Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents Since World War II

[Strongbow]

Remember those Budweiser Frog commercials?

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

I see your still unable to engage in a discussion in this forum without making irrelevant childish comments about other forum members.

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?

When have I complained about the deficit numerous times? Just show us once!

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.

Not all economist agree with that point of view.

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.

Perfect evidence here that would rather talk about STRONGBOW than unemployment, Lyndon Johnson, Reagan or Obama. Can't you for once leave this personal crap behind?

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.

So one is not allowed to make any such comparison between the Presidents? We can't have a list like this now, a year from now, or two years from now. The reason we can't have such a list comparing the Presidents is that President Obama might be at the bottom or near the bottom.

In fact, for the 2012 election campaign, we should ban any discussion of unemployment because it could unfairly impact Obama's electoral chances.

I assure you, if Bush's name was at the bottom, the reaction to this thread would be entirely different.

It is you who is asking us to forget your bias and lack of context history here.

How can you discuss any issue in this forum if your always going to be making personal comments about what you think another forum member did in a thread from the past?

Basically what your saying is, whether or not the posting of any facts or figures is biased or not, is dependent on who is posting it?

If someone who voted for Obama post this data, then its unbiased. If someone who voted for McCain posts this data, its biased. That seems to be your logic.

 

[Strongbow]

Because we're all too stupid to be able to read a list of presidents and figure out which one is our current president.

Some people may have thought that because Obama is only 18 months into his Presidency, that he would not have been included in the list. Putting it in bold is just helpful reminder that he is on the list. People put various things in bold in here all the time which is sometimes helpful.

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.

Damn, if only I had gotten someone else, an Obama supporter, an independent, to post the list comparing the average unemployment rate during each of the 12 Presidential administrations for which there is raw data for, then it would be regarded as factual and unbiased.

 

[Strongbow]

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.

I see a list, not a comment.

 

[Strongbow]

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.

Economist, politicians and journalist make these comparisons all the time. I did this comparison on unemployment in the most unbiased way possible. I did not take any high points or low points, leave out any record or period of time. Every bit of data that is available from the Bereau of Labor Statistics on unemployment was used.

I never stated that the averages made Lyndon Johnson the greatest President of all time or Barack Obama the worst. I never even commented on what impact if any each Presidential administration had on the unemployment numbers while they were in office. But the US population was indeed impacted by the job environment as shown with these numbers and it no doubt has had an impact on politics.

 

[Bluer White]

YouTube - Obama on Unemployment: "At Least It's Not at 12, 13 or 15 Percent"

Just another garden variety pol...

Nothing about this president is special, he was only the next in a line of jokers.

 

[U2387]

I see your still unable to engage in a discussion in this forum without making irrelevant childish comments about other forum members.

It is neither irrelevant nor childish.





When have I complained about the deficit numerous times? Just show us once!

We had several long discussions about debt as a percentage of GDP, Obama and Bush, Clinton and Reagan on the deficit, etc.

You can look up the history as easily as I can.

Not all economist agree with that point of view.

All the major economic research firms have come to the same conclusion I have. The overwhelming consensus is on the view I stated.

Talk to McCain's Advisor, Moody's Mark Zandi.

Perfect evidence here that would rather talk about STRONGBOW than unemployment, Lyndon Johnson, Reagan or Obama. Can't you for once leave this personal crap behind?

Notice you did not quote the parts where I went in depth about unemployment.

You never do.

All I am doing is pointing out why you are in no way credible here.

As a matter of fact, and this is in the posting history as well, I very rarely make any kind of personal attacks.

You still don't understand the difference between "Strongbow is a (fill in the blank)" personal attack and an entirely relevant discussion of your posting history and how you present the issues.

Again, 99% of what I say in FYM is intelligent discussion of the issues. I am as guilty as anyone of saying the odd stupid thing once in a while, and I readily admit that. However, you read these threads, Sting, and you know very well that I don't just parrot the liberals here. I am actually a pretty moderate Democrat.

So one is not allowed to make any such comparison between the Presidents? We can't have a list like this now, a year from now, or two years from now. The reason we can't have such a list comparing the Presidents is that President Obama might be at the bottom or near the bottom.

In fact, for the 2012 election campaign, we should ban any discussion of unemployment because it could unfairly impact Obama's electoral chances.

This is a whopper!

Yes, buddy, U2387 and his band of thought police are coming to your door to stop this discussion from happening.

Shocking.

No one here in this thread has said you cant make these comparisons or that they should be banned or curtailed with each day we get closer to the 2012 election.

