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

[Liminal]

In other words: All cooked up statistics designed to say whatever the government wants you to hear.

Nope. All the numbers are generated by the same career bureaucrats that collected the data regardless of which president they worked under.

I guess it's just unfortunate for many people that the government no longer recognizes their existence.

Exactly how do you think the government should recognize people who don't want to work in terms of employment stats?

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

 

[Liminal]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

It was 5.27%

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem. Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash. Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate. Ask anyone who works at McDonald's when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job. Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.

 

[protectionist]

I'm not telling myself that. I'm telling YOU that (but you're to brainwashed to listen)

But you're not convincing anyone of this idiocy except yourself. Hence.....

Two people in this forum seem to be on my side in my OP > "NO, Unemployment is NOT DOWN", and more than a dozen are in agreement with it in 2 other forums. So you just made a wrong statement. Egg on your face.

Great. More evidence you're insane. As if any were needed.

In reality, nobody agreed with you ... nobody 'liked' any of your posts ... nobody 'thanked' you for any of your posts ... nobody defended any of your idiocy ...

... yet here you are, deluding yourself into believing that 2 people are "on your side" on the issue; just as you delude yourself into believing that foreigners shouldn't count towards unemployment figures.

Your lying is obvious. It's also obvious that you're desperate, by virtue of the fact that you have to resort to foolish deceit.

1. My OP just began here a few hours ago, so most people don't even know it exists. so what do you do ? You pretend I haven't been thanked, HA HA, and try to use that as a basis to say my Op is bad. Do you realize how absolutely DUMB that is.

2. Then, you tried to get away with ignoring my statement that "more than a dozen are in agreement with it in 2 other forums" (and it's new there too) Well, I could give you the links to those, but should I ? Hell no. You're not worth it. You're too damn STUPID. And you'll never make it as a liar. You should have cut & run from this exchange, when you had the chance. Now you've got that egg all over your Whole body.

3. Too bad this is a computer forum, or you'd be smacked right in the head, just for your stupidity alone. Dumbass.

The one lying was you. YOU said 2 people were on your side when in fact, none were.

Now you make excuses for why you lied as though that means you didn't, such as it was a new thread or that there was another thread where people agreed with you.

You're nuts.

I was NOT lying . There were 2 people on my side, and dozens in the other forums. And it was a new thread, and you acted like there should have been many posters agreeing with me. The OP was only hoiurs old, you dolt. I'm not nuts, but you sure seem to be (as well as a LIAR too)

 

[pinqy]

In other words: All cooked up statistics designed to say whatever the government wants you to hear.

Nope. All the numbers are generated by the same career bureaucrats that collected the data regardless of which president they worked under.

I guess it's just unfortunate for many people that the government no longer recognizes their existence.

Exactly how do you think the government should recognize people who don't want to work in terms of employment stats?

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

Yes, there is: a monthly labor force survey.

 

[TooTall]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

It was 5.27%

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Right, and Obama's average UE rate is.........................?

 

[TooTall]

Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.

Go figger

Reagan faced a larger economic hurdle with the twin problems of high unemployment and high inflation. Reagan did very well which is why he was re-elected in a landslide victory in 1984 winning every state in the Union except Minnesota. Obama can't get anywhere near that.

More importantly, there are things like National Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy where Reagan was a lot more successful in than Obama in several ways.

The economy Reagan took over was nowhere near as bad as the economy Obama inherited. First and foremost, the economy was not even in recession in January, 1981. The unemployment rate was higher when Obama became president and increasing rapidly. Over a million jobs disappeared in one month.

And at this same point in both presidencies ... Obama has averaged 8.2% unemployment, Reagan averaged 8.1%. The unemployment rate is currently 5.6%, under Reagan it was 6.6%. Gallup currently scores Obama's JAR at 46%, Reagan was at 49%.

Regardless how you recall Reagan, they were pretty much evenly ranked at this point.

The misery index, combining unemployment and inflation was higher in Reagan's early term than it ever was under Obama. Unemployment early in Reagan's term reached 10.8%, higher than any month under Obama and inflation was in double digits. Obama never had to deal with high inflation. Reagan was forced to deal with BOTH high inflation and high unemployment at the same time.

