Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents Since World War II - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-03-2010, 03:57 PM   #76
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 12:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
If its inappropriate to look at the numbers so far while Obama has been in office, at what point, specifically which month, do you think it would be appropriate to view the numbers?
When the numbers start to go UP, that's when!!!


(btw, I reject the idea that the White House completely controls the economy & employment)
__________________

__________________
Bluer White is online now  
Old 07-03-2010, 04:55 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
(btw, I reject the idea that the White House completely controls the economy & employment)
Jeez are we still on about this? LOL
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 07-03-2010, 11:04 PM   #78
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
All due respect, I am tired of reading it too...
Then don't.

Quote:
What are we looking at the numbers to find?

Remember you posted "unbiased facts", as soon as you contextualize the comparison of those numbers, they are no longer objective. So what is it you're trying to say?
Its just a comparison, nothing more, nothing less. I did not know what the figures were before and decided to caculate them and post the results.

Quote:
Ok. So you know you're longer being 'objective', right?
Observations about facts "Ike is higher on the list than GHWB" can still be objective, but as soon as you assert what that is supposed to mean (as you do in the above quote) then you are subjectively framing the data yourself.
Wrong. Its a fact that the unemploment numbers are brought up by economist, politicians, and journalist more often than most factors when discussing the economy in the media. Thats an objective fact. What would be subjective would be to say that unemployment numbers are more important than the rest of the numbers when looking at the economy.


Quote:
And because of this, it's akin to asking (are you a sports fan?) if Mark Sanchez will ever be as good as John Elway. It's a projected guess. It's incomplete. It's nothing more than pure speculation.
Well, the Obama administration is certainly looking at the issue and trying to estimate, speculate, what unemployment will be 3 months, 6 months, a year, 2 years from now. Its important to do so when they are deciding what next to do on the economy as well as looking at their re-election chances in 2012. These are numbers that everyone is looking at and with good reason.

Quote:
So to answer your question, you can select whatever time-frame you want to say whatever you want, just stop pretending these posts/arguments are unbiased and objective
How is posting raw data on 12 Presidents from the Bereau of Labor Statistics biased and subjective?


Quote:
Because you fail basic logic every time you go there. It's like your nonsensical selective data and ramblings about GDP and what it's supposed to mean. It's like using album sales to signify anything other than album sold. This is basic stuff here. I don't have a problem with arguing these factors, I use objective data myself to make subjective points.
Oh boy, more personal BS. Again, all I have posted is raw unemployment data. Thats it.

Quote:
To address the numbers provided, it's my opinion that Obama's only apple to apple on the list, for any number of reasons is Jimmy Carter. There is no inherent qualifier in my mind to what this list would signify. You have two one-term Presidents at the very top who had good economies and were sunk by war issues. So how is that comparative to Obama? You have several President's on the list who spent about 82% more time in office than Obama, with varying degrees of success. They are spread out all over. What's this supposed to speak to? Re-election chances? America going to hell in a handbasket? Or just "evidence that Obama generally sucks"?
Again, this is simply an objective and unbiased comparison of unemployment data that was available. It becomes subjective when you start to decide what is comparable and what is not.

Quote:
I don't particularly have a man-crush on him. Never did, but I'm just tired of seeing your lines of argument.
Whats my argument?

Quote:
But if someone wanted to, they could try and make it say whatever they wanted to. And that's fine, but we're not dealing with only "facts" in your arguments
LOL. What is my argument here?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 12:58 AM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 12:34 AM
Sting, I think the boldface font of Obama's name in your OP spoke volumes about what your argument was.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 02:05 AM   #80
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 12:34 AM
Why don't we stop this run around and ask one simple question.

Can you tell us, amidst the objective data which no one disputes, one single thing Obama has done that economists have found to have contributed to driving up the unemployment rate?

Because it is clear in the premise of this thread, given the biases of the original poster, that "big, bad Obama and his goddamn unemployment" is what is being hinted at. Its about as subtle as a train wreck and as objective as Al Qaeda's analysis of America.

