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

[Faun]

No recession started under Clinton. That's a lie and that's as far as I got in your post since it's reasonable to assume that everything else you posted is also a lie.

If truth and facts were on your side you wouldn't have to lie.

So "recessions" are just like water faucets. You turn on a faucet water comes out. Recession starts immediately... is that your perception?
For totally ignorant people about the economy the prime basis for determining a "recession" is:
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.
Recession Definition Investopedia

NOW you extremely economics illiterate................
The official start of the 2001 recession started according to the following FACT:
year Qtr GDP in billions

2000 I 9,629.4
2000 II 9,822.8
2000 III 9,862.1
2000 IV 9,953.6 downturn....
2001 I 10,024.8 UP!
2001 II 10,088.2 UP!
2001 III 10,096.2 UP!
2001 IV 10,193.9 UP!
View attachment 47703
The U.S. Recession of 2001-2002

As always, you prove to be too retarded to make a cogent argument. First off all, you're referencing nominal figures, not real figures. Too fucking stupid. You don't use nominal figures because you like them better than real numbers.

Secondly, for some bizarre reason, you put the word, "downturn," next to a quarter indicating growth. Just how stupid are you to think you can magically alter history if you just type a misplaced word?

And lastly, the recession started in March, 2001, and there's nothing on this planet you can use to change that. In fact, there might not have even been a recession if not for 9.11.

And like a little kid you think "hmm Recession starts March 1, 2001 because that's when the NBER said so."
Recessions are not like water faucets. They don't just magically start on a specific date.

You're a fucking retard. You think I should believe you and not the NBER???

Need I remind you? When referencing GDP, you used nominal figures, not real figures. Even worse for you, you posted the word, "downturn," next to a quarter showing growth.

We learned two things from this exercise...

1... you're batshit insane.

2... the 2001 recession started in March, 2001.

So you are of the very very simple mind that On March 1,2001 at 12:01 AM the recession started. The GDP immediately dropped below zero.

Here is what the "experts" define as a "recession"
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.

Recession Definition | Investopedia Recession Definition | Investopedia
US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter

TELL ME you idiot... WHERE during the 4 quarters preceding March 2001 are there any quarters with "negative" figures???
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%

NOW YOU want to see "negative GDP"? Hmmmm... Obrama became president in 2009!
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%


US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter
Mar 31, 2015 3.91%
Dec 31, 2014 3.66%
Sep 30, 2014 4.31%
Jun 30, 2014 4.27%
Mar 31, 2014 3.28%
Dec 31, 2013 4.57%
Sep 30, 2013 3.71%
Jun 30, 2013 3.26%
Mar 31, 2013 3.42%
Dec 31, 2012 3.47%
Sep 30, 2012 4.37%
Jun 30, 2012 4.10%
Mar 31, 2012 4.71%
Dec 31, 2011 3.64%
Sep 30, 2011 3.52%
Jun 30, 2011 3.84%
Mar 31, 2011 3.80%
Dec 31, 2010 4.56%
Sep 30, 2010 4.68%
Jun 30, 2010 3.82%
Mar 31, 2010 2.07%
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%
Dec 31, 2008 -0.92%
Sep 30, 2008 1.88%
Jun 30, 2008 2.71%
Mar 31, 2008 3.06%
Dec 31, 2007 4.40%
Sep 30, 2007 4.75%
Jun 30, 2007 4.51%
Mar 31, 2007 4.28%
Dec 31, 2006 5.12%
Sep 30, 2006 5.32%
Jun 30, 2006 6.36%
Mar 31, 2006 6.52%
Dec 31, 2005 6.52%
Sep 30, 2005 6.77%
Jun 30, 2005 6.51%
Mar 31, 2005 6.88%
Dec 31, 2004 6.31%
Sep 30, 2004 6.39%
Jun 30, 2004 7.13%
Mar 31, 2004 6.75%
Dec 31, 2003 6.42%
Sep 30, 2003 5.33%
Jun 30, 2003 3.99%
Mar 31, 2003 3.65%
Dec 31, 2002 3.76%
Sep 30, 2002 3.74%
Jun 30, 2002 2.79%
Mar 31, 2002 3.11%
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
Jun 30, 2000 7.55%
Mar 31, 2000 6.18%
Dec 31, 1999 6.44%
Sep 30, 1999 6.19%
Jun 30, 1999 6.25%
Mar 31, 1999 6.27%
Dec 31, 1998 6.11%
Sep 30, 1998 5.23%
Jun 30, 1998 5.18%
Mar 31, 1998 5.80%
Dec 31, 1997 6.05%
Sep 30, 1997 6.53%
Jun 30, 1997 6.08%
Mar 31, 1997 6.45%

