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

[kaz]

OK, big guy, I know the kool-aid gives you a big buzz, but try to follow the discussion. I know you have no long term memory, can't follow the flow of a discussion and believe you can freely move the goal posts, but this isn't relevant to the discussion.

You said W ignored the people who said Hussein wasn't a threat.

I said there were none.

You are responding with Democrats who voted against the war and Obama who said we should not invade. That doesn't address the point because Obama said Hussein was a threat, the point being discussed, and the Democrats who voted against invading said he was a threat.

You are the slow kid who likes to keep running in front of the pack and try to keep us behind you

No one said Hussein wasn't a threat?? Put the crack pipe down...

• "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleezza Rice

• "We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq." - Colin Powell

Obviously neither of them said that when the decision was being made to invade Iraq. Which is what the discussion is about. That they ever said that at any point in time in history is irrelevant.

Yet again showing the lie over Iraq is by the left and you're showing my point you don't have the gonads to take responsibility for your fuck up in doing it with the Republicans.

Umm... you claimed no one said Iraq was a threat. You're wrong, and you're just not man enough to admit it.

So when I said no one said Iraq was a threat when we were discussing invading Iraq, you took that as meaning I said no one said Iraq was a threat to anyone ever at any time in history. Got it. Thanks for that intellectual contribution to the discussion

We're not talking about "any time in history." Those statements were made the year before and nothing changed in Iraq during that year. It also fits into the timeframe of the discussion which encompasses the period of time Bush was contemplating invading Iraq. All that changed during that year was the Bush administration's position on Iraq as they sought to fix the intelligence around their policy.

So you believe that when we invaded Rice and Powell believed Hussein wasn't a threat. You said it and you are standing by it.

One question, can you dress yourself in the morning? Or does the nurse need to help you?

 

[Faun]

Republicans have to hide the gains in employment by averaging it out. With employment it is more accurate to know what figures the administration started with and where the figures are today.

And under Obama barely more people are working today than 7 years ago, which is even worse given the growth in the potential workforce.

Your hallucinations grow increasingly bizarre. In reality, there are 6.4 million more people working today than there were when Obama became president. If 6.4 million in little more than 6 years (about 1 million per year) is your idea of "barely" growing, who knows what you think of Bush41's 4 years in office, which produced only 592K jobs per year. The second lowest growth. His son, Bush43, was the only one worse producing only 547K per year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

These numbers are from the BLS Data link.

You cherry pick 4 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama, so I will use 8 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama.

Number employed
142,152,000 Jan 2009
148,523,000 Apr 2015
Increase 6,371,000

136,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008
Increase 6,810,000

You will say the baby boomers just started retiring in 2009 and I will say he population growth has added more people to the work force.

All it proves is that numbers can be manipulated to satisfy one's agenda.

All you prove is that you're a rightwing imbecile. I put up all of Bush's 8 years in office against all of Obama's 75 months in office. Despite inheriting one of the worst recessions in our nation's history, there have been over 6 million jobs added since Obama became president. During Bush's 8 year reign of error, there were about 4.4 million jobs added. Putting Bush in last place in terms of job growth among every president since Herbert Hoover.

Who knows why you started counting from January, 2008, a full year before Bush became president? Mistake? Ignorance? Dishonesty?

As far as baby boomers retiring... those numbers began increasing dramatically in 2008 when that generation began hitting the early retirement age of 62.

 

[Agit8r]

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%

Still has a year and 8 months to catch Reagan

 

[rightwinger]

 

[rightwinger]

Reagan:

Start: 7.6%
High: 10.8%
Finish: 5.2%

Obama:

Start 7.8%
High 10%
Now 5.4%

Advantage Obama

 

[Faun]

No one said Hussein wasn't a threat?? Put the crack pipe down...

• "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleezza Rice

• "We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq." - Colin Powell

Obviously neither of them said that when the decision was being made to invade Iraq. Which is what the discussion is about. That they ever said that at any point in time in history is irrelevant.

Yet again showing the lie over Iraq is by the left and you're showing my point you don't have the gonads to take responsibility for your fuck up in doing it with the Republicans.

Umm... you claimed no one said Iraq was a threat. You're wrong, and you're just not man enough to admit it.

So when I said no one said Iraq was a threat when we were discussing invading Iraq, you took that as meaning I said no one said Iraq was a threat to anyone ever at any time in history. Got it. Thanks for that intellectual contribution to the discussion

We're not talking about "any time in history." Those statements were made the year before and nothing changed in Iraq during that year. It also fits into the timeframe of the discussion which encompasses the period of time Bush was contemplating invading Iraq. All that changed during that year was the Bush administration's position on Iraq as they sought to fix the intelligence around their policy.

So you believe that when we invaded Rice and Powell believed Hussein wasn't a threat. You said it and you are standing by it.

One question, can you dress yourself in the morning? Or does the nurse need to help you?

