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

[JakeStarkey]

The problem here comes that people want to find statistics to attack or defend the president. People will use whatever they have, and often will use of statistic to "prove" something.

Context is extremely important. Obama came into the presidency at a point where anyone who would have won the presidency would have seen major problems. In 2008 people were saying this was going to be the worst recession since the great depression, and it's been bad. It's not Obama's fault, and as president how much could he realistically have done to solve any problems?
Yes, there's stuff he did that may have made it better or worse by a small margin, perhaps had someone else won it might have been better or worse, but we can't really know.

Obama can't be faulted for what he was presented with on the first day in office. But since then, its been his responsibility to help guide the US economy. Regardless of whether you think Obama has done a good job or not, it does not change the fact that under Obama, the United States has had the worst average unemployment rate since the end of World War II!

Record poverty, record debt, historic-first credit rating downgrade, rising food & gas prices, Fast & Furious travesty, massive domestic spying, ugly IRS abuses, arresting Filmmakers & Journalists etc etc...

That's his legacy. It's definitely not a legacy worth celebrating. It's actually an awful tragedy.

Obama can't be faulted for what he was presented with on the first day in office.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm talking about how no Democrat president left office with unemployment in worse condition than they inherited it in. In contrast, except for Regean, no Republican president left office with unemployment in better condition than they inherited it.

I know what you are talking about. The first month the President was in office vs the last month they were in office in regards to the Unemployment rate. YOU CAN'T RATE A PRESIDENT ON ONLY 2 MONTHS IN OFFICE. YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT IT IS OK FOR THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE TO RISE TO 10%, 20%, or even 40% while they are in office, just as long as it is down to or below where it was the first month of office by the time of their last month in office. That is beyond Absurd!

There are issues every president has to deal with. There is nothing absurd about pointing out whether presidents leave office with a better or worse economy than they were handed. You just don`t like it because not a single Democrat left office with worse unemployment than when they stared, whereas not a single Republican president, except for Reagan, improved unemployment by the time they were done.

So why did you say not a single Republican president when we all know that isn't true.

When Reagan took office the unemployment rate was 7.1%.

When he left office it was 5.3%

When Eisenhower took office the average was around 5% and he left with it around 5%.

Jimmy Carter took office when it was over 7% and left with it over 7%.

As a matter of fact that only presidents that saw a massive drop in unemployment was Reagan and Obama, but for different reasons. Under Reagan it was because of the creation of 25 million new jobs. Under Obama it's because more than half of our people are either retired or not looking for work anymore. Unemployment, or UE3, isn't the indicator of a sound economy like it used to be. A realistic unemployment takes all non-workers into account. If you take away those who have retired our real unemployment rate is closer to 13.2%. When it comes to jobs growth this is the worst economy since the Great Depression.

 

[Faun]

I know what you are talking about. The first month the President was in office vs the last month they were in office in regards to the Unemployment rate. YOU CAN'T RATE A PRESIDENT ON ONLY 2 MONTHS IN OFFICE. YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT IT IS OK FOR THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE TO RISE TO 10%, 20%, or even 40% while they are in office, just as long as it is down to or below where it was the first month of office by the time of their last month in office. That is beyond Absurd!

There are issues every president has to deal with. There is nothing absurd about pointing out whether presidents leave office with a better or worse economy than they were handed. You just don`t like it because not a single Democrat left office with worse unemployment than when they stared, whereas not a single Republican president, except for Reagan, improved unemployment by the time they were done.

So why did you say not a single Republican president when we all know that isn't true.

When Reagan ....

Seriously? Is English your second language?? Note the part of my post I highlighted for your attention.

When Reagan took office the unemployment rate was 7.1%.

When he left office it was 5.3%

When Eisenhower took office the average was around 5% and he left with it around 5%.

Jimmy Carter took office when it was over 7% and left with it over 7%.

As a matter of fact that only presidents that saw a massive drop in unemployment was Reagan and Obama, but for different reasons. Under Reagan it was because of the creation of 25 million new jobs. Under Obama it's because more than half of our people are either retired or not looking for work anymore. Unemployment, or UE3, isn't the indicator of a sound economy like it used to be. A realistic unemployment takes all non-workers into account. If you take away those who have retired our real unemployment rate is closer to 13.2%. When it comes to jobs growth this is the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Who knows where you get your numbers from?? Here are the actual numbers from the BLS...

