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

[AntiParty]

The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?

Don't take my word for it.

 

[rightwinger]

Based on these data points and a current unemployment rate of 5.4%, Obama currently has an average rate of 7.25% which is better than Reagans 7.54%

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Increasing the number employed from 143 million in December 2008 to 148 million in April 2015, is a small increase, not on track with population growth or historical trends.

 

[U2Edge]

And if the labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office the actual UE rate would be over 10%. Most of the reduction was people giving up looking for work.

There is no such thing as a constant LPR. And most of the people "giving up" looking for work are retirees who no longer need or want to work. as I have said, everyone knows the drop in LPR is due to the demographics of Boomers retiring but that will only be taken into consideration if a Republican is elected president in 2016 and the LPR continues to drop.

It does not matter why the labor force participation rate has dropped, because the fact remains that the current economy is not strong enough to support a labor force participation rate of 66% or higher as it did for most of Bush's time in office and have unemployment rates below 6% at the same time.

 

[U2Edge]

I think Obama has now passed Reagan, or is very close to it.

I saw that coming too. Hilarious.

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: 8.09%

Obama is still in last past and although it appears he will past Ford unless the unemployment rate goes up, its far from certain that he will pass Reagan and he will NEVER be able to beat BUSH!

 

[U2Edge]

And if the labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office the actual UE rate would be over 10%. Most of the reduction was people giving up looking for work.

There is no such thing as a constant LPR. And most of the people "giving up" looking for work are retirees who no longer need or want to work. as I have said, everyone knows the drop in LPR is due to the demographics of Boomers retiring but that will only be taken into consideration if a Republican is elected president in 2016 and the LPR continues to drop.

You know that the the rules are not the same for the GOP. It is amazing that they shout "the sky is falling" now when under W, the sky was really falling.....not a peep...

People were better off under Bush. The UE rate was lower the day Bush left office than at any time under Obama until maybe 6 months ago. And that improvement is solely from people dropping out of the workforce and collecting disability.

You want to take a poll on USMB and ask how the economy that W left crashing has affecting them? Many people, including yours truly, are still trying to recover from the mess that W left.

The live in the economy managed by Obama not Bush. Its 2015, not 2008!

 

[rightwinger]

And if the labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office the actual UE rate would be over 10%. Most of the reduction was people giving up looking for work.

There is no such thing as a constant LPR. And most of the people "giving up" looking for work are retirees who no longer need or want to work. as I have said, everyone knows the drop in LPR is due to the demographics of Boomers retiring but that will only be taken into consideration if a Republican is elected president in 2016 and the LPR continues to drop.

It does not matter why the labor force participation rate has dropped, because the fact remains that the current economy is not strong enough to support a labor force participation rate of 66% or higher as it did for most of Bush's time in office and have unemployment rates below 6% at the same time.

Yes it does matter

Baby Boomers are retiring at a rate of 4 million a year and that will force Labor Participation downward regardless of other economic gains

 

[U2Edge]

The free fall began under W. It took years for the Obama administration to finally turn things around. Even with the GOP congress fighting ever step of the way, the economy is making a recovery. The GOP has done everything it could to keep the economy from recovering. They are failing. Maybe President Hillary Clinton will complete the process.

Or we can elect someone from the clown car and welcome back big deficits with military spending through the roof, as we invade the wrong country again.

Unless your are a SADDAM LOVER OR TALIBAN LOVER, the United States invaded the right countries and removed the right regimes under Bush. The United States had essentially been at war with Iraq since 1991 and had been bombing Saddam's Iraq EVER YEAR from 1991 through 2003. The ground invasion in early 2003 was simply a further extension and resolution of the hostilities taking place since 1991.

 

[rightwinger]

The free fall began under W. It took years for the Obama administration to finally turn things around. Even with the GOP congress fighting ever step of the way, the economy is making a recovery. The GOP has done everything it could to keep the economy from recovering. They are failing. Maybe President Hillary Clinton will complete the process.

Or we can elect someone from the clown car and welcome back big deficits with military spending through the roof, as we invade the wrong country again.

Unless your are a SADDAM LOVER OR TALIBAN LOVER, the United States invaded the right countries and removed the right regimes under Bush. The United States had essentially been at war with Iraq since 1991 and had been bombing Saddam's Iraq EVER YEAR from 1991 through 2003. The ground invasion in early 2003 was simply a further extension and resolution of the hostilities taking place since 1991.

The biggest foreign policy blunder in 50 years.

Abandoning the war on terror to pursue a personal vendetta in Iraq was idiocy. Iraq was no threat outside its borders, had been contained for ten years and the US had higher priorities at the time

 

[U2Edge]

And if the labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office the actual UE rate would be over 10%. Most of the reduction was people giving up looking for work.