I forgot you're clairvoyant and read peoples' minds. How would I know if Powell was lying when he produced bullshit evidence to the U.N. or if he was duped with bullshit evidence? Regardless, they both said Iraq was not a threat before the administration began fixing the facts around their policy.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL! You've failed at every post you've made here. You just shwoed that Obama inherited a recession that had bottomed out already and an economy that was on the rise. He promptly turned that to the slowest growth "recovery" i n history. Yes, you've shown that.

Bottomed out losing 700,000 jobs a month

What a great time to assume the presidency

Employment is a lagging indicator.
What you dont know would fill a universe.

Fair point. So if employment is a lagging indicator that means the by your own measure economic conditions had already bottomed out before Obama took the reins correct?

Yup.
When Obozo proposed the stimulus we were told if we enacted it UE would not go above 8%. We enacted it and it went above 10%.
That is a total failure of policy.

Actually, that study was released six months ahead of the actual stimulus. By the time stimulus passed unemployment was already above 8%

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
The administration either lied about their program or they were grossly incompetent. That seems to be the main question about Obama and the Democrats in virtually every policy, program and position: Did they lie or are they grossly incompetent?

 

[The Rabbi]

Reagan:

Start: 7.6%
High: 10.8%
Finish: 5.2%

Obama:

Start 7.8%
High 10%
Now 5.4%

Advantage Obama

You play the same game, cherry picking one data point to make your argument. I fact workforce participation climbed under Reagan as more people were lured into the job market and it sank under Obama as more people were discouraged from seeking work.
Game, set, match Reagan.

 

[rightwinger]

Reagan:

Start: 7.6%
High: 10.8%
Finish: 5.2%

Obama:

Start 7.8%
High 10%
Now 5.4%

Advantage Obama

You play the same game, cherry picking one data point to make your argument. I fact workforce participation climbed under Reagan as more people were lured into the job market and it sank under Obama as more people were discouraged from seeking work.
Game, set, match Reagan.

Still trying to sell that workforce participation rate turkey?

Rush Limbaugh would be proud of you. Reagan benefitted from a workforce where previously unemployed women were still entering the workforce. He also had fully employed baby boomers

As expected, the workforce participation rate has been dropping for 17 years. 4 million baby boomers are retiring every year....now tell us again how that is Obamas fault

 

[boilermaker55]

Typical right wing comment when you have not facts backing up your statement.
ad hominem

With that comment it seems you have no real basis. As it goes on!
You have given the subject no thought at all. Its all your thought and opinion.

Juxtapose that with the 2.49 gas I bought yesterday, Captain Juxtaposer.

Juxtapose that 2.49 with the 1.35 just before obama imposed drilling restrictions.
Juxtapose that with the 15 - 40% increased consumer goods prices after obama reimposed drilling restrictions.

Did you sleep through the recession?

No, because I'm still awake as it goes on.

Another left wing troll.

 

[The Rabbi]

Reagan:

Start: 7.6%
High: 10.8%
Finish: 5.2%

Obama:

Start 7.8%
High 10%
Now 5.4%

Advantage Obama

You play the same game, cherry picking one data point to make your argument. I fact workforce participation climbed under Reagan as more people were lured into the job market and it sank under Obama as more people were discouraged from seeking work.
Game, set, match Reagan.

Still trying to sell that workforce participation rate turkey?

Rush Limbaugh would be proud of you. Reagan benefitted from a workforce where previously unemployed women were still entering the workforce. He also had fully employed baby boomers

As expected, the workforce participation rate has been dropping for 17 years. 4 million baby boomers are retiring every year....now tell us again how that is Obamas fault

Ah yes, invoking Rush Limbaugh. The last refusge of the brain dead.
The rate dropped precipitously after Obama took office. Always in recoveries the rate increases as people are drawn back into the workforce. Except this time. Because there are no jobs.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

7-Year High
Record Revenue Boosts U.S. April Budget Surplus

 

[rightwinger]

Reagan:

Start: 7.6%
High: 10.8%
Finish: 5.2%

Obama:

Start 7.8%
High 10%
Now 5.4%

Advantage Obama

You play the same game, cherry picking one data point to make your argument. I fact workforce participation climbed under Reagan as more people were lured into the job market and it sank under Obama as more people were discouraged from seeking work.
Game, set, match Reagan.

Still trying to sell that workforce participation rate turkey?

Rush Limbaugh would be proud of you. Reagan benefitted from a workforce where previously unemployed women were still entering the workforce. He also had fully employed baby boomers

As expected, the workforce participation rate has been dropping for 17 years. 4 million baby boomers are retiring every year....now tell us again how that is Obamas fault

Ah yes, invoking Rush Limbaugh. The last refusge of the brain dead.
The rate dropped precipitously after Obama took office. Always in recoveries the rate increases as people are drawn back into the workforce. Except this time. Because there are no jobs.