Reagan didn't add 25 million jobs, as you falsely claim. The actual number is: 16,753,000

Jan/1981: 99,955,000
Jan/1989: 116,708,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Your claim that unemployment under Eisenhower started around 5% and ended around 5% is also bullshit. Even averaging out, unemployment started at about 3% and ended close to 6%. Unemployment actually more than doubled under Eisenhower, despite your fallacious claims to the contrary:

Jan/1953: 2.9% (first year average, 3.1%)
Jan/1961: 6.6% (last year average, 5.7%)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Then there's your claim that Reagan and Obama are the only presidents to have a "massive drop" in unemployment ... also bullshit. You claim the unemployment rate under Reagan fell from 7.1% to 5.3%. That's also wrong. Here, on planet Earth, the actual numbers went from 7.5% to 5.4%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That's a drop of 2.1 points, or 28%.

Johnson: 5.7% to 3.4%. A decrease of 2.3 points or 40%.

Clinton: 7.3% to 4.2%. A decrease of 3.1 points or 43%.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Both did better than Reagan, yet you ignorantly claim that only Reagan and Obama saw massive drops in unemployment. Meanwhile with the exception of Reagan, unemployment increased under every Republican president.

Eisenhower ... +3.7
Bush43 .......... +3.6
Nixon ............. +2.1
Ford .............. +2.0
Bush41 ......... +1.9
Carter ............. 0.0
Kennedy ........ -0.9
Obama .......... -1.5
Reagan .......... -2.1
Johnson ......... -2.3
Clinton ........... -3.1

Bottom line is ... you have no business even discussing this matter as pretty much your entire post was bullshit. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[U2Edge]

I'm talking about how no Democrat president left office with unemployment in worse condition than they inherited it in. In contrast, except for Regean, no Republican president left office with unemployment in better condition than they inherited it.

I know what you are talking about. The first month the President was in office vs the last month they were in office in regards to the Unemployment rate. YOU CAN'T RATE A PRESIDENT ON ONLY 2 MONTHS IN OFFICE. YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT IT IS OK FOR THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE TO RISE TO 10%, 20%, or even 40% while they are in office, just as long as it is down to or below where it was the first month of office by the time of their last month in office. That is beyond Absurd!

There are issues every president has to deal with. There is nothing absurd about pointing out whether presidents leave office with a better or worse economy than they were handed. You just don`t like it because not a single Democrat left office with worse unemployment than when they stared, whereas not a single Republican president, except for Reagan, improved unemployment by the time they were done.

The reason its inaccurate to look at it that way is because it completely dismisses 99% of the time the President was in office. The average man on the street does NOT care about the first month the President was in office and the last month he was in office. The life the average man experiences involves ALL 96 MONTHS or 48 MONTHS for single term. How much the average man struggled throughout that time is what he remembers, not the victory goal in the final inning or the opening play touchdown.

 

[U2Edge]

Obama can't be faulted for what he was presented with on the first day in office. But since then, its been his responsibility to help guide the US economy. Regardless of whether you think Obama has done a good job or not, it does not change the fact that under Obama, the United States has had the worst average unemployment rate since the end of World War II!

Record poverty, record debt, historic-first credit rating downgrade, rising food & gas prices, Fast & Furious travesty, massive domestic spying, ugly IRS abuses, arresting Filmmakers & Journalists etc etc...

That's his legacy. It's definitely not a legacy worth celebrating. It's actually an awful tragedy.

Obama can't be faulted for what he was presented with on the first day in office.

Except in the sense that he was a US Senator for the previous four years and to the degree his actions as a US Senator supported sound policy or not.

 

[edthecynic]

Record poverty, record debt, historic-first credit rating downgrade, rising food & gas prices, Fast & Furious travesty, massive domestic spying, ugly IRS abuses, arresting Filmmakers & Journalists etc etc...

That's his legacy. It's definitely not a legacy worth celebrating. It's actually an awful tragedy.

Obama can't be faulted for what he was presented with on the first day in office.

Except in the sense that he was a US Senator for the previous four years and to the degree his actions as a US Senator supported sound policy or not.

Gee, all through the 2008 election the Right were claiming he was too inexperienced because he had only 120 days in the Senate!

 

[frigidweirdo]

We invaded Europe and Japan, and we hung around long enough to turn both of them into world economic powers.

The Middle East is a different story. Those people are really a bunch of opinionated bigots that have little tolerance for other races or other religions. Once you get them out of trouble they turn on you like you're an unwanted orphan dropped on their doorstep. All they want to do is kill you like you invaded their wonderful shithole of a country.