The misery index is not a good indicator of the economy. And unemployment went as high as 10.8% because of policies set forth by Reagan and Volker to fight inflation.

And even then, despite a 10.8% unemployment rate, only 1.2 million jobs were lost from Reagan's recession ... compared to Bush's recession, which lost 8.6 million jobs.

Real GDP during Reagan's recession fell only 1.4% ... compared to Bush's recession when it fell a whopping 4.2%.

Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.

 

[Faun]

In other words: All cooked up statistics designed to say whatever the government wants you to hear.

Nope. All the numbers are generated by the same career bureaucrats that collected the data regardless of which president they worked under.

I guess it's just unfortunate for many people that the government no longer recognizes their existence.

Exactly how do you think the government should recognize people who don't want to work in terms of employment stats?

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

Of course there is.

 

[Faun]

Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.

Go figger

Reagan faced a larger economic hurdle with the twin problems of high unemployment and high inflation. Reagan did very well which is why he was re-elected in a landslide victory in 1984 winning every state in the Union except Minnesota. Obama can't get anywhere near that.

More importantly, there are things like National Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy where Reagan was a lot more successful in than Obama in several ways.

The economy Reagan took over was nowhere near as bad as the economy Obama inherited. First and foremost, the economy was not even in recession in January, 1981. The unemployment rate was higher when Obama became president and increasing rapidly. Over a million jobs disappeared in one month.

And at this same point in both presidencies ... Obama has averaged 8.2% unemployment, Reagan averaged 8.1%. The unemployment rate is currently 5.6%, under Reagan it was 6.6%. Gallup currently scores Obama's JAR at 46%, Reagan was at 49%.

Regardless how you recall Reagan, they were pretty much evenly ranked at this point.

The misery index, combining unemployment and inflation was higher in Reagan's early term than it ever was under Obama. Unemployment early in Reagan's term reached 10.8%, higher than any month under Obama and inflation was in double digits. Obama never had to deal with high inflation. Reagan was forced to deal with BOTH high inflation and high unemployment at the same time.

The misery index is not a good indicator of the economy. And unemployment went as high as 10.8% because of policies set forth by Reagan and Volker to fight inflation.

And even then, despite a 10.8% unemployment rate, only 1.2 million jobs were lost from Reagan's recession ... compared to Bush's recession, which lost 8.6 million jobs.

Real GDP during Reagan's recession fell only 1.4% ... compared to Bush's recession when it fell a whopping 4.2%.

Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.

So? Let's see you explain how that caused the collapse of the economy......

 

[Faun]

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

It was 5.27%

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem. Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash. Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate. Ask anyone who works at McDonald's when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job. Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.

Of course it's not the same economy as before the crash. Nor is it expected to be. Before the crash, we were in an artificially inflated economy caused by a real estate bubble. Only a fool thinks we are trying to get back to that.

 

[Faun]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

It was 5.27%

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Right, and Obama's average UE rate is.........................?

0.4 of a point higher.

 

[Faun]

But you're not convincing anyone of this idiocy except yourself. Hence.....

Two people in this forum seem to be on my side in my OP > "NO, Unemployment is NOT DOWN", and more than a dozen are in agreement with it in 2 other forums. So you just made a wrong statement. Egg on your face.

Great. More evidence you're insane. As if any were needed.

In reality, nobody agreed with you ... nobody 'liked' any of your posts ... nobody 'thanked' you for any of your posts ... nobody defended any of your idiocy ...

... yet here you are, deluding yourself into believing that 2 people are "on your side" on the issue; just as you delude yourself into believing that foreigners shouldn't count towards unemployment figures.

Your lying is obvious. It's also obvious that you're desperate, by virtue of the fact that you have to resort to foolish deceit.

1. My OP just began here a few hours ago, so most people don't even know it exists. so what do you do ? You pretend I haven't been thanked, HA HA, and try to use that as a basis to say my Op is bad. Do you realize how absolutely DUMB that is.

2. Then, you tried to get away with ignoring my statement that "more than a dozen are in agreement with it in 2 other forums" (and it's new there too) Well, I could give you the links to those, but should I ? Hell no. You're not worth it. You're too damn STUPID. And you'll never make it as a liar. You should have cut & run from this exchange, when you had the chance. Now you've got that egg all over your Whole body.

