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

[frigidweirdo]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?

 

[bedowin62]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?

YAWN; great nutjob; remember you words if a Republican president is elected ok?

 

[bedowin62]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?

the only idiot i see is you; but if you are talking about the "Bush" recesssion that ended in the summer of obama's first year; long before even a tiny fraction of the obama "Stimulus" was spent, That's not a "Faux News" talking point; it's a fact as how recessions and recoveries are measured by economists, by consecutive quarters of GDP increase or decrease. put that in your pipe and smoke it

 

[frigidweirdo]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?

YAWN; great nutjob; remember you words if a Republican president is elected ok?

I will. Do you think I'm one of these posters who is just partisan and will say anything to win?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?

the only idiot i see is you; but if you are talking about the "Bush" recesssion that ended in the summer of obama's first year; long before even a tiny fraction of the obama "Stimulus" was spent, That's not a "Faux News" talking point; it's a fact as how recessions and recoveries are measured by economists, by consecutive quarters of GDP increase or decrease. put that in your pipe and smoke it

Right....

Obama was president from 2009 onwards.

It s official U.S. in a recession since December 2007 - Dec. 1 2008

CNN reported on December First:

"
It's official: Recession since Dec. '07"

"Some suggested that the best case scenario for the economy is that it would reach bottom in the second quarter of 2009. And even if that happens, that would still make this recession the longest since the Great Depression."

So, before Obama had taken office CNN and others were predicting that the recession would be the worst recession since the Great Depression and the second worst recession in US history.

BBC NEWS Business Deeper recession ahead says IMF

"
'Deeper' recession ahead says IMF"

This from April 2009. Just after Obama had taken over from Bush.

Seeing how in the recession in the 1980s when Reagan was president and unemployment rates hit their highest post WW2 rate, it took eight years for unemployment to get down to 6% where they had started off, if this recession was already being predicted as the 2nd worst ever, worse than the one in the 1980s, then you could well assume that it would be eight years from the late 2007/early 2008 period before unemployment rates would be back to what they were before, if not even longer. That period would have taken us into 2016.

Current stats have the US unemployment rate at 5.3%.
United States Unemployment Rate 1948-2015 Data Chart Calendar

So, where you get the idea that the recession of Bush's suddenly came to an end a few months after he left office I don't know.

Perhaps the same place you got the idea he was a Muslim, born in Kenya, a Jew, a Communist and all that other stuff you lot seem to make up over time.

 

[pinqy]

Obama took us from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!

Government is needed!

You can do that easily when the labor force participation rate drops so dramatically. It was about 66% when he started and it is now down to 62.6%. If the labor force participation rate was still at 66%, the unemployment rate would be over 10%..

And if you used the labor force participation rate from December 1954, the UE rate now would be -2.1%. Yes, that's a negative sign. Does your operation really make sense if it allows a negative UE rate?

There is always a natural rate of unemployment which will prevent the number from dropping too low. Technically you could have zero unemployment but you would never have a negative percentage.

Exactly my point. If a methodology of calculating an alternate unemployment can result in a negative number, then there's something wrong with the methodology.

If the labor force participation rate dropped from 62.6% to 58.1% next month, the unemployment rate would drop to near zero, but it would NOT be a negative number. But if the labor force participation rate sky rocketed to 70%, you would have dramatic rise in unemployment as the number of potential employees would vastly exceed the number of jobs available.

Please show your math. I'm curious what calculations you're doing. By my math...the population has been increasing at a rate of around .09% So assume a population of 250,885,000...if the Labor Force is 58.1%, what's the Unemployment rate?

The UE rate could go up or down or stay the same under your scenario depending on how you define the decline.

Technically, if the labor force shrinks enough while the demand for employees does not change, everyone participating in the labor force gets a job meaning there is no unemployment. Participating employees who can't find jobs raises the unemployment level. But if the number of participating employees drops enough relative to the number of job openings, you could have a situation where the unemployment rate is near zero. It will never actually be zero because there are always people who are between jobs.

Yes, that's Econ 101. My point is that taking the LFPR and saying what the UE rate would be is a bullshit operation that requires unwarranted assumptions.

 

[pinqy]

A lower labor force participation rate helps to drop unemployment. Its with a higher labor force participation rate where you get higher levels of unemployment which is why only a STRONG economy can support a high labor force participation rate.

Please show your math that suports this. Remember that the Labor Force participation rate is L/P and the Unemployment rate is U/L
L= U+E
L= labor force
P = Population
E = employed
U = unemployed.

 

[bedowin62]

poor idiot; you're using a prediction that the recession would be severe as proof it didnt end in the summer of obama's first year? i should take you seriously why?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama's UE rates are on track to better Reagan's eventually.

That is when this thread will lose its charm for the RWnuts.

 

[Faun]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

It wasn't looked at under Bush, even though it began noticibly dropping while he was president, because it's not an indicator of the health of the job market.

And the hell it's not dropping due to retiring baby boomers. There are several reasons but they are a major factor in the drop...