Who knows where on Earth you get your numbers from? But the BEA produced these numbers (notice, they're nowhere near the figures you post):

2000q1 1.2
2000q2 7.8
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
2001q1 -1.1
2001q2 2.1
2001q3 -1.3
2001q4 1.1

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

And you're idiocy of pointing out negative GDP during the beginning of Obama's presidency is beyond idiotic (which is why you post it). Yes, GDP was negative during the Great Bush Recession.

2008q1 -2.7
2008q2 2.0
2008q3 -1.9
2008q4 -8.2
2009q1 -5.4
2009q2 -0.5
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9

 

[auditor0007]

Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%

but as we see there are plenty of them in this country

good grief.

There are approximately 7,915,000 unemployed, defined as not working, willing and able to work and looked for work in last 4 weeksn unless on temporary layoff expecting to return..
There are approximately 148,800,000 employed, defined as worked at least one hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business or temporarily absent from a job.
So the labor force is 7,915,000 + 148,800,000 = 156,715,000
7,915,000/156,715,000 = 5.05%, rounded up to 5.1%.
What errors are you seeing?

Someone is lying about the worker participation rate anyway. This idea that there are close to 100 million out of the labor force doesn't add up. The US population is 320 million. 149 million working and 8 million knowingly unemployed. That leaves 163 million. There are 45 million retirees so that brings the number down to 118 million, although there is a small percentage of retirees who still do work. There are about 70 million children under the age of 16 who cannot be counted into the labor force. So now we are down to 48 million. What we have not accounted for are the disabled, full-time college students who do not work, stay at home moms/dads, and anyone who chooses not to work becuase they don't have to.

 

[Siete]

math huh?

ok

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years.

 

[pinqy]

Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%

but as we see there are plenty of them in this country

good grief.

There are approximately 7,915,000 unemployed, defined as not working, willing and able to work and looked for work in last 4 weeksn unless on temporary layoff expecting to return..
There are approximately 148,800,000 employed, defined as worked at least one hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business or temporarily absent from a job.
So the labor force is 7,915,000 + 148,800,000 = 156,715,000
7,915,000/156,715,000 = 5.05%, rounded up to 5.1%.
What errors are you seeing?

Someone is lying about the worker participation rate anyway. This idea that there are close to 100 million out of the labor force doesn't add up. The US population is 320 million. 149 million working and 8 million knowingly unemployed. That leaves 163 million. There are 45 million retirees so that brings the number down to 118 million, although there is a small percentage of retirees who still do work. There are about 70 million children under the age of 16 who cannot be counted into the labor force. So now we are down to 48 million. What we have not accounted for are the disabled, full-time college students who do not work, stay at home moms/dads, and anyone who chooses not to work becuase they don't have to.

The U..S population is around 320 million. Subtract all those who face substantila barriers in working or changing jobs: the military, children under 16, people in prison, and those in institutions (such as mental institutes, old age homes, and other long term care). That leaves us with 251,325,000 which is the Population used by BLS. Labor force is employed plus unemployed = 156,715,000 which gives a participation rate of 156,715,000/251,325,000 = 62.4% And 251,325,000 - 156,715,000 = 94,610,000 not in the labor force.

disabled, students, stay at homes, retirees, etc are Not in the Labor Force (if they're not working or looking for work).

