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

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for February 2014 was 6.7%. This is Obama's 62nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.62% in January 2014 at 61 months to the average 8.59% in February 2014 at 62 months.

Here is the new standings for Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 8.59%

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: 8.59%

 

[paulitician]

Good ole Communist 'Hope & Change.' Gotta love it. And their Unemployment numbers are Bullshite anyway. 95 Million Americans are not working. 50 Million are on Food Stamps. I don't believe anything coming from this Administration anymore.

 

[bripat9643]

you dont know what you're talking about and are talking in circles

that the economy is driven by consumers is a given; it has nothing to do with your suggestion that the rich need to be taxed to death

I didn't say they need to be, I said that they can be and that it would be good for the country as a whole and would not have a negative impact on GDP growth.

Again, US GDP growth from 1940 to 1980 was not negatively impacted by high tax rates on the rich. The average GDP growth in the United States from 1940 through 1980 was the strongest in the history of the United States. That shows that high tax rates on the rich do not negatively impact GDP growth!

It shows no such thing. Our growth was high only because the rest of the world had been bombed into the stone age. Furthermore, those high tax rates applied only to incomes over $1 million, which was a huge amount in those days. Furthermore, they had a lot more deductions. Few people ever paid the top rate. You are proposing to impose on a lot more people.

 

[bripat9643]

how will taxing our rich to death make our products more likely to be bought in Brazil?

They won't and I never said that they would. US products our more likely to be purchased in Brazil TODAY because the economy in Brazil has developed enough so that people can afford US products.

How does that justify raising taxes on anyone?

 

[The Rabbi]

you dont know what you're talking about and are talking in circles

that the economy is driven by consumers is a given; it has nothing to do with your suggestion that the rich need to be taxed to death

I didn't say they need to be, I said that they can be and that it would be good for the country as a whole and would not have a negative impact on GDP growth.

Again, US GDP growth from 1940 to 1980 was not negatively impacted by high tax rates on the rich. The average GDP growth in the United States from 1940 through 1980 was the strongest in the history of the United States. That shows that high tax rates on the rich do not negatively impact GDP growth!

It shows no such thing. Our growth was high only because the rest of the world had been bombed into the stone age. Furthermore, those high tax rates applied only to incomes over $1 million, which was a huge amount in those days. Furthermore, they had a lot more deductions. Few people ever paid the top rate. You are proposing to impose on a lot more people.

High tax rates on high income earners reduce high income earners and bring in less money than projected. That is always and everywhere the case.

 

[The Rabbi]

how will taxing our rich to death make our products more likely to be bought in Brazil?

They won't and I never said that they would. US products our more likely to be purchased in Brazil TODAY because the economy in Brazil has developed enough so that people can afford US products.

How does that justify raising taxes on anyone?

Brazil? Oops.
Brazil's Economy Seen in a Major Downturn - WSJ.com

 

[Sallow]

Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....

Obama is not it seems....

You could say that about Bush.

Because it seems no one holds him responsible for some pretty fucked up shit.

Which Obama had to fix.

 

[bripat9643]

Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....

Obama is not it seems....

You could say that about Bush.

Because it seems no one holds him responsible for some pretty fucked up shit.

Which Obama had to fix.

Still whining about Bush?

 

[The Rabbi]

Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....

Obama is not it seems....

You could say that about Bush.

Because it seems no one holds him responsible for some pretty fucked up shit.

Which Obama had to fix.

The Democrats held everything that happened under Bush to be his fault. Whether he could change it or not.
Flashback - Pelosi '07: Blames Bush for $3.07 Gas, In '12 Blames 'Speculators' | CNS News

 

[RKMBrown]

Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....

Obama is not it seems....

You could say that about Bush.

Because it seems no one holds him responsible for some pretty fucked up shit.

Which Obama had to fix.

Still whining about Bush?

Guy's still pretending Obama's gonna come through on his promises.

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for March 2014 was 6.7%. This is Obama's 63rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.59% in February 2014 at 62 months to the average 8.56% in March 2014 at 63 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 8.56%

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: 8.56%

 

[paulitician]

Oh, his Unemployment numbers are a sham anyway. There is absolutely no way it's only 6.7%. It's another lie. But what do you expect? It's the Chicago Way.

 

[Spoonman]

Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.

No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!

pumping 7 trillion dollars of BORROWED money into the economy with no plan to pay it back is not fixing a broken economy.

 

[Spoonman]

Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....

Obama is not it seems....

You could say that about Bush.

Because it seems no one holds him responsible for some pretty fucked up shit.

Which Obama had to fix.

but hasn't fixed

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, his Unemployment numbers are a sham anyway. There is absolutely no way it's only 6.7%. It's another lie. But what do you expect? It's the Chicago Way.

With the way we figure unemployment a part time job counts the same as a full time job. One thing that Barry HAS been great at is turning full time jobs into part time jobs. Take that into account and his numbers are really abysmal.

 

[Spoonman]

can the liberals answer this? if so many people are working and the economy is fixed, whay are so many still on entitlements?

 

[paulitician]

6.7% is laughable. Obviously it's much much higher. It's all a lie. Period, end of story.

 

[itfitzme]

can the liberals answer this? if so many people are working and the economy is fixed, whay are so many still on entitlements?

How many?

 

[ron4342]

Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....

Obama is not it seems....

And up until President Obama both houses of Congress were willing to work together and compromise to make America a better place. Any republican who even suggests compromise today is immediately given the Kiss of Death, dismissed as a RINO and thrown under the bus. Look at all the republican congressmen who will be challenged by members of the tea party because they were not far enough right.
The republicans in Congress are determined NOT to pass any legislation that will make Obama look good. To that end every bill the House passes includes a rider designed to defund or repeal ACA. That makes it DOA in the Senate and that is exactly what the House wants. On the other hand, when the Senate passes a bill that will help the American people Boehner merely sits on it and refuses to allow it to come up for a vote. The result is we have the most dysfunctional Congress in history.
What republicans are too stupid to understand is that when you bring down the president you bring down the country with him. republicans are willing to destroy this country to destroy Obama.

 

[itfitzme]

can the liberals answer this? if so many people are working and the economy is fixed, whay are so many still on entitlements?

58.2 million people collect Social Security Benefits of some kind. These include OASDI and disability benefits. 47.2 million people collect OASDI. These include retirement benefits collected by some 41 million and survivor benefits paid to children and surviving spouse. The reason they collect them is because they are entitled to. They paid into the insurance when they were working (or, in the case of survivor benefits, a parent or spouse did.

10.9 million people collect disability benefits. These include disabled workers, children of disabled workers, and spouses of disabled workers. The reason they collect them is because the are entitled to. They are entitled to because, when they were working, someone paid into the insurance.

8.3 million people collects Supplemental Security Income. These include 2.1 million people over the age of 65 and 1.3 under 18. 4.9 million are between 18 and 65. To be eligible for SSI, a person must be blind, disabled, or over 65. So, that 4.9 million between 18 and 65 are blind or disabled.

So, there are 66.5 million individuals that are collecting entitlements.

What does that have to do with the state of the economy? Nothing. The two are not related.