All the data I have seen from legitimate economic sources, liberal, conservative and moderate has decidedly come down on the side of Obama. There is not a single objective and credible analysis out there that has unemployment lower had the stimulus not been done. In fact, it is just the opposite- the stimulus has undeniably kept a mess from going off a cliff.

So where is it? Where is the Obama policy that has driven up the rate?

If you can't tell us, then tell us why you made the thread less than 2 years into his Presidency. It wasn't for fun, you and the rest of us all know that.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 02:06 AM   #81
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 12:34 AM
Why don't we stop this run around and ask one simple question.

Can you tell us, amidst the objective data which no one disputes, one single thing Obama has done that economists have found to have contributed to driving up the unemployment rate?

Because it is clear in the premise of this thread, given the biases of the original poster, that "big, bad Obama and his goddamn unemployment" is what is being hinted at. Its about as subtle as a train wreck and as objective as Al Qaeda's analysis of America.

All the data I have seen from legitimate economic sources, liberal, conservative and moderate has decidedly come down on the side of Obama. There is not a single objective and credible analysis out there that has unemployment lower had the stimulus not been done. In fact, it is just the opposite- the stimulus has undeniably kept a mess from going off a cliff.

So where is it? Where is the Obama policy that has driven up the rate?

If you can't tell us, then tell us why you made the thread less than 2 years into his Presidency. It wasn't for fun, you and the rest of us all know that.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 04:06 AM   #82
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Sting, I think the boldface font of Obama's name in your OP spoke volumes about what your argument was.
So showing everyone where the current President is in a group of 12 presidents is automatically biased? Were at the point now where boldface font to indicate where a sitting President is in a list is automatically bias. Interesting.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 04:17 AM   #83
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Why don't we stop this run around and ask one simple question.

Can you tell us, amidst the objective data which no one disputes, one single thing Obama has done that economists have found to have contributed to driving up the unemployment rate?

Because it is clear in the premise of this thread, given the biases of the original poster, that "big, bad Obama and his goddamn unemployment" is what is being hinted at. Its about as subtle as a train wreck and as objective as Al Qaeda's analysis of America.

All the data I have seen from legitimate economic sources, liberal, conservative and moderate has decidedly come down on the side of Obama. There is not a single objective and credible analysis out there that has unemployment lower had the stimulus not been done. In fact, it is just the opposite- the stimulus has undeniably kept a mess from going off a cliff.

So where is it? Where is the Obama policy that has driven up the rate?

If you can't tell us, then tell us why you made the thread less than 2 years into his Presidency. It wasn't for fun, you and the rest of us all know that.
Well there are many people, often liberal democrats, who complain that the Presidents stimulus has been far too little. I think the liberals might have a point here.

The biases of the original poster? You forget, I approve of essentially everything that Obama has done since he became President. I'm willing to acknowledge sound policy regardless of which party is implementing it, unlike a large number of people in this forum.

Remember though, there are 11 other Presidents on this list. Unfortunately because someone they like happens to be at the bottom of this list, this thread is litered with angry and irational tirades about how the list is "unobjective", "biased", "stupid", and "shameful".

I'm sorry, but its just the factual data that is currently available. Its as unbiased and objective as you can get. Reagan is not high on the list either.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 10:41 AM   #84
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
So showing everyone where the current President is in a group of 12 presidents is automatically biased? Were at the point now where boldface font to indicate where a sitting President is in a list is automatically bias. Interesting.
no, but starting a thread like this now when there's a democrat in power and we're in the middle of a recession when there were eight years beforehand to post these stats here does seem a bit curious.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 11:33 AM   #85
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 12:34 AM
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Well there are many people, often liberal democrats, who complain that the Presidents stimulus has been far too little. I think the liberals might have a point here.

The biases of the original poster? You forget, I approve of essentially everything that Obama has done since he became President. I'm willing to acknowledge sound policy regardless of which party is implementing it, unlike a large number of people in this forum.
Please.

I hope the "large number of people" wasn't a comment directed at me, because I am far from a check the box for the liberal agenda Democrat and I've made that clear many times.