There is no such thing as a constant LPR. And most of the people "giving up" looking for work are retirees who no longer need or want to work. as I have said, everyone knows the drop in LPR is due to the demographics of Boomers retiring but that will only be taken into consideration if a Republican is elected president in 2016 and the LPR continues to drop.

It does not matter why the labor force participation rate has dropped, because the fact remains that the current economy is not strong enough to support a labor force participation rate of 66% or higher as it did for most of Bush's time in office and have unemployment rates below 6% at the same time.

Yes it does matter

Baby Boomers are retiring at a rate of 4 million a year and that will force Labor Participation downward regardless of other economic gains

That's right, but if economic growth were strong enough, you could have a labor force participation rate of 66% with below 6% unemployment. The economy under Obama is not strong enough to produce such figures. IF there was not a babyboom retirement and the labor force participation rate was still at 66% rather than 62%, the unemployment rate would balloon to over 10%. Being saved by retires does not prove your economic performance is steller for the workforce. People have opportunity to find work because so many are retiring, not because Obama's economy has created super strong demand for more labor.

 

[rightwinger]

I think Obama has now passed Reagan, or is very close to it.

I saw that coming too. Hilarious.

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: 8.09%

Obama is still in last past and although it appears he will past Ford unless the unemployment rate goes up, its far from certain that he will pass Reagan and he will NEVER be able to beat BUSH!

Obama is already at 7.25% and still has another 18 months to drop it lower

Considering where he started, it is miraculous

 

[rightwinger]

And if the labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office the actual UE rate would be over 10%. Most of the reduction was people giving up looking for work.

There is no such thing as a constant LPR. And most of the people "giving up" looking for work are retirees who no longer need or want to work. as I have said, everyone knows the drop in LPR is due to the demographics of Boomers retiring but that will only be taken into consideration if a Republican is elected president in 2016 and the LPR continues to drop.

It does not matter why the labor force participation rate has dropped, because the fact remains that the current economy is not strong enough to support a labor force participation rate of 66% or higher as it did for most of Bush's time in office and have unemployment rates below 6% at the same time.

Yes it does matter

Baby Boomers are retiring at a rate of 4 million a year and that will force Labor Participation downward regardless of other economic gains

That's right, but if economic growth were strong enough, you could have a labor force participation rate of 66% with below 6% unemployment. The economy under Obama is not strong enough to produce such figures. IF there was not a babyboom retirement and the labor force participation rate was still at 66% rather than 62%, the unemployment rate would balloon to over 10%. Being saved by retires does not prove your economic performance is steller for the workforce. People have opportunity to find work because so many are retiring, not because Obama's economy has created super strong demand for more labor.

The numbers are not there

4 million baby boomers retiring each year equates to 330,000 a month. Even if the Obama economy can average 300,000 jobs a month, which is very good, the labor participation rate will continue to drop

As it has been for the last 17 years

 

[U2Edge]

The free fall began under W. It took years for the Obama administration to finally turn things around. Even with the GOP congress fighting ever step of the way, the economy is making a recovery. The GOP has done everything it could to keep the economy from recovering. They are failing. Maybe President Hillary Clinton will complete the process.

Or we can elect someone from the clown car and welcome back big deficits with military spending through the roof, as we invade the wrong country again.

Unless your are a SADDAM LOVER OR TALIBAN LOVER, the United States invaded the right countries and removed the right regimes under Bush. The United States had essentially been at war with Iraq since 1991 and had been bombing Saddam's Iraq EVER YEAR from 1991 through 2003. The ground invasion in early 2003 was simply a further extension and resolution of the hostilities taking place since 1991.

The biggest foreign policy blunder in 50 years.

Abandoning the war on terror to pursue a personal vendetta in Iraq was idiocy. Iraq was no threat outside its borders, had been contained for ten years and the US had higher priorities at the time

The United States was already fighting Iraq at the time. US warplanes were dropping bombs on Iraq every year, and the United States had already broken off Kurdistan from Iraq and was trying to protect. The Sanctions and Weapons embargo put in place on Saddam were falling apart. Syria, Turkey, Russia, France, China, and Jordan were all violating sanctions. Saddam was selling several billion dollars of oil every year on the black market. It was only a matter of time before Saddam would rearm his conventional forces and rebuild his WMD capabilities. The time to remove SADDAM was then when he was weak. It was already the set policy of the United States to officially seek regime change. The ground invasion by Bush just speeded things up and was done at the right time before Saddam could rearm. Persian Gulf Energy supply and its security, protecting it, is the lifeblood of the global economy and the grand strategy of things, more vital to US Security than fighting Al Quada. Both are important and one does not have the luxury of fighting one at a time.

Its like saying we should have finished off Japan before we took on Germany. Its absurd!

 

[U2Edge]

I think Obama has now passed Reagan, or is very close to it.

I saw that coming too. Hilarious.