 

[jasonnfree]

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 7.92%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after 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: 7.92%

641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%

There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.

Keeps getting worse because of automation, computerization which doesn't always give jobs to Americans. Also, Obama faced almost treasonous opposition by republicans from day one. Obama was not my favorite democratic pick, but I thought he did pretty good. Too bad he's continuing the free trade kool aid philosophy though.

 

[tyroneweaver]

still the biggest clown on that list is Jimmy Carter. Ford handed him over a pretty good economy and the moron blew it.
Truman and johnson had everybody fighting a war, that's why their numbers are low

Have to give Carter some credit, He burned the country down in only 4 yrs

Find a president who created more jobs in 4 years than Carter?

finda president who in 4 years screwed up the country so bad.
besides reagan's second term created more jobs than Carter
Imagine how many he could have created in the first if Carter hadn't given him such a screwed up economy

 

[edthecynic]

Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%

but as we see there are plenty of them in this country

good grief.

Probably the same idiots who believe Reagan had an average UE rate of 7.54%

 

[Spinster]

Note how the scale ramps up with each president over the last several Cammanders. That's not a reflection on them, however, I'd be more than happy to cast stones in Obomination's direction, no problem. I believe the escalating increase in unemployment it has everything to do with we've raised a couple of generations now who are slackers, unskilled, uninitiated, fuckers. Seriously, we're to blame.

 

[jillian]

ahhh the beauty of rightwingnut troll threads.

 

[jillian]

Note how the scale ramps up with each president over the last several Cammanders. That's not a reflect on them, however, I'd be more than happy to cast stones on Obomination'direction. I believe the escalating increase in unemployment it has everything to do with we've raised a couple of generations now who are slackers, unskilled, uninitiated, fuckers. Seriously, we're to blame.

yah... couldn't possibly have to do with of-shoring and automation and destruction of labor unions by multinational corporations... or the destruction of the economy during baby bush's term....

nah... must be people not wanting to work.

 

[Siete]

ahhh the beauty of rightwingnut troll threads.

they might as well start as much shit as possible, they'll never see the WH again for decades.

 

[jillian]

ahhh the beauty of rightwingnut troll threads.

they might as well start as much shit as possible, they'll never see the WH again for decades.

not if they keep doing what they're doing.

but i'm ok with that.

they're "untrustable".

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 7.92%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after 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: 7.92%

641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%

There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.

After 78 months in office...

Reagan ... 7.9%
Obama .... 7.9%

Reagan started at 7.5%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.4 points higher than when he started.

Obama started at 7.8%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.1 point higher than when he started.

Again, picking a one particular month to look at is irrelevant. You need to look at the average of 96 months of data to get the full picture. Were at 81 months in the Obama administration. 15 more months to go. The first month and the last month of a Presidents time in office is irrelevant. What matters is the average over such a long period of time!

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 7.92%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after 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: 7.92%

641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%

There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.

President Obama was given a higher unemployment rate than Reagan and will leave office with a lower unemployment rate than Reagan ever had

No other President on the list was losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office

Obama will also have a much lower labor force participation rate and its not yet clear whether the average unemployment rate over the entire time Obama was in office will be lower or higher than Reagans. Simply sighting the last monthly unemployment rate level Obama has, 1 month out of 96, is meaningless and irrelevant. One much consider all the data when rating a Presidents performance, not just their last month in office.

If the unemployment rate averages out at 5.4% or better over the remainder of Obama's presidency, Obama will finish ahead of Reagan.

Maybe, but even if that were to happen, Obama will not have as good a labor force participation rate as Reagan did. Finally, Obama will never be able to catch George W. Bush who averaged 5.27% over his 96 months in office.