3. Too bad this is a computer forum, or you'd be smacked right in the head, just for your stupidity alone. Dumbass.

The one lying was you. YOU said 2 people were on your side when in fact, none were.

Now you make excuses for why you lied as though that means you didn't, such as it was a new thread or that there was another thread where people agreed with you.

You're nuts.

I was NOT lying . There were 2 people on my side, and dozens in the other forums. And it was a new thread, and you acted like there should have been many posters agreeing with me. The OP was only hoiurs old, you dolt. I'm not nuts, but you sure seem to be (as well as a LIAR too)

There was no one on your side in that thread. You lied. No one supported your idiocy in that thread at the time you said that.

 

[edthecynic]

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

OK, let's assume that is true. That would make Bush's "real" unemployment much higher!!! Bush and the GOP would not allow extensions in Unemployment Insurance like the Dems allowed under Obama, so Bush's "real" unemployment rate was 25%. Prove me wrong!

Same with Reagan, his "real" rate was 39%. Prove me wrong.

 

[edthecynic]

Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.

First of all, the Dems did not take over until 2007.
And exactly what legislation did the Dems pass over the GOP filibuster and a Bush veto that suddenly caused a worldwide crash in a matter of months??????
Curious minds are dying to know!!!!

 

[Liminal]

In other words: All cooked up statistics designed to say whatever the government wants you to hear.

Nope. All the numbers are generated by the same career bureaucrats that collected the data regardless of which president they worked under.

I guess it's just unfortunate for many people that the government no longer recognizes their existence.

Exactly how do you think the government should recognize people who don't want to work in terms of employment stats?

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

Of course there is.

Please feel free to reveal which agency keeps track of those people and how exactly they do that.

 

[Faun]

Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.

First of all, the Dems did not take over until 2007.
And exactly what legislation did the Dems pass over the GOP filibuster and a Bush veto that suddenly caused a worldwide crash in a matter of months??????
Curious minds are dying to know!!!!

don't expect a lucid answer.

 

[Liminal]

It was 5.27%

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem. Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash. Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate. Ask anyone who works at McDonald's when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job. Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.

Of course it's not the same economy as before the crash. Nor is it expected to be. Before the crash, we were in an artificially inflated economy caused by a real estate bubble. Only a fool thinks we are trying to get back to that.

I'm sorry your expectations for the success of American workers is low.

 

[Liminal]

Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.

First of all, the Dems did not take over until 2007.
And exactly what legislation did the Dems pass over the GOP filibuster and a Bush veto that suddenly caused a worldwide crash in a matter of months??????
Curious minds are dying to know!!!!

don't expect a lucid answer.

In other words: All cooked up statistics designed to say whatever the government wants you to hear.

Nope. All the numbers are generated by the same career bureaucrats that collected the data regardless of which president they worked under.

I guess it's just unfortunate for many people that the government no longer recognizes their existence.

Exactly how do you think the government should recognize people who don't want to work in terms of employment stats?

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

Yes, there is: a monthly labor force survey.

I can only laugh every time you use the word survey.

 

[Faun]

Nope. All the numbers are generated by the same career bureaucrats that collected the data regardless of which president they worked under.

I guess it's just unfortunate for many people that the government no longer recognizes their existence.

Exactly how do you think the government should recognize people who don't want to work in terms of employment stats?

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

Of course there is.

Please feel free to reveal which agency keeps track of those people and how exactly they do that.

The BLS

 

[Faun]

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem. Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash. Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate. Ask anyone who works at McDonald's when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job. Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.

Of course it's not the same economy as before the crash. Nor is it expected to be. Before the crash, we were in an artificially inflated economy caused by a real estate bubble. Only a fool thinks we are trying to get back to that.

I'm sorry your expectations for the success of American workers is low.

and your expectation is another bubble that leads to another collapse?

 

[Liminal]

I guess it's just unfortunate for many people that the government no longer recognizes their existence.

Exactly how do you think the government should recognize people who don't want to work in terms of employment stats?

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

Of course there is.

Please feel free to reveal which agency keeps track of those people and how exactly they do that.

The BLS

And....please go on.