We are just pointing out that it is a rather pointless exercise at this point in Obama's Presidency. And we all know why you posted it, it fits right in with your history.

Plus, can anyone without a bias honestly make a case for Obama being responsible for the unemployment situation we have today?

I know of no credible and objective economic source that puts any blame on Obama's policies thus far. I know of none who have suggested that the recovery could have gone faster given the circumstances.

What would McCain have done that would have made it any better than it is now? Want to answer that?

He would probably have done a big stimulus(anyone wouldve, we had to, everyone was saying that in late 2008) and then further jacked up the deficits with more tax cuts that didn't work for the last 8 years.

I assure you, if Bush's name was at the bottom, the reaction to this thread would be entirely different.

I assure everyone if Sting liked the President in office now, this thread would never have existed.

How can you discuss any issue in this forum if your always going to be making personal comments about what you think another forum member did in a thread from the past?

Look at my history again.

There is very little personal commentary when compared to discussion of issues. I wont put my intelligence or wit up against anyone here, but I will put my willingness to discuss in a thoughtful way up against absolutely anyone here, yourself ESPECIALLY in half a second.

You are no one to talk about anyone's record of discussion on issues here, never mind mine. You know I post substance, you are just denying reality yet again.

Basically what your saying is, whether or not the posting of any facts or figures is biased or not, is dependent on who is posting it?

If someone who voted for Obama post this data, then its unbiased. If someone who voted for McCain posts this data, its biased. That seems to be your logic.[

What was your point in posting it?

We all are pretty well aware of the statistics over time.

You are trying to make a political point against Obama, and doing it in an unfair way we all know your rabid bias.

Plus, you are posting it not in response to a question or for the sake of local pub trivia night, you are posting it on a POLITICAL DISCUSSION BOARD.

You are trying to start a discussion. So obviously, more has to be read into it than the numbers, if you want the thread to be successful.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

since this is a u2 site and all, i liken looking at the unemployment rates now as i did when people were talking about u2's setlists at the beginning of the american leg.

stay with me a moment. some complained just a couple shows into the leg that it was static, nothing was changing, etc. i (along with numerous others) said give it time, wait until the leg - or even better, the entire tour was over before comparing. apples to apples and all that. it wasn't fair to put a handful of shows up against the five legs of vertigo as some were doing.

it's like this now. we're not even halfway into obama's term, and he's being compared to people who were president for eight years. even comparing against the one term presidents is unfair, i think, only because we're comparing finished stories against obama's. who knows how the next 2 1/2 years will play out. not even going into whether or not he'll run in 2012 or whether he'd win, i just think comparing 4-8 years against 1 1/2 is inaccurate and more than a little unfair. though bvs said this in the very first reply, so yeah.

 

[purpleoscar]

Just another garden variety pol...

Nothing about this president is special, he was only the next in a line of jokers.

Most politicians aren't completely honest because they know the public wants their cake and to eat it too. Usually there has to be a debt crisis before there is a groundswell from the public to urge politicians to do something about it (eg. Greece) otherwise the current administration is happy to pass the buck on to the next one even if they have to print money and test their creditworthiness.

 

[Strongbow]

It is neither irrelevant nor childish.

Oh it is both. FYM is a place to discuss issues where people should be engaging in respectful discussion. Making negative comments about other forum members certainly is not in keeping with that.

 

[Strongbow]

When have I complained about the deficit numerous times? Just show us once!

We had several long discussions about debt as a percentage of GDP, Obama and Bush, Clinton and Reagan on the deficit, etc.

You can look up the history as easily as I can.

Debt as a percentage of GDP IS NOT THE DEFICIT!

Your the one that claims there was some discussion on the deficit, so if that is in fact the case, you should be able to show us, easily. Its your claim, you should be able to prove it, easily, if its true.

 

[Strongbow]

All I am doing is pointing out why you are in no way credible here.

. .

Why? Are you incapable of stating a point made or argument made is in your view not credible, without claiming the PERSON is not credible? Why can't you focus your points and opinions on the issue without discussing what someone said in the past or in another thread?

As a matter of fact, and this is in the posting history as well, I very rarely make any kind of personal attacks.

You still don't understand the difference between "Strongbow is a (fill in the blank)" personal attack and an entirely relevant discussion of your posting history and how you present the issues.

Why is making negative comments about another forum members posting history relevant to any specific issue being discussed in a thread? Why can't you discuss issues like the economy, Obama, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Republican party etc, without making these strange negative comments about other forum members?

If you were invited on C-Span or CNN to discuss your opinions on these issues, would you need to make comments about Strongbow in order to get your point across?