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/ar...orce-participation-rate-continues-to-fall.pdf

 

[Faun]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?

the only idiot i see is you; but if you are talking about the "Bush" recesssion that ended in the summer of obama's first year; long before even a tiny fraction of the obama "Stimulus" was spent, That's not a "Faux News" talking point; it's a fact as how recessions and recoveries are measured by economists, by consecutive quarters of GDP increase or decrease. put that in your pipe and smoke it

At least we agree you're definitely smoking something ...

The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html​

 

[bedowin62]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?

the only idiot i see is you; but if you are talking about the "Bush" recesssion that ended in the summer of obama's first year; long before even a tiny fraction of the obama "Stimulus" was spent, That's not a "Faux News" talking point; it's a fact as how recessions and recoveries are measured by economists, by consecutive quarters of GDP increase or decrease. put that in your pipe and smoke it

At least we agree you're definitely smoking something ...

The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html​

YAWN; like i said; the recession ended in the summer of obama's first term. if you are saying that isnt so post something instead of this tripe that proves it

 

[bedowin62]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?

the only idiot i see is you; but if you are talking about the "Bush" recesssion that ended in the summer of obama's first year; long before even a tiny fraction of the obama "Stimulus" was spent, That's not a "Faux News" talking point; it's a fact as how recessions and recoveries are measured by economists, by consecutive quarters of GDP increase or decrease. put that in your pipe and smoke it

At least we agree you're definitely smoking something ...

The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html​

UM; awkward; but please take note of YOUR OWN SOURCE; particularly the part that says "TURNING POINT" ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE PAGE.

what date does it say?

 

[BlueGin]

Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.

No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!

Bush was also handed an economy headed into a recession. Furthermore, the issue was compounded by 9/11.

No one feels any sympathy for Obama.

Not even a little bit.

 

[Faun]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?

the only idiot i see is you; but if you are talking about the "Bush" recesssion that ended in the summer of obama's first year; long before even a tiny fraction of the obama "Stimulus" was spent, That's not a "Faux News" talking point; it's a fact as how recessions and recoveries are measured by economists, by consecutive quarters of GDP increase or decrease. put that in your pipe and smoke it

At least we agree you're definitely smoking something ...

The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html​

YAWN; like i said; the recession ended in the summer of obama's first term. if you are saying that isnt so post something instead of this tripe that proves it

Holyfuckingshit! Is English your first language?

I gave a link showing the recession ended in June, 2009. So why on Earth do you think I suggested otherwise? And I can't imagine how you are unable to see how I refuted your description of a recession?

 

[Faun]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?

the only idiot i see is you; but if you are talking about the "Bush" recesssion that ended in the summer of obama's first year; long before even a tiny fraction of the obama "Stimulus" was spent, That's not a "Faux News" talking point; it's a fact as how recessions and recoveries are measured by economists, by consecutive quarters of GDP increase or decrease. put that in your pipe and smoke it

At least we agree you're definitely smoking something ...

The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html​

UM; awkward; but please take note of YOUR OWN SOURCE; particularly the part that says "TURNING POINT" ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE PAGE.

what date does it say?

Holyfuckingshit! Seriously, WTF is wrong with you??

When did I ever say the recession didn't end in June, 2009?? You are most definitely smoking something.

 

[bedowin62]

wow; a tad angry left-wingnut?

must be tough watchin it all fall apart

 

[bedowin62]

if you werent at a minimum trying to imply it didnt end in 2009 there would have been no reason to post that link

you're funny. just man up and admit what you were doing

 

[rightwinger]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?

the only idiot i see is you; but if you are talking about the "Bush" recesssion that ended in the summer of obama's first year; long before even a tiny fraction of the obama "Stimulus" was spent, That's not a "Faux News" talking point; it's a fact as how recessions and recoveries are measured by economists, by consecutive quarters of GDP increase or decrease. put that in your pipe and smoke it

At least we agree you're definitely smoking something ...

The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html​

YAWN; like i said; the recession ended in the summer of obama's first term. if you are saying that isnt so post something instead of this tripe that proves it

Very true

8 million jobs have been added since that time and the unemployment rate has dropped 5%

 

[bedowin62]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.

Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?

the only idiot i see is you; but if you are talking about the "Bush" recesssion that ended in the summer of obama's first year; long before even a tiny fraction of the obama "Stimulus" was spent, That's not a "Faux News" talking point; it's a fact as how recessions and recoveries are measured by economists, by consecutive quarters of GDP increase or decrease. put that in your pipe and smoke it

At least we agree you're definitely smoking something ...

The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html​

YAWN; like i said; the recession ended in the summer of obama's first term. if you are saying that isnt so post something instead of this tripe that proves it

Very true

8 million jobs have been added since that time and the unemployment rate has dropped 5%

yes loon; the fact there are 13 MILLION MORE ON FOOD STAMPS IN OBAMA'S SEVENTH YEAR; testify to the strength of his economic prowess