If it wasn't for oil or their growing nuke capabilities I'd wash my hands of the whole region.

Well....

Actually you have to remember that post WW1, Japan was the biggest economic powerhouse in the Far East, Germany was one of the richest countries in Europe. US aid helped get these countries back to what they knew, which was to make a good economy and make things work.

Yes, the Middle East is a different story. Why? Because they have a major lack of education, and the west, most notably Britain, have basically gone into many Muslim countries and taken what they could take.

You have to go in with a realistic view. Bush went into Iraq believing he could carry out some kind of Marshall Plan, he thought he could wipe away the old and suddenly the Iraqis would love him for it.
Let's turn the tables around. 2003, Iraq invaded the US. It sacked the police force and the military, it imposed an Iraqi way of doing things on the US people, it made sure US resources were being removed from the country, and it claimed it was doing the American people a service and didn't know why they were getting so pissy about it and blowing people up.
You have to do things the right way, you have to make sure the people of the country are doing things, if things start happening because an "imperial nation" is making them happen, then the people are going to turn against them.

Low education levels lead to people being easily led. And who is going to lead them? Those who say stuff that sounds the best, which is usually the extremists who harp on and on and on about stuff and make simple connections where simple is not going to explain, yet it takes people in, and it gets popular support and messes everything up.

If you want to sort the Middle East out, you have to be smart in doing it, the US govt simply hasn't been smart, not once in the whole history of US involvement in the Middle East.

 

[The Rabbi]

Geez now we're arguing about Eisenhower? Dems are getting desperate to deflect from the fact that Obama's economic record is the worst of any president post war. Gerald Ford seems like an economic genius compared to Obama.

 

[mudwhistle]

There are issues every president has to deal with. There is nothing absurd about pointing out whether presidents leave office with a better or worse economy than they were handed. You just don`t like it because not a single Democrat left office with worse unemployment than when they stared, whereas not a single Republican president, except for Reagan, improved unemployment by the time they were done.

So why did you say not a single Republican president when we all know that isn't true.

When Reagan ....

Seriously? Is English your second language?? Note the part of my post I highlighted for your attention.

When Reagan took office the unemployment rate was 7.1%.

When he left office it was 5.3%

When Eisenhower took office the average was around 5% and he left with it around 5%.

Jimmy Carter took office when it was over 7% and left with it over 7%.

As a matter of fact that only presidents that saw a massive drop in unemployment was Reagan and Obama, but for different reasons. Under Reagan it was because of the creation of 25 million new jobs. Under Obama it's because more than half of our people are either retired or not looking for work anymore. Unemployment, or UE3, isn't the indicator of a sound economy like it used to be. A realistic unemployment takes all non-workers into account. If you take away those who have retired our real unemployment rate is closer to 13.2%. When it comes to jobs growth this is the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Who knows where you get your numbers from?? Here are the actual numbers from the BLS...

Reagan didn't add 25 million jobs, as you falsely claim. The actual number is: 16,753,000

Jan/1981: 99,955,000
Jan/1989: 116,708,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Your claim that unemployment under Eisenhower started around 5% and ended around 5% is also bullshit. Even averaging out, unemployment started at about 3% and ended close to 6%. Unemployment actually more than doubled under Eisenhower, despite your fallacious claims to the contrary:

Jan/1953: 2.9% (first year average, 3.1%)
Jan/1961: 6.6% (last year average, 5.7%)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Then there's your claim that Reagan and Obama are the only presidents to have a "massive drop" in unemployment ... also bullshit. You claim the unemployment rate under Reagan fell from 7.1% to 5.3%. That's also wrong. Here, on planet Earth, the actual numbers went from 7.5% to 5.4%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That's a drop of 2.1 points, or 28%.

Johnson: 5.7% to 3.4%. A decrease of 2.3 points or 40%.

Clinton: 7.3% to 4.2%. A decrease of 3.1 points or 43%.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Both did better than Reagan, yet you ignorantly claim that only Reagan and Obama saw massive drops in unemployment. Meanwhile with the exception of Reagan, unemployment increased under every Republican president.

Eisenhower ... +3.7
Bush43 .......... +3.6
Nixon ............. +2.1
Ford .............. +2.0
Bush41 ......... +1.9
Carter ............. 0.0
Kennedy ........ -0.9
Obama .......... -1.5
Reagan .......... -2.1
Johnson ......... -2.3
Clinton ........... -3.1

Bottom line is ... you have no business even discussing this matter as pretty much your entire post was bullshit. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

You're links are the same link. I've clicked on two of them and they show the same graph in both of them. One was the link provided during the Reagan administration and the other supposedly covering Johnson and Clinton administrations. Before you start criticizing someone else for being inaccurate try doing it yourself first.

