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

[Synthaholic]

11 months before W left office, the unemployment rate was sitting at 4.9%, historically low. His average for all 96 months in office is 5.27%, one of the best in the history of the United States Of America. The Unemployment rate did shoot up in his very last months in office, but that does not erase what happened throughout 90% of the time he was in office. When he left office in January 2009, the latest reported rate was 7.3%, which is NOT a doubling of the unemployment rate while he was in office.

11 months before W left office, Wall Street hadn't collapsed yet.

What was the figure on the day he left office?

Who was in charge of Congress at the time?

 

[Erand7899]

Pub austerity would have given us a true depression, with millions homeless. Waiting for a war again. Idiocy.

We are so close to a true depression right now, that it is hard for some to think that we are not in one.

Obama picked the same bogus fixes that FDR did, and is getting the same results. Who would have thunk it?

Apparently, the only way out is WWIII, or a fiscally conservative president and congress.

 

[U2Edge]

Just as Obama inherited Bush's rising numbers, Bush inherited Clinton's lower numbers, then started a war and created a massive new government bureaucracy, both of which created an enormous amount of jobs.

Please tell me whom you would like to start a war with, and which government agencies you would like to grow in size, and Obama's numbers will look as good as Dubya's.

Its not about the number you "inherit" at the start of your term, or the last month of your term. Its about all 96 months. 8 years. The economy can go up and down multiple times over such a long span of time, which makes the hand off from one President to the other largely irrelevant when you look at an 8 year, 96 month period of time.

For the last time, not all POTUS have served 8 years. I don't know what's so hard to understand.

And, again, as I've already mentioned William Henry Harrison, but what if President Obama (praise be unto Him!) had become incapacitated after his 3rd month in office (maybe choked on a pretzel or something . . . ) and Vice President Joe "Cool" Biden had to take over? Would you average those 3 months of inherited unemployment and conclude that Obama had the worst in your list?

As for the Wars, they did not create many jobs, as the United States military grew very little during that time, and industry supplying weapons already had plant and employees they needed prior to the start. The impact on overall US employment was non-existent. Wars have a way of boosting an economy when a country is not prepared for war as the United States was not ready for World War II. But since then, the United States has always been prepared in peacetime for multiple wars, which means once war breaks out, the overall economic effect is rather small compared to the impact that wars had prior to 1950.

False. Almost from the start of the Bush Quagmire there were desperate calls for more and better armored gear, which resulted in big contracts and large increases in employment, to supply them. And Halliburton employed their own vast army of employees, hired specifically as sub-contractors, in all fields - these were not jobs that already existed. The job of driving a supply truck for Halliburton in Iraq did not exist before the Iraq War, for example.

Same with KBR, and Raytheon, and Blackwater, and the company who had the armored vehicle contract, ITT, CACI, Titan Corp., DynCorp, General Electric, and all the electronics/IT companies, etc, etc, etc. All these corporations hire a lot of people.

I recognize that not all Presidents have served for 8 years. That's obvious. I don't pick someone out of the list simply because they served 2.5 years, 4 years, or 8 years. Anyone that served as President in the White House from January 1948 to January 2014 is on the list. That is the only OBJECTIVE way to present the information! It is the only UNBIASED way to present the information! I've presented the information just as it is from the Bureau of labor statistics. These are raw FACTS! That is what the list is, RAW FACTS!

These are the facts about what conditions were like for Americans while the said President was in office. If you want to claim that a certain President was not responsible for those numbers or was not in office long enough, that's fine. But that's a subjective OPINION, not a FACT!

Its a FACT that Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. That's an indisputable Fact. Ford has the 2nd worst average unemployment rate. Another indisputable fact. The list is based on their average unemployment rate over the entire length of time in office. If you want to give someone a cookie because they served less or more time, that's fine, but that is not what this list is reporting. Its reporting raw objective, unbiased facts.