Remember those Budweiser Frog commercials?

You talk out of both sides of your mouth more than those frogs.

You have complained about the deficit numerous times, you clearly take the conservative limited gov't tinkering w/the economy view, what would you and your friends have honestly done had the stimulus been any bigger?

They already want Obama's head now, never mind if there had been a trillion plus stimulus.

For what its worth, it was headed more in that direction until Republicans and a good amount of fiscally responsible in name only Democrats decided to make a big uproar over it.

I think the stimulus could have stood to keep the appx. $40 billion in funding for states that Nelson and Lieberman jettisoned, but other than that, it was plenty big and widespread to be effective. You can't drive anywhere without seeing "project funded by American recovery and reinvestment act" signs.

Plus, economists across the board often compare its effectiveness in improving the economy with the ineffectiveness of the way too small Bush stimulus passed with a Democratic Congress in early 2008.

The reason we are not out of the woods entirely yet has nothing to do with a too small stimulus, it has to do with the deep, financial system ruining recession we just went through. You brought up Reagan, the early 80s recession was deep, and even after strong growth coming out, unemployment numbers still left him near the bottom of the list. Is that Reagan's fault? NO, NO and no again. Its just that, no matter what you do as President, the private sector takes a while to regain all the jobs and confidence after a deep recession.

The late 2000s "great recession" is so much worse than the early 80s because it took down the entire investment banking system and is now bringing Greece, Portugal and maybe the EU with it. That spillover concern has a lot to do with the start/stop nature of the uncertain recovery we see now.

Bottom line, unemployment always peaks after recessions have technically ended(1983, 1992, 2003,late 2009) and takes a bit to go down even after mild recessions. No matter who is President.

Quote:
Remember though, there are 11 other Presidents on this list. Unfortunately because someone they like happens to be at the bottom of this list, this thread is litered with angry and irational tirades about how the list is "unobjective", "biased", "stupid", and "shameful".

I'm sorry, but its just the factual data that is currently available. Its as unbiased and objective as you can get. Reagan is not high on the list either.
Right now you are pretending that you don't have a history of posting out of context statistics that supposedly back up your views on things.

No one is arguing that this is factual data that 11 other Presidents had during their terms as well.

I am well aware of these numbers, I am well aware Reagan is not near the top, I am well aware people I like and don't like fall up and down the list.

So is everyone else in FYM for the most part.

What is so dishonest about what you are doing is your choice of NOW, less than 2 years into Obama's Presidency when he inherited a nosedive, to compare it to all other Presidencies that either had 4 or 8 full years.


It is you who is asking us to forget your bias and lack of context history here.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 12:13 PM   #86
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 11:34 PM
u2387, isn't revisionist history great?
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 12:45 PM   #87
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
So showing everyone where the current President is in a group of 12 presidents is automatically biased? Were at the point now where boldface font to indicate where a sitting President is in a list is automatically bias. Interesting.
Because we're all too stupid to be able to read a list of presidents and figure out which one is our current president.

It's awfully cute of you to be all coy about it, but it's very easy to view your posting history here, see what kind of stats you post and where, and figure out your bias. Very easy.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 01:28 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:34 PM
StrongBow if you want to criticize Democrat policies then use their own words:

YouTube - Pelosi Unemployment
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 02:56 PM   #89
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
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: 9.36%
This is the stupidest comment I've ever seen. Its so pointless that its even hard to argue against.

Disclosure: I'm a moderate fiscal Republican.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 03:05 PM   #90
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
All that has been presented here are FACTS. Unbiased facts straight from the Bureau Of Labor Statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics database goes back to January 1948, which has allowed for the inclusion here of 12 different Presidential administrations.
Although they are unbiased, it makes absolutely no sense to compare the various presidents, especially Bush's average and Obama's average, like you pointed out.

Either you're smart enough to know why it makes no sense to compare and are just doing so to lead dumb people to believe that Obama is no good, or you're dumb enough to make a judgment on Obama's vs. Bush's handling of the economy based on these numbers.
__________________

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com