Also the graph doesn't take into account how many jobs were lost during this period. It only shows the total growth. So Reagan was in office and had a net increase of just under 17 million, yet how many new jobs were created in that time period. That was what I was talking about. The total jobs created, not the net increase.

Obama constantly talked about the 6 million jobs he ether saved or created piling both into one figure to inflate it. Fact is, if you look at he net gain like you did Reagan he only oversaw the creation of slightly over 3 million yet is still less jobs than we had Jan of 08' by close to a million. 5 plus years later and we're still not above what Bush had the beginning of his last year in office. Also, name the jobs program Obama signed into law that created any jobs growth at all. I can point out how many jobs he has destroyed by cutting defense, destroying the coal industry, preventing the pipeline from being built, changing regulations, increasing taxes. The list goes on and on.

So from Bush 08' to Obama in 2014 we have 1 million fewer jobs. Compare that to Reagan at 16 million in growth, I can't figure what in the hell you're crowing about other than some doctored, misleading UE3 numbers.

 

[Londoner]

It is insane to speak about Reagan's employment numbers without looking at the fact that he tripled the federal workforce and tripled the nation's debt. He was a hoax.

 

[Faun]

So why did you say not a single Republican president when we all know that isn't true.

When Reagan ....

Seriously? Is English your second language?? Note the part of my post I highlighted for your attention.

When Reagan took office the unemployment rate was 7.1%.

When he left office it was 5.3%

When Eisenhower took office the average was around 5% and he left with it around 5%.

Jimmy Carter took office when it was over 7% and left with it over 7%.

As a matter of fact that only presidents that saw a massive drop in unemployment was Reagan and Obama, but for different reasons. Under Reagan it was because of the creation of 25 million new jobs. Under Obama it's because more than half of our people are either retired or not looking for work anymore. Unemployment, or UE3, isn't the indicator of a sound economy like it used to be. A realistic unemployment takes all non-workers into account. If you take away those who have retired our real unemployment rate is closer to 13.2%. When it comes to jobs growth this is the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Who knows where you get your numbers from?? Here are the actual numbers from the BLS...

Reagan didn't add 25 million jobs, as you falsely claim. The actual number is: 16,753,000

Jan/1981: 99,955,000
Jan/1989: 116,708,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Your claim that unemployment under Eisenhower started around 5% and ended around 5% is also bullshit. Even averaging out, unemployment started at about 3% and ended close to 6%. Unemployment actually more than doubled under Eisenhower, despite your fallacious claims to the contrary:

Jan/1953: 2.9% (first year average, 3.1%)
Jan/1961: 6.6% (last year average, 5.7%)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Then there's your claim that Reagan and Obama are the only presidents to have a "massive drop" in unemployment ... also bullshit. You claim the unemployment rate under Reagan fell from 7.1% to 5.3%. That's also wrong. Here, on planet Earth, the actual numbers went from 7.5% to 5.4%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That's a drop of 2.1 points, or 28%.

Johnson: 5.7% to 3.4%. A decrease of 2.3 points or 40%.

Clinton: 7.3% to 4.2%. A decrease of 3.1 points or 43%.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Both did better than Reagan, yet you ignorantly claim that only Reagan and Obama saw massive drops in unemployment. Meanwhile with the exception of Reagan, unemployment increased under every Republican president.

Eisenhower ... +3.7
Bush43 .......... +3.6
Nixon ............. +2.1
Ford .............. +2.0
Bush41 ......... +1.9
Carter ............. 0.0
Kennedy ........ -0.9
Obama .......... -1.5
Reagan .......... -2.1
Johnson ......... -2.3
Clinton ........... -3.1

Bottom line is ... you have no business even discussing this matter as pretty much your entire post was bullshit. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

You're links are the same link. I've clicked on two of them and they show the same graph in both of them. One was the link provided during the Reagan administration and the other supposedly covering Johnson and Clinton administrations.

Also the graph doesn't take into account how many jobs were lost during this period. It only shows the total growth. So Reagan was in office and had a net increase of just under 17 million, yet how many new jobs were created in that time period. That was what I was talking about. The total jobs created, not the net increase.