As expected

Nobody but conservatives butthurt over Obamas dropping unemployment numbers considers workforce participation to be anything other than an indicator of our changing demographics

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

But why did you single out Bush when it was such a bipartisan popular idea?

You'll have to ask the poster who asked for a link to Bush. Again, too bad if you have a problem with that.

If you were honest you would have pointed out why it would be moot.

I couldn't have been more honest. Someone asked for a link to Bush talking about an excuse to invade Iraq and I produced one. Anything you seek beyond that stems from your own frustration that I delivered.

So you admit it's an attempt to by you to blame Bush for something most others including Clinton favored. Hypocrisy.

I admit posting a link to Bush after someone asked for a link to Bush. Nothing hypocritical about that at all except in the mind of demented rightwing nuts.

You area defeated troll. No more discussion for you.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Typical right wing comment when you have not facts backing up your statement.
ad hominem

With that comment it seems you have no real basis. As it goes on!
You have given the subject no thought at all. Its all your thought and opinion.

Juxtapose that 2.49 with the 1.35 just before obama imposed drilling restrictions.
Juxtapose that with the 15 - 40% increased consumer goods prices after obama reimposed drilling restrictions.

Did you sleep through the recession?

No, because I'm still awake as it goes on.

Another left wing troll.

I already presented the facts. You choose to deny out of a rigidly close-minded, conservative left wing ideology. Your problem.

 

[The Rabbi]

Reagan:

Start: 7.6%
High: 10.8%
Finish: 5.2%

Obama:

Start 7.8%
High 10%
Now 5.4%

Advantage Obama

You play the same game, cherry picking one data point to make your argument. I fact workforce participation climbed under Reagan as more people were lured into the job market and it sank under Obama as more people were discouraged from seeking work.
Game, set, match Reagan.

Still trying to sell that workforce participation rate turkey?

Rush Limbaugh would be proud of you. Reagan benefitted from a workforce where previously unemployed women were still entering the workforce. He also had fully employed baby boomers

As expected, the workforce participation rate has been dropping for 17 years. 4 million baby boomers are retiring every year....now tell us again how that is Obamas fault

Ah yes, invoking Rush Limbaugh. The last refusge of the brain dead.
The rate dropped precipitously after Obama took office. Always in recoveries the rate increases as people are drawn back into the workforce. Except this time. Because there are no jobs.

As expected

Nobody but conservatives butthurt over Obamas dropping unemployment numbers considers workforce participation to be anything other than an indicator of our changing demographics

Oops. that's a lie.
Reasons To Still Worry About Labor Force Participation - Forbes

 

[boilermaker55]

No facts! Only opinion.
Jump into the clown car!

Typical right wing comment when you have not facts backing up your statement.
ad hominem

With that comment it seems you have no real basis. As it goes on!
You have given the subject no thought at all. Its all your thought and opinion.

Did you sleep through the recession?

No, because I'm still awake as it goes on.

Another left wing troll.

I already presented the facts. You choose to deny out of a rigidly close-minded, conservative left wing ideology. Your problem.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No facts! Only opinion.
Jump into the clown car!

Typical right wing comment when you have not facts backing up your statement.
ad hominem

With that comment it seems you have no real basis. As it goes on!
You have given the subject no thought at all. Its all your thought and opinion.

No, because I'm still awake as it goes on.

Another left wing troll.

I already presented the facts. You choose to deny out of a rigidly close-minded, conservative left wing ideology. Your problem.

The facts were even listed in your previous post. You are a defeated troll. No more discussion for you.

 

[TooTall]

Republicans have to hide the gains in employment by averaging it out. With employment it is more accurate to know what figures the administration started with and where the figures are today.

And under Obama barely more people are working today than 7 years ago, which is even worse given the growth in the potential workforce.

Your hallucinations grow increasingly bizarre. In reality, there are 6.4 million more people working today than there were when Obama became president. If 6.4 million in little more than 6 years (about 1 million per year) is your idea of "barely" growing, who knows what you think of Bush41's 4 years in office, which produced only 592K jobs per year. The second lowest growth. His son, Bush43, was the only one worse producing only 547K per year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

These numbers are from the BLS Data link.

You cherry pick 4 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama, so I will use 8 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama.

Number employed
142,152,000 Jan 2009
148,523,000 Apr 2015
Increase 6,371,000

136,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008
Increase 6,810,000

You will say the baby boomers just started retiring in 2009 and I will say he population growth has added more people to the work force.

All it proves is that numbers can be manipulated to satisfy one's agenda.

Bush was not president in 2000.

Employed
137,778,000 Jan 2001
142,152,000 Jan 2009
Increase 4,374,000

Unemployed
6,023,000 Jan 2001
12,058,000 Jan 2009
Increase 6,035,000

Net job loss 1,661,000

My mistake. Bush was elected in Nov 2000 and took office in Jan 2001.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Pub dupes! How dumb can you get? The attention span of a pygmy shrew...

a pygmy shrew has a great attention span.....for a shrew....