 

[Strongbow]

I assure everyone if Sting liked the President in office now, this thread would never have existed.

Oh, so if anyone likes the President in office now, they would NEVER EVER post a list comparing the average unemployment rates of the past 12 presidents?

I opposed candidate Obama on a number of issues as well as feeling he was far less experienced and prepared for the office when compared to McCain.

Since Obama has become president though, I have generally approved of most of his policies and decisions as president.

There is very little personal commentary when compared to discussion of issues.

The point is why is there any personal commentary?

What was your point in posting it?

We all are pretty well aware of the statistics over time.

These statistics come from ALL the monthly unemployment rates from January 1948 to June 2010. A total of 750 different monthly unemployment numbers to be exact. I had to add up each month of unemployment numbers during which each president served and then divide the number by the total months. It took a good bit of time to do that. I was curious to see what the numbers were for all the Presidents for which there was data. I previously only knew the averages for Clinton and Bush. I was interested to see what the results were and thought others here might find it interesting as well.

 

[Strongbow]

since this is a u2 site and all, i liken looking at the unemployment rates now as i did when people were talking about u2's setlists at the beginning of the american leg.

stay with me a moment. some complained just a couple shows into the leg that it was static, nothing was changing, etc. i (along with numerous others) said give it time, wait until the leg - or even better, the entire tour was over before comparing. apples to apples and all that. it wasn't fair to put a handful of shows up against the five legs of vertigo as some were doing.

it's like this now. we're not even halfway into obama's term, and he's being compared to people who were president for eight years. even comparing against the one term presidents is unfair, i think, only because we're comparing finished stories against obama's. who knows how the next 2 1/2 years will play out. not even going into whether or not he'll run in 2012 or whether he'd win, i just think comparing 4-8 years against 1 1/2 is inaccurate and more than a little unfair. though bvs said this in the very first reply, so yeah.

Don't worry, as each new month of unemployment data becames available, we'll add it to the results.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Oh it is both. FYM is a place to discuss issues where people should be engaging in respectful discussion. Making negative comments about other forum members certainly is not in keeping with that.

as you've been told before, please leave the moderating to the moderators. if you think someone is breaking a rule it can be reported. if you don't want to read someone's post, please use your ignore list.

Don't worry, as each new month of unemployment data becames available, we'll add it to the results.

thanks, that doesn't address my point at all.

 

[U2387]

For the final time, and I can't emphasize it enough, you can post it all you want, like or dislike the policies of the President. What I am saying is that you, Strongbow, posting this in a forum meant to start discussion, its not a reference page, not a response to an inquiry for BLS information, is only intended to cast Obama in a bad light.

In the further discussion that has ensued, you haven't yet told us why Obama should be held responsible for these numbers. You have made the Fox News laughable "we agree with the lefties" claim that the stimulus is not big enough, but that you most certainly just got from some website or book that was in front of you.

All you did was put the numbers out there out of context with Obama at the bottom, when he hasn't even had a full term, and you hoped people would be dumb enough to say "worst President ever."

I don't know why I am even talking about this Infinitum 98 really said it all here.

These statistics come from ALL the monthly unemployment rates from January 1948 to June 2010. A total of 750 different monthly unemployment numbers to be exact. I had to add up each month of unemployment numbers during which each president served and then divide the number by the total months. It took a good bit of time to do that. I was curious to see what the numbers were for all the Presidents for which there was data. I previously only knew the averages for Clinton and Bush. I was interested to see what the results were and thought others here might find it interesting as well.

You didn't have to do anything- the numbers- by quarter, by year, by month etc are all out there for anyone who looks for them.

We are all pretty well aware of what the unemployment numbers have been historically.


You are posting them in a forum trying to start a discussion, and, as I keep emphasizing, commenting on how you post about ISSUES is not a personal attack.

You are literally the only one here who keeps trying to come back with things that you have been factually proven wrong on years ago like Iraq. That you cant see reality is relevant to a discussion over what you post.

I am quite capable of discussing issues without discussing people here, I pointed out my posting history.

If I were asked on CNN, of course, I could discuss issues like anyone else, I do it here all the time in spite of what you want to keep saying.

It is not at all uncommon on CNN or CSPAN programs to have someone like Rush Limbaugh or the Drudge Report on the right or Michael Moore on the left brought up and their claims are taken with a grain of salt by the hosts and guests because of their history of framing issues and taking them out of context to bolster their biases.

Just as I suspected, another unproductive exchange, you still haven't told us why Obama is responsible for this. Never will. You never discuss issues, just post out of context stats and repeat long debunked claims that you've cut and pasted from God knows where.