Obama constantly talked about the 6 million jobs he ether saved or created piling both into one figure to inflate it. Fact is, if you look at he net gain like you did Reagan he only oversaw the creation of slightly over 3 million yet is still less jobs than we had Jan of 08' by close to a million. 5 plus years later and we're still not above what Bush had the beginning of his last year in office.

So from Bush to Obama to date we have 1 million fewer jobs. Compare that to Reagan at 16 million, I can't figure what in the hell you're crowing about other than some doctored, misleading UE3 numbers.

Before you start criticizing someone else for being inaccurate try doing it yourself first.

The links are to the BLS and prove you have no clue to what you're talking about. With the aid of those links, I was able to prove that you made up the numbers you posted. Sorry, rightard, but you don't win arguments by lying.

[Edit] oh, and by the way, we are not down by a million jobs since Bush. We're up by 3.5 million jobs ...

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000?from_year=2009

 

[mudwhistle]

It is insane to speak about Reagan's employment numbers without looking at the fact that he tripled the federal workforce and tripled the nation's debt. He was a hoax.

That's a lie.

I was working in the DoD under Carter, and Reagan cleaned house and fired me. This was one of the first things he did was move to end any wasteful spending that was going on.

The problem that arises when you switch from one party to another is that Democrats are mainly concerned with domestic spending and Republicans are doing what the job entails, assuring the nation is secure. That means rebuilding what Democrats allowed to fall into decay. Turning a hollow military into a force to be reckoned with. That takes money.

 

[mudwhistle]

Seriously? Is English your second language?? Note the part of my post I highlighted for your attention.



Who knows where you get your numbers from?? Here are the actual numbers from the BLS...

Reagan didn't add 25 million jobs, as you falsely claim. The actual number is: 16,753,000

Jan/1981: 99,955,000
Jan/1989: 116,708,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Your claim that unemployment under Eisenhower started around 5% and ended around 5% is also bullshit. Even averaging out, unemployment started at about 3% and ended close to 6%. Unemployment actually more than doubled under Eisenhower, despite your fallacious claims to the contrary:

Jan/1953: 2.9% (first year average, 3.1%)
Jan/1961: 6.6% (last year average, 5.7%)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Then there's your claim that Reagan and Obama are the only presidents to have a "massive drop" in unemployment ... also bullshit. You claim the unemployment rate under Reagan fell from 7.1% to 5.3%. That's also wrong. Here, on planet Earth, the actual numbers went from 7.5% to 5.4%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That's a drop of 2.1 points, or 28%.

Johnson: 5.7% to 3.4%. A decrease of 2.3 points or 40%.

Clinton: 7.3% to 4.2%. A decrease of 3.1 points or 43%.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Both did better than Reagan, yet you ignorantly claim that only Reagan and Obama saw massive drops in unemployment. Meanwhile with the exception of Reagan, unemployment increased under every Republican president.

Eisenhower ... +3.7
Bush43 .......... +3.6
Nixon ............. +2.1
Ford .............. +2.0
Bush41 ......... +1.9
Carter ............. 0.0
Kennedy ........ -0.9
Obama .......... -1.5
Reagan .......... -2.1
Johnson ......... -2.3
Clinton ........... -3.1

Bottom line is ... you have no business even discussing this matter as pretty much your entire post was bullshit. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

You're links are the same link. I've clicked on two of them and they show the same graph in both of them. One was the link provided during the Reagan administration and the other supposedly covering Johnson and Clinton administrations.

Also the graph doesn't take into account how many jobs were lost during this period. It only shows the total growth. So Reagan was in office and had a net increase of just under 17 million, yet how many new jobs were created in that time period. That was what I was talking about. The total jobs created, not the net increase.

Obama constantly talked about the 6 million jobs he ether saved or created piling both into one figure to inflate it. Fact is, if you look at he net gain like you did Reagan he only oversaw the creation of slightly over 3 million yet is still less jobs than we had Jan of 08' by close to a million. 5 plus years later and we're still not above what Bush had the beginning of his last year in office.

So from Bush to Obama to date we have 1 million fewer jobs. Compare that to Reagan at 16 million, I can't figure what in the hell you're crowing about other than some doctored, misleading UE3 numbers.

Before you start criticizing someone else for being inaccurate try doing it yourself first.

The links are to the BLS and prove you have no clue to what you're talking about. With the aid of those links, I was able to prove that you made up the numbers you posted. Sorry, rightard, but you don't win arguments by lying.