The companies that design and build up-armored personal carriers MRAPS, and provide other types of armor only employ a few thousand people at best. The Contractors only employ a few hundred thousand people over the course of the war, the MAJORITY of them being foreign nationals and NOT US Citizens.

So there, you are only talking about a few thousand, maybe a few hundred thousand people in an economy that employees over 160 MILLION people. That would not make a dent in anything! These employees already had jobs when they went to work for the contractors, they were drawn by the high pay these companies were offering. It had virtually no impact on the unemployment situation in the United States at all.

Remember, we live in the 2nd machine age where robots, machines, computers, do a lot of the work that factory workers did in World War II. Companies don't have to employ as many people to produce large quantities of goods, like they did back in World War II. That's another reason why increase spending in some of these area's had little to no effect on the US labor market.

 

[Synthaholic]

Its a FACT that Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. That's an indisputable Fact. Ford has the 2nd worst average unemployment rate. Another indisputable fact. The list is based on their average unemployment rate over the entire length of time in office. If you want to give someone a cookie because they served less or more time, that's fine, but that is not what this list is reporting. Its reporting raw objective, unbiased facts.

Then, it's a useless fact, since it tells you nothing that correlates with reality. For instance, every president's first year is spent under the previous president's last budget. Where are you making the allowance for this?

Like I said: useless.

 

[Oldstyle]

Its a FACT that Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. That's an indisputable Fact. Ford has the 2nd worst average unemployment rate. Another indisputable fact. The list is based on their average unemployment rate over the entire length of time in office. If you want to give someone a cookie because they served less or more time, that's fine, but that is not what this list is reporting. Its reporting raw objective, unbiased facts.

Then, it's a useless fact, since it tells you nothing that correlates with reality. For instance, every president's first year is spent under the previous president's last budget. Where are you making the allowance for this?

Like I said: useless.

Ah, didn't the budget that Obama "inherited" contain vast sums of stimulus monies that Barry turned around and used for wonderful things like bankrolling Solyndra? Let me guess...that's Bush's fault as well because the money spent came from his last budget?

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm amused by the concept that spending money from a budget you took over from a preceding President shouldn't count against a sitting President's balance sheet. That would fall under the heading of "creative accounting".

 

[paulitician]

This President has been a disaster. Poverty is the worst it's been in 50yrs. His massive Debt has sunk future generations. And his record on Civil/Constitutional Liberties is probably the worst of any President in History. He has made no significant achievements. He has only committed awful blunder after blunder. Our Nation will be paying for his dismal reign for many many years.

Ironically, the only ones who have benefited somewhat from his reign, are the Wall Street Fat Cats. Wall Street has done pretty well since the Dear Leader's been in there. But since Communists/Democrats are supposed to despise Wall Street profits, they can't even boast about that. There just isn't anything for the Dear Leader's followers to boast about. Yet they go on praising like brainwashed cult members. Like i said earlier, if a Republican were in there with this same dismal record, all of the Communist wingnuts on this Board would be screeching for Impeachment 24/7. They are poor lost Sheeple for sure.

 

[U2Edge]

Its a FACT that Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. That's an indisputable Fact. Ford has the 2nd worst average unemployment rate. Another indisputable fact. The list is based on their average unemployment rate over the entire length of time in office. If you want to give someone a cookie because they served less or more time, that's fine, but that is not what this list is reporting. Its reporting raw objective, unbiased facts.

Then, it's a useless fact, since it tells you nothing that correlates with reality. For instance, every president's first year is spent under the previous president's last budget. Where are you making the allowance for this?

Like I said: useless.

It tells you the reality of the job market for Americans while said President is sitting in the White House. In addition, a First Year President is not powerless to influence the economy, so the idea that he is just sitting there unable to do anything is false.

If that were the case, then Bush would get FULL credit for ending the recession on his own. The Recession ended after the 2nd quarter of 2009. The third quarter of 2009 saw positive GDP growth which in economics means the end of the recession. So your suggesting that Obama had no role in ending the recession and that it was all due to Bush's policies.

