3 percent.
• 2010: 9.6 percent.
• 2011: 8.9 percent.
• 2012: 8.1 percent.
• 2013: 7.4 percent.
• 2014: 6.2 percent.
• 2015: 5.3 percent.
• 2016: 4.9 percent.

Average of 7.5%

United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

2. It's true, Obama is a total asshole for starting Great Recession.

The 8.86% figure is from an earlier point in his Presidency. This list gets updated in this thread sometimes every month. The current list is here:



Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Donald Trump: 4.52%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
11. Barack Obama: 7.45%
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

It is based on the MONTHLY unemployment rate.

I see you corrected the previous rate you posted, but you must realize the average is actually meaningless, unless you also post the change in unemployment rate.

For example, someone who inherits 4% unemployment, and leaves with 8% unemployment can have an average unemployment rate of 6%

Somebody else inherits 8% unemployment, and leaves with 4%, also can have an average unemployment rate of 6%.

But one doubled unemployment, while the other cut unemployment in half. But the average doesn't tell you that.

1. A President may leave with 8% unemployement, but that rise in unemployment may have only been seen in the last months in office and is not reflective of 90% of their time in office.

2. Also, as always with economics, the fault for a rise or fall in unemployment is not always clear. It could be do to Presidential policy, or something beyond the governments control, or a combination of both.

3. The only fair way to totally compare Presidential Administrations time in office to other Presidents is to look at ALL the data for every month during the time involved and average it. That is the only accurate and objective way to make a comparison.

4. Otherwise, you spend your time cherry picking which months and time periods of various Presidency's to compare.

5. All that is involved here is the data from the Bureau of labor statistics for each President and the average for that data.

6. Typically, you will see a unemployment levels during a Presidency rise and fall multiple times. Given that, it is a mistake to simply cherry pick a few months from the start of one Presidency or the end of another, and attempt to frame that President based on such limited data. Any look at any Presidency should not be based on only 6 months of data but on the full 96 months that a President is in office.

Complete and utter bullshit. In terms of employment, Bush is considered among the worst of presidents. He's the only president to leave office with fewer people working in the private sector since Herbert Hoover achieved that back in the early 30's. If not for government jobs, total job growth would have been negative as well. As it is, while most recent presidents' additions are counted in the millions on an annual average, Bush added an annual average of just 168,375 jobs.

Weakest president when it came to jobs in 80 years.

You are never weak when you have an average unemployment rate of 5.27%. That's just a fact. When the economy is at or near full employment, the rate at which you add new jobs is not as high as when the economy is going through a massive recovery. In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and at least the first half of 2008, it was easier for an unemployed person to come off the street and find a job at an employment agency than at most times while Obama was President.

Well that's bullshit. Trump was handed an economy at full employment and the unemployment rate's been lower than Bush's average, yet he's already added about 2/3rds as many jobs in 5 months as Bush did in in 8 years.

Bush comes in dead last in job growth of any president since Herbert Hoover. The only president to leave office with fewer private sector jobs since Herbert Hoover.

 

[Faun]

The 8.86% figure is from an earlier point in his Presidency. This list gets updated in this thread sometimes every month. The current list is here:



Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Donald Trump: 4.52%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
11. Barack Obama: 7.45%
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

It is based on the MONTHLY unemployment rate.

I see you corrected the previous rate you posted, but you must realize the average is actually meaningless, unless you also post the change in unemployment rate.

For example, someone who inherits 4% unemployment, and leaves with 8% unemployment can have an average unemployment rate of 6%

Somebody else inherits 8% unemployment, and leaves with 4%, also can have an average unemployment rate of 6%.

But one doubled unemployment, while the other cut unemployment in half. But the average doesn't tell you that.

Yeah, some people just can't be bothered with such pesky details.

Anyone who says Bush did a better job than Reagan in terms of unemployment needs to have their head examined.

For most of the time W was in office, it was easier for the average person on the street to get a job than it was when Reagan was in office. That is just a fact.

Sure, uh-huh. That must explain why Bush comes in dead last among the last 12 presidents with an embarrassing 1% growth; while Reagan was 4th with over 17% growth.

Ranking U.S. presidents for jobs growth - Harry Truman to Barack Obama

Most people had jobs while Bush was President and it stayed that way. The Economy was at or near full employment. Reagan had the highest recorded monthly employment ever, and the recovery process is when most jobs are created. If Bush had 10% unemployment early in his term, then the recovery from that would have pushed his creation of jobs numbers higher. But that is not a statistic you want. Far better to be at or near full employment during your entire time in office than to suffer the impact of 10% unemployment. No President wants to have 10% unemployment!

But that's the point you don't understand. Most people had jobs early in his term because he was handed a strong economy. As he progressed, unemployment rose. It only came down as a result of the housing boom, a behemoth monster which both fueled the economy before destroying it.