I am done with this back and forth with you in this thread, we all know why you posted what you did here, no one has defended you.

The rest of the forum is not interested in reading another back and forth between the two of us, and I am not interested in engaging in one.

 

[maycocksean]

Economist, politicians and journalist make these comparisons all the time. I did this comparison on unemployment in the most unbiased way possible. I did not take any high points or low points, leave out any record or period of time. Every bit of data that is available from the Bereau of Labor Statistics on unemployment was used.

I never stated that the averages made Lyndon Johnson the greatest President of all time or Barack Obama the worst. I never even commented on what impact if any each Presidential administration had on the unemployment numbers while they were in office. But the US population was indeed impacted by the job environment as shown with these numbers and it no doubt has had an impact on politics.

This reminds me of when I write one of my fifth graders names down for disrupting class and they're all:

"What! I wasn't talking!"

"You're making noise."

"Yes, but you said no talking--I wasn't talking."

"Yes, but you were being disruptive."

"What--I coughed. You're writing my name down for coughing now! It's not FAIR!"

 

[Strongbow]

For the final time, and I can't emphasize it enough, you can post it all you want, like or dislike the policies of the President. What I am saying is that you, Strongbow, posting this in a forum meant to start discussion, its not a reference page, not a response to an inquiry for BLS information, is only intended to cast Obama in a bad light.

I have been posting in this forum for nearly as long as it has existed and it is indeed open to the posting of what some consider interesting information, which MAY start a discusion on certain issues, but certainly does not have too.

Your essentially stating that if ANYONE, of any political party or idealogy were to post a comparison list of the Presidents on the average unemployment rate while they were in office, then it was intended to cast Obama in a bad light.

In fact, no one will be able make any comparitive list of economic statistics between the Presidents if they include Obama without being accused of intending to cast him in a bad light.

In the further discussion that has ensued, you haven't yet told us why Obama should be held responsible for these numbers.

I've never said Obama or any President should be held responsible for anything in this thread.

You didn't have to do anything- the numbers- by quarter, by year, by month etc are all out there for anyone who looks for them.

Thats not what the list is comparing! The list is comparing the average unemployment rate during each Presidents time in office. Numbers by year or quarter are often rounded so to find the average, 750 months had to be added up and divided based on the length of time each President was in office.

We are all pretty well aware of what the unemployment numbers have been historically.

Again, I knew of only Bill Clinton and George Bush's exact averages for unemployment because I had caculated them. I did not know what it was for the other Presidents and so I caculated it and put the results into a list.

You are literally the only one here who keeps trying to come back with things that you have been factually proven wrong on years ago like Iraq.

I have not been proven factually wrong on any of the significant things with regards to Iraq. Most of my positions on Iraq are held by millions of people around the country as well as General Norman Swartkoph, General Colin Powel, General Paetreus, George Bush, Condaleeza Rice, Richard Armatage, Donald Rumsfeld, Kenneth Pollack, Michael O'Halon, Secretary Of State James Baker, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and the majority of those serving in the US military based on the annual Military Times Polls.

Holding the view that it was necessary to remove Saddam from power in 2003 for reasons of US and international security is a legitimate view point!

Holding the view that the 2007 surge in Iraq was necessary and has dramatically reduced the violence there as well as helping to improve the political and economic situation there is also a legitmate view point!

I predict that as time goes by the majority of the US public will also agree with these view points. In fact, the majority of the US public already agrees that the Surge is indeed the success so many have claimed and accurately shown it to be.

 

[Strongbow]

This reminds me of when I write one of my fifth graders names down for disrupting class and they're all:

"What! I wasn't talking!"

"You're making noise."

"Yes, but you said no talking--I wasn't talking."

"Yes, but you were being disruptive."

"What--I coughed. You're writing my name down for coughing now! It's not FAIR!"

I'm confident most of your 5th graders could write a more mature and relevant post than that.

 

[Diemen]

I thought you were about discussing the issues and not personal commentary, Sting.

 

[U2387]

Financeguy, May, 2008:

Strongbow caught out bullshitting again? Quell surprise.

Iraq- a little thing called Weapons of Mass Destruction, you have only been proven factually wrong about that.

Bill Clinton, Powell, etc and many US military generals and service people have positions on this very, very different than yours, no matter what you assert.

But we've already discussed that to no end.

 

[U2387]

I'm confident most of your 5th graders could write a more mature and relevant post than that.

I'm confident that you are the one who continually exhibits the behavior of a 5th grader here.

Maycocksean is simply pointing out the obvious with you, he's been around a while here too.