 

[U2Edge]

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%

what was it when baby bush left office, idiota?

Were looking at what it was on average over entire administrations which for a two term president is 96 months. To simply look at one month at the end is irrelevant and meaningless. A Presidents performance is not based on simply his/her last month in office. Every month in office matters and is important and most be considered equally.

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 7.92%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after 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: 7.92%

641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%

There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.

I'm not even going to get into this because we already know many of the reasons for this and this has been projected for a long time. What I want to know is what cons really believe, because I'm so tired of them talking out their ass all the time and being so hypocritical. See, cons tell us that the unemployment rate is actually much higher and that everyone has stopped looking for work because there just aren't any jobs out there due to the horrible economy. On the flip side, cons tell us that people are lazy and just want to suck off the government by collecting welfare because they are too lazy to get a job. Well which one is it? Are they just too lazy to work or are there no jobs for them in the first place? You can't have it both ways, but of course cons do want it both ways, because they think it makes them sound intelligent or something. So tell us, is the economy as bad as you say or are people just lazy?

The current monthly unemployment rate is low, but this is because the labor force participation rate has dramatically declined from 66% under Bush to now just 62.4% under Obama. At least half of this is do to the Baby Boom retirement but there are also people who have left the work force because they were unable to find work. If the labor force participation rate were to rise back to 66% under Bush, the unemployment rate would balloon to over 10% because the current economy is not generating enough jobs to handle a labor force participation rate that high.

 

[U2Edge]

Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%

but as we see there are plenty of them in this country

good grief.

There are approximately 7,915,000 unemployed, defined as not working, willing and able to work and looked for work in last 4 weeksn unless on temporary layoff expecting to return..
There are approximately 148,800,000 employed, defined as worked at least one hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business or temporarily absent from a job.
So the labor force is 7,915,000 + 148,800,000 = 156,715,000
7,915,000/156,715,000 = 5.05%, rounded up to 5.1%.
What errors are you seeing?

There are millions who are no longer looking for work, or have decided to go ahead and retire. If those groups were still in the labor market looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 10%.

 

[rightwinger]

Can't wait for Obama to officially pass the great Reagan

We already know he is a better President

 

[U2Edge]

Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%

but as we see there are plenty of them in this country

good grief.

There are approximately 7,915,000 unemployed, defined as not working, willing and able to work and looked for work in last 4 weeksn unless on temporary layoff expecting to return..
There are approximately 148,800,000 employed, defined as worked at least one hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business or temporarily absent from a job.
So the labor force is 7,915,000 + 148,800,000 = 156,715,000
7,915,000/156,715,000 = 5.05%, rounded up to 5.1%.
What errors are you seeing?

Someone is lying about the worker participation rate anyway. This idea that there are close to 100 million out of the labor force doesn't add up. The US population is 320 million. 149 million working and 8 million knowingly unemployed. That leaves 163 million. There are 45 million retirees so that brings the number down to 118 million, although there is a small percentage of retirees who still do work. There are about 70 million children under the age of 16 who cannot be counted into the labor force. So now we are down to 48 million. What we have not accounted for are the disabled, full-time college students who do not work, stay at home moms/dads, and anyone who chooses not to work becuase they don't have to.

The labor force participation rate in Bush's last year in office was 66%. The current labor force participation rate is 62.4%. That is the lowest the labor force participation rate has been in 38 years. The current economy under Obama would not be able to support a labor force participation rate of 66% and maintain the current unemployment rate. The unemployment rate would dramatically rise if the labor force participation rate were at 66% again.

 

[U2Edge]

Can't wait for Obama to officially pass the great Reagan

We already know he is a better President

Its not clear yet that he will past Reagan, and if he does its because the labor force participation rate has dramatically dropped since Obama has been in office.

Obama has done some good things, but he is probably the worst President of the past 40 years, but he still has 15 months to go so not everything is in yet to fully decide on that.