Again, this is the data that is used for each President, not exceptions at all. Unbiased, objective facts. Much more informative than something that has been cherry picked in order to make one President or the other look good or bad. That is what happen when you start to add subjective commentary to these facts, claiming this counts but that doesn't. That's when things stop being objective and become biased.

Hard facts are much more honest and informative.

 

[paulitician]

Its a FACT that Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. That's an indisputable Fact. Ford has the 2nd worst average unemployment rate. Another indisputable fact. The list is based on their average unemployment rate over the entire length of time in office. If you want to give someone a cookie because they served less or more time, that's fine, but that is not what this list is reporting. Its reporting raw objective, unbiased facts.

Then, it's a useless fact, since it tells you nothing that correlates with reality. For instance, every president's first year is spent under the previous president's last budget. Where are you making the allowance for this?

Like I said: useless.

It tells you the reality of the job market for Americans while said President is sitting in the White House. In addition, a First Year President is not powerless to influence the economy, so the idea that he is just sitting there unable to do anything is false.

If that were the case, then Bush would get FULL credit for ending the recession on his own. The Recession ended after the 2nd quarter of 2009. The third quarter of 2009 saw positive GDP growth which in economics means the end of the recession. So your suggesting that Obama had no role in ending the recession and that it was all due to Bush's policies.

Again, this is the data that is used for each President, not exceptions at all. Unbiased, objective facts. Much more informative than something that has been cherry picked in order to make one President or the other look good or bad. That is what happen when you start to add subjective commentary to these facts, claiming this counts but that doesn't. That's when things stop being objective and become biased.

Hard facts are much more honest and informative.

I hear ya, but don't bother. These same programmed Obamabots would be screeching for Impeachment if a Republican were in there with the same miserable record. This President's legacy is...Massive Poverty, Massive Debt, and possibly being the worst President in History on Civil/Constitutional Liberties. But like i said, don't bother. Don't expect Obamabots to reboot and get real. It just ain't gonna happen.

 

[Synthaholic]

Its a FACT that Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. That's an indisputable Fact. Ford has the 2nd worst average unemployment rate. Another indisputable fact. The list is based on their average unemployment rate over the entire length of time in office. If you want to give someone a cookie because they served less or more time, that's fine, but that is not what this list is reporting. Its reporting raw objective, unbiased facts.

Then, it's a useless fact, since it tells you nothing that correlates with reality. For instance, every president's first year is spent under the previous president's last budget. Where are you making the allowance for this?

Like I said: useless.

Ah, didn't the budget that Obama "inherited" contain vast sums of stimulus monies that Barry turned around and used for wonderful things like bankrolling Solyndra? Let me guess...that's Bush's fault as well because the money spent came from his last budget?

No.

Spend more time reading and researching, and less time spewing the first thing that pops into your head.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm amused by the concept that spending money from a budget you took over from a preceding President shouldn't count against a sitting President's balance sheet. That would fall under the heading of "creative accounting".

No president "spends" money from the previous president's budget - it's already been allocated.

 

[Synthaholic]

Its a FACT that Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. That's an indisputable Fact. Ford has the 2nd worst average unemployment rate. Another indisputable fact. The list is based on their average unemployment rate over the entire length of time in office. If you want to give someone a cookie because they served less or more time, that's fine, but that is not what this list is reporting. Its reporting raw objective, unbiased facts.

Then, it's a useless fact, since it tells you nothing that correlates with reality. For instance, every president's first year is spent under the previous president's last budget. Where are you making the allowance for this?

Like I said: useless.

It tells you the reality of the job market for Americans while said President is sitting in the White House. In addition, a First Year President is not powerless to influence the economy, so the idea that he is just sitting there unable to do anything is false.

If that were the case, then Bush would get FULL credit for ending the recession on his own. The Recession ended after the 2nd quarter of 2009. The third quarter of 2009 saw positive GDP growth which in economics means the end of the recession. So your suggesting that Obama had no role in ending the recession and that it was all due to Bush's policies.

Again, this is the data that is used for each President, not exceptions at all. Unbiased, objective facts. Much more informative than something that has been cherry picked in order to make one President or the other look good or bad. That is what happen when you start to add subjective commentary to these facts, claiming this counts but that doesn't. That's when things stop being objective and become biased.

Hard facts are much more honest and informative.

Complete bullshit.

 

[Synthaholic]

Then, it's a useless fact, since it tells you nothing that correlates with reality. For instance, every president's first year is spent under the previous president's last budget. Where are you making the allowance for this?

Like I said: useless.

It tells you the reality of the job market for Americans while said President is sitting in the White House. In addition, a First Year President is not powerless to influence the economy, so the idea that he is just sitting there unable to do anything is false.

If that were the case, then Bush would get FULL credit for ending the recession on his own. The Recession ended after the 2nd quarter of 2009. The third quarter of 2009 saw positive GDP growth which in economics means the end of the recession. So your suggesting that Obama had no role in ending the recession and that it was all due to Bush's policies.

Again, this is the data that is used for each President, not exceptions at all. Unbiased, objective facts. Much more informative than something that has been cherry picked in order to make one President or the other look good or bad. That is what happen when you start to add subjective commentary to these facts, claiming this counts but that doesn't. That's when things stop being objective and become biased.

Hard facts are much more honest and informative.

I hear ya, but don't bother. These same programmed Obamabots would be screeching for Impeachment if a Republican were in there with the same miserable record. This President's legacy is...Massive Poverty, Massive Debt, and possibly being the worst President in History on Civil/Constitutional Liberties. But like i said, don't bother. Don't expect Obamabots to reboot and get real. It just ain't gonna happen.

You're a complete fucking moron. Obama hasn't committed a single impeachable offense.

You fucking idiot.

 

[Londoner]

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%

Republican comrade, please erase this thread. It shows that our greatest employment records happened when taxes were above 80% and 90% on the top earners. (LBJ, Truman and Ike).

But it gets worse comrade. The top five best employment years happened with higher tax rates, including Clinton. The first Low tax, "Reagan level" tax rate is not until number 6, with GWB. This contradicts our propaganda that only the lowest taxes yield the highest job growth.

Attention brain dead moron OP.

Please research the tax rates of LBJ, Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon ( and compare them to Bush and Reagan). Our greatest years happened during our highest taxes (far higher than Obama), when surplus wealth was taxed aggressively so we could create a more solvent middle class, one with unprecedented purchasing power.

(Hint: when the middle class has more spending money, capital has an incentive to invest)

Dear Republican Moron/Friend: please take this poll down at once. It proves that the Democrats are right about the relationship between taxes and demand-centered fiscal policy.

 

[U2Edge]

Then, it's a useless fact, since it tells you nothing that correlates with reality. For instance, every president's first year is spent under the previous president's last budget. Where are you making the allowance for this?

Like I said: useless.

It tells you the reality of the job market for Americans while said President is sitting in the White House. In addition, a First Year President is not powerless to influence the economy, so the idea that he is just sitting there unable to do anything is false.

If that were the case, then Bush would get FULL credit for ending the recession on his own. The Recession ended after the 2nd quarter of 2009. The third quarter of 2009 saw positive GDP growth which in economics means the end of the recession. So your suggesting that Obama had no role in ending the recession and that it was all due to Bush's policies.

Again, this is the data that is used for each President, not exceptions at all. Unbiased, objective facts. Much more informative than something that has been cherry picked in order to make one President or the other look good or bad. That is what happen when you start to add subjective commentary to these facts, claiming this counts but that doesn't. That's when things stop being objective and become biased.

Hard facts are much more honest and informative.

Complete bullshit.

A recession is defined in Economics as two or more consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. GDP growth since the 3rd quarter of 2009 has been positive for every quarter with the exception of quarter 1 in 2011. As defined by economics, the recession was over by the start of the 3rd quarter of 2009.