Proven wrong and keep stubbornly saying the same thing over and over and over and over, all while throwing your toy and screaming no fair about the rules.

You're a real beautiful one, Strongbow, thats for sure.

No one is saying that posting this automatically identifies one as intending to show the President in a bad light.

Just answer one question: why should we believe you that you are just posting this unemployment information for our information given your rabid commitment to out of context numbers that bolster your biases?

You are asking us to forget a lot about you.

There is a reason no one here buys your "I'm just curious/putting it out there explanation."

 

[maycocksean]

I'm confident most of your 5th graders could write a more mature and relevant post than that.

Hey, that stings! (sorry, couldn't pass up the pun, )

You're probably right. They are master debaters, these kids.

It's SO annoying.

 

[Strongbow]

Financeguy, May, 2008:


Iraq- a little thing called Weapons of Mass Destruction, you have only been proven factually wrong about that.

Bill Clinton, Powell, etc and many US military generals and service people have positions on this very, very different than yours, no matter what you assert.

But we've already discussed that to no end.

Some US intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction was proven to be wrong, but the necessity of removing Saddam from power was NEVER dependent on what the coalition forces would be lucky enough to find after Saddam's removal.

Bill Clinton gave his support to the invasion the week before it happened on Larry King Live. I've never heard or seen Bill Clinton state publically that the 2003 removal of Saddam was a mistake and that it would be better for the world if Saddam were still in power.

Powell campaigned for the invasion and after leaving office on the Barbara Walters show in 2005 stated:

"When President Bush said it was not tolerable for Saddam to remain in violatin of the UN resolutions, I'm right there with on the use of MILITARY FORCE"!

I've never heard or seen Colin Powell state anything that would go against is PUBLIC statement on this issue made during the Barbara Walters interview in 2005.

The majority of the US military as confirmed from the MILITARY TIMES POLLs given every year have shown that a majority of the military thinks removing Saddam in 2003 was the right course of action.

 

[BVS]

 

[Strongbow]

Unemployment decreased from 9.7% in May to 9.5% in June. Despite the decrease, the average unemployment rate since Obama became President increases from 9.41% to 9.42%.


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: 9.42%


Besides Barack Obama, Ford was in office the smallest amount of time, about 30 months. If the unemployment rate over the next 30 months averaged only 6.78%, it would be enough for the average rate while Obama was President to become tied with Gerald Ford at the end of his term. If Obama gets a second term, the minimum average rate over that time period needed to come in equal to Ford would be 7.39%

For the average unemployment rate to equal what it did during George W. Bush's time in office, during just Obama's first term, the average over the next 30 months would have to be 2.78%. If Obama were President for two full terms, the unemployment average over the next 78 months would have to be 4.31% to equal the average unemployment rate during George W. Bush's 96 months in office.

For the average unemployment rate to equal what did during Lyndon Johnson's time in office, during just Obama's first term, the average over the next 30 months would have to be 1.05%. If Obama were President for two full terms, the unemployment average over the next 78 months would have to be 2.99% to equal the average unemployment rate during Lyndon Johnson's time in office.

 

[U2387]

Some US intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction was proven to be wrong, but the necessity of removing Saddam from power was NEVER dependent on what the coalition forces would be lucky enough to find after Saddam's removal.

Bill Clinton gave his support to the invasion the week before it happened on Larry King Live. I've never heard or seen Bill Clinton state publically that the 2003 removal of Saddam was a mistake and that it would be better for the world if Saddam were still in power.

Powell campaigned for the invasion and after leaving office on the Barbara Walters show in 2005 stated:

"When President Bush said it was not tolerable for Saddam to remain in violatin of the UN resolutions, I'm right there with on the use of MILITARY FORCE"!

I've never heard or seen Colin Powell state anything that would go against is PUBLIC statement on this issue made during the Barbara Walters interview in 2005.

The majority of the US military as confirmed from the MILITARY TIMES POLLs given every year have shown that a majority of the military thinks removing Saddam in 2003 was the right course of action.

We've been over all of this before, you are flat out oversimplifying, lying and misrepresenting.

Clinton was vocal throughout about letting the inspections process that Bush stopped continue.

Powell had many private conversations with Biden that have been well publicized and he did not bother to refute them. Powell had a lot more sense than to go along with this, he did what he thought he had to do to save face.

No interest in anything more you have to say.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'm starting to think there's a few discussions, or something to that effect, going on around here that could use this. Good lord....

Angela

 

[Diemen]

No interest in anything more you have to say.

Then I suggest (again) that you quit responding to him.