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: 8.09%

Obama is still in last past and although it appears he will past Ford unless the unemployment rate goes up, its far from certain that he will pass Reagan and he will NEVER be able to beat BUSH!

Obama is already at 7.25% and still has another 18 months to drop it lower

Considering where he started, it is miraculous

Wrong! His average for the first 76 months in office is 8.09%. Even by the end of this year and current rates, he will still be behind Gerald Ford!

 

[U2Edge]

And if the labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office the actual UE rate would be over 10%. Most of the reduction was people giving up looking for work.

There is no such thing as a constant LPR. And most of the people "giving up" looking for work are retirees who no longer need or want to work. as I have said, everyone knows the drop in LPR is due to the demographics of Boomers retiring but that will only be taken into consideration if a Republican is elected president in 2016 and the LPR continues to drop.

It does not matter why the labor force participation rate has dropped, because the fact remains that the current economy is not strong enough to support a labor force participation rate of 66% or higher as it did for most of Bush's time in office and have unemployment rates below 6% at the same time.

Yes it does matter

Baby Boomers are retiring at a rate of 4 million a year and that will force Labor Participation downward regardless of other economic gains

That's right, but if economic growth were strong enough, you could have a labor force participation rate of 66% with below 6% unemployment. The economy under Obama is not strong enough to produce such figures. IF there was not a babyboom retirement and the labor force participation rate was still at 66% rather than 62%, the unemployment rate would balloon to over 10%. Being saved by retires does not prove your economic performance is steller for the workforce. People have opportunity to find work because so many are retiring, not because Obama's economy has created super strong demand for more labor.

The numbers are not there

4 million baby boomers retiring each year equates to 330,000 a month. Even if the Obama economy can average 300,000 jobs a month, which is very good, the labor participation rate will continue to drop

As it has been for the last 17 years

I know that, what I am saying is that hypothetically, if that were not the case, the current Obama economy would still be unable to support a labor force participation rate of 66% with unemployment at below 6%. Understand?

 

[rightwinger]

I think Obama has now passed Reagan, or is very close to it.

I saw that coming too. Hilarious.

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: 8.09%

Obama is still in last past and although it appears he will past Ford unless the unemployment rate goes up, its far from certain that he will pass Reagan and he will NEVER be able to beat BUSH!

Obama is already at 7.25% and still has another 18 months to drop it lower

Considering where he started, it is miraculous

Wrong! His average for the first 76 months in office is 8.09%. Even by the end of this year and current rates, he will still be behind Gerald Ford!

lets see your link

 

[kaz]

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.

Perhaps Rice and Powell were listening to these virtuous, knowledgeable Democrats for their bullshit evidence.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

Nope, they spoke out before then as they pointed out Iraq was not a threat. Furthermore ... nine years, 5000 American lives, and trillions of dollars later they proved to be correct.

Perhaps you should read what they all stated very carefully and then tell me they were correct.

Really? Hillary said, "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program."

Show where Hussein worked to rebuild his WMD during those 4 years.......

You could be right, the Democrats probably just lied about that

 

[TooTall]

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.

Perhaps Rice and Powell were listening to these virtuous, knowledgeable Democrats for their bullshit evidence.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

Nope, they spoke out before then as they pointed out Iraq was not a threat. Furthermore ... nine years, 5000 American lives, and trillions of dollars later they proved to be correct.

Perhaps you should read what they all stated very carefully and then tell me they were correct.

Really? Hillary said, "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program."

Show where Hussein worked to rebuild his WMD during those 4 years.......

Why don't you ask Hillary Clinton since she is the one who made the statement? That is why her statement is in quotation marks.

 

[kaz]

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.

Perhaps Rice and Powell were listening to these virtuous, knowledgeable Democrats for their bullshit evidence.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

Nope, they spoke out before then as they pointed out Iraq was not a threat. Furthermore ... nine years, 5000 American lives, and trillions of dollars later they proved to be correct.

Perhaps you should read what they all stated very carefully and then tell me they were correct.

Really? Hillary said, "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program."

Show where Hussein worked to rebuild his WMD during those 4 years.......

Why don't you ask Hillary Clinton since she is the one who made the statement? That is why her statement is in quotation marks.

I think Obama has now passed Reagan, or is very close to it.

I saw that coming too. Hilarious.

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: 8.09%

Obama is still in last past and although it appears he will past Ford unless the unemployment rate goes up, its far from certain that he will pass Reagan and he will NEVER be able to beat BUSH!

Obama is already at 7.25% and still has another 18 months to drop it lower

Considering where he started, it is miraculous

7.25% after almost 6 1/2 years is "miraculous?" Your incredible standards for Republicans just disappear with Democrats...

 

[kaz]

The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?

Don't take my word for it.

Where did he say anything relevant to that in the video? He was talking in general about dealing with economic crises, he didn't say that about his particular administration