Of course, unemployment rate, poverty rate, and debt as a percentage of GDP have continued to increase. But the economy has grown every quarter since the 3rd quarter of 2009 with the exception of the first quarter of 2011. Not a lot, but it has been growing.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah yes...the liberal myth that high taxes create economic growth! I'm curious, Londoner...did you not take economics in college? Let me guess...political science and philosophy?

 

[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%

Republican comrade, please erase this thread. It shows that our greatest employment records happened when taxes were above 80% and 90% on the top earners. (LBJ, Truman and Ike).

But it gets worse comrade. The top five best employment years happened with higher tax rates, including Clinton. The first Low tax, "Reagan level" tax rate is not until number 6, with GWB. This contradicts our propaganda that only the lowest taxes yield the highest job growth.

Attention brain dead moron OP.

Please research the tax rates of LBJ, Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon ( and compare them to Bush and Reagan). Our greatest years happened during our highest taxes (far higher than Obama), when surplus wealth was taxed aggressively so we could create a more solvent middle class, one with unprecedented purchasing power.

(Hint: when the middle class has more spending money, capital has an incentive to invest)

Dear Republican Moron/Friend: please take this poll down at once. It proves that the Democrats are right about the relationship between taxes and demand-centered fiscal policy.

I think tax rates should be 80% to 90% for top earners. I believe in low taxes or tax credits for low and middle income earners because they make up the vast majority of consumers and its consumers that drive the economy and create jobs not the wealthy.

But regardless of ones tax philosophy or political party membership, this is a thread about the unemployment rate for Americans and what Americans had to deal with while each of the above Presidents was sitting in the White House. Simple as that.

 

[Oldstyle]

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%

Republican comrade, please erase this thread. It shows that our greatest employment records happened when taxes were above 80% and 90% on the top earners. (LBJ, Truman and Ike).

But it gets worse comrade. The top five best employment years happened with higher tax rates, including Clinton. The first Low tax, "Reagan level" tax rate is not until number 6, with GWB. This contradicts our propaganda that only the lowest taxes yield the highest job growth.

Attention brain dead moron OP.

Please research the tax rates of LBJ, Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon ( and compare them to Bush and Reagan). Our greatest years happened during our highest taxes (far higher than Obama), when surplus wealth was taxed aggressively so we could create a more solvent middle class, one with unprecedented purchasing power.

(Hint: when the middle class has more spending money, capital has an incentive to invest)

Dear Republican Moron/Friend: please take this poll down at once. It proves that the Democrats are right about the relationship between taxes and demand-centered fiscal policy.

I think tax rates should be 80% to 90% for top earners. I believe in low taxes or tax credits for low and middle income earners because they make up the vast majority of consumers and its consumers that drive the economy and create jobs not the wealthy.

But regardless of ones tax philosophy or political party membership, this is a thread about the unemployment rate for Americans and what Americans had to deal with while each of the above Presidents was sitting in the White House. Simple as that.

Why would "top earners" continue to reside or even worse deign to start a business in an area that YOU controlled, U2? Do you really not get the concept that investment capital is going to flow to wherever it's income potential can be maximized? You COULD raise the tax on the wealthy to 80 or 90% but I can tell you without doubt what the result of that would be...you would see an exodus of capital headed elsewhere before that tax took effect! Now if your goal is to grow jobs elsewhere while our own unemployment rate continues to languish then by all means push for much higher taxes on "top earners".

 

[Oldstyle]

And just for your edification? Jobs are created by an anticipation of profit by those with capital. If you take away that anticipated profit then you take away the incentive to invest in job creating ventures.

 

[bedowin62]

I'm amused by the concept that spending money from a budget you took over from a preceding President shouldn't count against a sitting President's balance sheet. That would fall under the heading of "creative accounting".

No president "spends" money from the previous president's budget - it's already been allocated.

LIAR
obama DEFICIT SPENT IN HIS FIRST YEAR; over and above money already allocated under Bush for FY 2009