Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Translation: Bush did not inherit a recession since the country was not in a recession in January, 2001.Bush took office just as the Dot Com Boom fizzled out and was fighting a recession from the start. It's always amusing how you liberals conveniently overlook how much the Dot Com Boom (along with a Republican led Congress that reined in spending) helped Clinton's numbers look good.
Take it up with Rabbi ... he's the one who lied, fallaciously claiming Bush inherited a recession.
As far as your nonsense about Republicans making Clinton's numbers look better -- if Republicans had anything to do with it, and they didn't, they would have been able to keep the numbers looking good. Instead, the numbers fell into the toilet after Clinton left.
Of course Bush inherited a recession. It was coming. It was going to come. It was in the making when he took office.
Gingrich and the House GOP worked with Clinton on his signature issues: Welfare reform, NAFTA, a balanced budget. Clinton had no interest in those issues prior to the GOP taking the House.
Don't misrepresent what I say. I never said we shouldn't examine unemployment numbers. I myself presented unemployment numbers. What I did say was that Conservatives are so desperate to make Obama look bad, they're inventing new ways to look at unemployment numbers since the conventional ways of looking at them is improving.How do you propose to measure the success or failure of a President's economic policies if not with an examination of things like the unemployment numbers or the rate of growth of the overall economy? You've got your panties in a twist because you think Barack Obama is being "unfairly" scrutinized by his critics, which is laughable.
The bottom line is this...President Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. That's a fact! At some point the choices he has made when it comes to economic policy are going to be questioned because to be quite blunt...the results have sucked!!! If he were a conservative President and his policies gave this kind of result I would fully expect that he would be figuratively "tarred and feathered" by the opposition. I certainly wouldn't be on here whining about it like you are.
You keep bringing up Reagan in a comparison with Obama, Bluesman and you don't seem to grasp the glaring difference in results between the two Presidents at this point in their second term. The REASON that Reagan was reelected in a landslide was the country could see that his economic policies were working! Inflation was under control...unemployment was down...and the economy was growing at an increasing rate. That simply hasn't happened under Obama. His policies have led to economic stagnation with long term unemployment at levels we haven't seen SINCE the Great Depression.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question, what do you think the average unemployment rate indicates in terms of a presidents' handling of the economy?
Speaking of Reagan and unanswered questions, I also asked what Reagan did to turn the economy around?
As far as this being the slowest recovery since the Great Depression, it was also the biggest recession since the Great Depression. The deeper the hole, the harder it is to climb out of.
Translation: I want to find the best metric to make Bush look bad and Obama good.
Reagan worked to get comprehensive tax reform, elimiating loopholes in exchange for lower rates across the board. What we should be doing. He slowed down the growth of the bureaurcracy. He deregulated natural gas prices. He slashed milk price supports.
The bigger the recession, the stronger the recovery. That is the rule in every recession post war except this one. Wonder why?
And since economic downturns are historically followed by economic upturns, Barack Obama was situated perfectly to look like a CHAMP when the economy rebounded and unemployment numbers turned around. But through his own inept handling of economic policy and the pursuit of a job killing Affordable Care Act he managed to lead us into the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression!
The "Great Recession" is now taking it's place in our economic history...as years pass Barack Obama's economic policies will come to be seen as the blue print for what NOT to do to get an economy to grow.
Comparing "average employment" would make sense if all Presidents started at the same point
Starting with near double digit unemployment does put you at a distinct disadvantage
Comparing "average employment" would make sense if all Presidents started at the same point
Starting with near double digit unemployment does put you at a distinct disadvantage
It doesn't matter what the politicians are doing. The people are the ones who will be voting. They vote with their wallets. And all they know is they don't have jobs.
Don't misrepresent what I say. I never said we shouldn't examine unemployment numbers. I myself presented unemployment numbers. What I did say was that Conservatives are so desperate to make Obama look bad, they're inventing new ways to look at unemployment numbers since the conventional ways of looking at them is improving.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question, what do you think the average unemployment rate indicates in terms of a presidents' handling of the economy?
Speaking of Reagan and unanswered questions, I also asked what Reagan did to turn the economy around?
As far as this being the slowest recovery since the Great Depression, it was also the biggest recession since the Great Depression. The deeper the hole, the harder it is to climb out of.
Translation: I want to find the best metric to make Bush look bad and Obama good.
Reagan worked to get comprehensive tax reform, elimiating loopholes in exchange for lower rates across the board. What we should be doing. He slowed down the growth of the bureaurcracy. He deregulated natural gas prices. He slashed milk price supports.
The bigger the recession, the stronger the recovery. That is the rule in every recession post war except this one. Wonder why?
You really are too stupid for words. If your claim, "the bigger the recession, the stronger the recovery" is true, then how do you explain why it took longer to recover from Reagan's recession (28 months) than it did to recover from [edit: Carter's] recession (10 months)?
And I, m not looking for a metric to make Bush look bad or Obama look good. That would be you rightards who are inventing new ways to parse the unemployment rate. I'm the one pointing out that spin and saying that Obama's numbers should be looked at the same way every other presidents had been looked at.
lt sounds like the election of a president is the primary factor that determines the employment rate.
If that is true then we only have to elect the right president and bingo we have full employment.
But I wonder if there is more to America's employment rate, I mean the president can't pass laws so how does his election change the employment rate?
Is there a book that explains how the election of a president determines the employment rate?
Have economists figured out why employment varies so much?
Does the employment rate change as soon as a president is elected?
Are there factors that determine the employment rate other than the election of a president?
How many economic factors determine an employment rate?
Does each of those multiple employment factors have to be in the same proportion to have a good or bad effect on employment?
The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 6.3%. This is Obama's 64th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.56% in March 2014 at 63 months to the average 8.52% in April 2014 at 64 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: 8.52%
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: 8.52%
The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 6.3%. This is Obama's 64th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.56% in March 2014 at 63 months to the average 8.52% in April 2014 at 64 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: 8.52%
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: 8.52%
How many Presidents were able to drop the unemployment rate 4% during their presidency?
The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 6.3%. This is Obama's 64th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.56% in March 2014 at 63 months to the average 8.52% in April 2014 at 64 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: 8.52%
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: 8.52%
How many Presidents were able to drop the unemployment rate 4% during their presidency?
lt sounds like the election of a president is the primary factor that determines the employment rate.
If that is true then we only have to elect the right president and bingo we have full employment.
But I wonder if there is more to America's employment rate, I mean the president can't pass laws so how does his election change the employment rate?
Is there a book that explains how the election of a president determines the employment rate?
Have economists figured out why employment varies so much?
Does the employment rate change as soon as a president is elected?
Are there factors that determine the employment rate other than the election of a president?
How many economic factors determine an employment rate?
Does each of those multiple employment factors have to be in the same proportion to have a good or bad effect on employment?