[Edit] oh, and by the way, we are not down by a million jobs since Bush. We're up by 3.5 million jobs ...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

We have fewer jobs than Bush had the beginning of his last year. The way you talk Obama has been responsible for massive job creation, when in fact he has been responsible for an almost total stagnation of the economy. The only reason we had any job growth at all was because most of it came from 3 states, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas. Other than that we'd still be in a recession.

 

[paulitician]

Obama can't be faulted for what he was presented with on the first day in office. But since then, its been his responsibility to help guide the US economy. Regardless of whether you think Obama has done a good job or not, it does not change the fact that under Obama, the United States has had the worst average unemployment rate since the end of World War II!

Record poverty, record debt, historic-first credit rating downgrade, rising food & gas prices, Fast & Furious travesty, massive domestic spying, ugly IRS abuses, arresting Filmmakers & Journalists etc etc...

That's his legacy. It's definitely not a legacy worth celebrating. It's actually an awful tragedy.

Obama can't be faulted for what he was presented with on the first day in office.

He's left future generations with an awful mess. His reign has been nothing to celebrate. Once you get past the corrupt Media Worship-Propaganda, you see the grim reality.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's a lie.

I was working in the DoD under Carter, and Reagan cleaned house and fired me. This was one of the first things he did was move to end any wasteful spending that was going on.

The problem that arises when you switch from one party to another is that Democrats are mainly concerned with domestic spending and Republicans are doing what the job entails, assuring the nation is secure. That means rebuilding what Democrats allowed to fall into decay. Turning a hollow military into a force to be reckoned with. That takes money.

Funny thing is, the Reps need problems in order to be able to be tough on them. They want the military to be strong, it allows them to spend loads on the military which means their buddies get a load of money.

To say they do what the job entails is simply not true. Invading Iraq wasn't part of the job. It caused so many more problems.
Arming both Iran and Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war wasn't what the job entailed either.

Look at what Putin's doing, the Republicans must be so annoyed that they didn't manage to increase their popularity by annexing some part of another country. But then they don't have the C-in-C of the armed forces, so they can't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

He's left future generations with an awful mess. His reign has been nothing to celebrate. Once you get past the corrupt Media Worship-Propaganda, you see the grim reality.

How has he left the country in any worse a mess than any other president in his position would have done?

 

[mudwhistle]

That's a lie.

I was working in the DoD under Carter, and Reagan cleaned house and fired me. This was one of the first things he did was move to end any wasteful spending that was going on.

The problem that arises when you switch from one party to another is that Democrats are mainly concerned with domestic spending and Republicans are doing what the job entails, assuring the nation is secure. That means rebuilding what Democrats allowed to fall into decay. Turning a hollow military into a force to be reckoned with. That takes money.

Funny thing is, the Reps need problems in order to be able to be tough on them. They want the military to be strong, it allows them to spend loads on the military which means their buddies get a load of money.

To say they do what the job entails is simply not true. Invading Iraq wasn't part of the job. It caused so many more problems.
Arming both Iran and Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war wasn't what the job entailed either.

Look at what Putin's doing, the Republicans must be so annoyed that they didn't manage to increase their popularity by annexing some part of another country. But then they don't have the C-in-C of the armed forces, so they can't.

What's really funny is not only hasn't Obama learned from these past mistakes but he's double-downed on them. He constantly uses the media to coverup these mistakes by claiming somebody made the same mistake before him.

My usual answer for that kind of response is to turn and walk away from the discussion. It's totally asinine.

 

[mudwhistle]

He's left future generations with an awful mess. His reign has been nothing to celebrate. Once you get past the corrupt Media Worship-Propaganda, you see the grim reality.

How has he left the country in any worse a mess than any other president in his position would have done?

Well, our credit rating is for shit, we can't be trusted by any of our remaining allies, we're $8 trillion more in debt, we pay hundreds of millions of dollars in interest on the debt when we should be paying it down, our taxes are hundreds of billions of dollars higher than when he took over, gas prices have doubled, food prices have sky-rocketed, we can't launch a man into space any more, Muslims are in control of our national security, he's signed over part of our sovereignty to the United Nations, they're about to start hitting us with a global tax that will hit us somewhere in our phone bills or our energy bills.

We can't talk in private about our feelings of other races, sexes, or religions. The NSA is compiling massive amounts of our secrets waiting to be used in political campaigns. The IRS is targeting private citizens because they dare to give financial support to the opposition.

This list is endless.

 

[Chris]

1961 to 2012

Republican president job growth - 24 million jobs in 28 years.

Democratic president job growth - 42 million jobs in 24 years.

 

[Chris]

Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House: BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg