I don't know how to post these graphs...
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
They show that unemployment rate when Bush took office was 4.2% and when he left office was 7.8%
When Obama took office it was 7.8%, rose to 10.1% and then dropped to the current level of 9.1%
Just click on the "Insert Image" button above the text entry box and put the ip address of the picture inside an two "img /img" inside square brackets that appear. The address for this particular image, "http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_14413_1315504684613.gif" was found by right-clicking on the graphic and clicking on "Properties" on the menu that pops up.
(http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_14413_1315504684613.gif)
Oh come on RM, you should know that republican's will just overlook this as manipulating data to tell the story you want to tell. Or they will say that the only reason the unemployment numbers leveled off were because Bush passed TARP.
You lost them at the word facts.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 08, 2011, 12:26:59 PM
I don't know how to post these graphs...
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
They show that unemployment rate when Bush took office was 4.2% and when he left office was 7.8%
When Obama took office it was 7.8%, rose to 10.1% and then dropped to the current level of 9.1%
I'd pick something better to crow about if I were you. Maintaining an unemployment rate of above 9% for most of his presidency is nothing to point to as an achievement. It's only been below 9% for four months of his presidency. He's dropped from the high number under his watch a whopping 1%. That's embarrassing.
In comparison, unemployment was at or below 6% for 85 months under President Bush and at or below 5% for 43 months of his presidency.
President Bush turned around a high u/e number of 6.3 in 2003 to a low of 4.4, nearly two points lower.
Again, you like to use goal posts of the beginning and end of the Bush administration so you can ignore facts like these as well as the massive gains and record high made on the Dow during the Bush years.
But I guess when your guy stinks as bad as this one does, you can always resort to trying to blame the previous guy or ignore certain facts to try and make your guy look better.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 08, 2011, 01:29:14 PM
In comparison, unemployment was at or below 6% for 85 months under President Bush and at or below 5% for 43 months of his presidency.
So give Obama 85 months and then compare. Heck, give him 43 months. [/size]
Perhaps you would like to recreate the circumstances that drove unemployment down during those 43 months? Goldman Sach, Bernie Madoff, expanding real estate bubble and our responses to 911 which included huge employment ramp up for Homeland Security?
QuotePerhaps you would like to recreate the circumstances that drove unemployment down during those 43 months? Goldman Sach, Bernie Madoff, expanding real estate bubble and our responses to 911 which included huge employment ramp up for Homeland Security?
...left over Clinton policies...
Aquaman, you forgot about the accounting scandals and unsustainable false business equity bubble which occurred in the late 1990's and early '00's that resulted in an unemployment rate of 4.2% at the end of the Clinton administration. Where's your blame for that?
It is what it is. I'd hope we are all pragmatic enough to realize there's a certain amount of luck in a president getting to preside over relatively good economic times. For Reagan, he enjoyed the benefit of a rapidly growing semiconductor market and all the things that could wind up in like the explosive growth in personal computers at home and work. For Clinton, he was blessed with the massive growth and exploitation of the internet, cellular phones, biotechnology, etc.
Many market segments enjoyed growth from 2001 to 2009, energy prices also bolstered the economy under President Bush. You make it sound as if it was only by nefarious means that we had low unemployment during those years.
Quote from: Townsend on September 08, 2011, 01:45:12 PM
...left over Clinton policies...
Oh yeah, I forgot that insistence on taking responsibility...
The thought process goes like this, "If Bush didn't do it, and the republican congress didn't do it, then obviously it was the democratic congress, Clinton and of course Obama". You can make a pretty good case for those policies being by consensus.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 08, 2011, 01:51:39 PM
Aquaman, you forgot about the accounting scandals and unsustainable false business equity bubble which occurred in the late 1990's and early '00's that resulted in an unemployment rate of 4.2% at the end of the Clinton administration. Where's your blame for that?
It is what it is. I'd hope we are all pragmatic enough to realize there's a certain amount of luck in a president getting to preside over relatively good economic times. For Reagan, he enjoyed the benefit of a rapidly growing semiconductor market and all the things that could wind up in like the explosive growth in personal computers at home and work. For Clinton, he was blessed with the massive growth and exploitation of the internet, cellular phones, biotechnology, etc.
Many market segments enjoyed growth from 2001 to 2009, energy prices also bolstered the economy under President Bush. You make it sound as if it was only by nefarious means that we had low unemployment during those years.
Not at all. I was just fleshing out some of the reasons for the fluctuations during two, long, excruciating Bush terms. From what I can tell as an outsider to the system, we seem to be a pretty bumbling mess of financial affairs. Lots of blame to go around yet it all tends to settle on Bush and Obama.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2011, 01:57:25 PM
Not at all. I was just fleshing out some of the reasons for the fluctuations during two, long, excruciating Bush terms. From what I can tell as an outsider to the system, we seem to be a pretty bumbling mess of financial affairs. Lots of blame to go around yet it all tends to settle on Bush and Obama.
Its because Bush is white
Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 08, 2011, 02:03:57 PM
Its because Bush is white
Thank you for pointing out the huge elephant in the room ;)
" The REAL USA Unemployment rate is 30% http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-REAL-USA-Unemployment-rate-is-30/135828199819572
The official Unemployment rate is supposed to be 9.5%. Let's see if the Stats add up though....... Total US population: 311,000,000 (from the 2010 Census) 18-65 yr old Civilians in the USA: 195,308,000 (62.8% of people) 18-65 yr olds who are Employed: 130,381,000 (BLS figure) People in Prison: 2,200,000 People in Colleges: 14,261,800 (many are IN the workforce or looking as well) Updated overall civilian base population: 178,846,200 Unemployed people not in Prison or College available 4 work: 48,465,200 So those figures give you............................... (maximum) Percentage of people working = 72.9% (MINIMUM!!!!!) Unemployment rate = 27.1%!!! (Maximum) Unemployment rate = 33.3%!!!!!!!!!! If there's one thing you can't manipulate, it's statistics. And this is all based off of THEIR stats! 8.8%?! Yeah right! And just to be able to give all those people in College a job when they graduate in the next 4 years, the Economy will need to be producing a MINIMUM of 297,121 jobs a month. To get Unemployment down to 0% in 4 years, the economy will need to produce a whopping 1,306,813 jobs a month!!!! The March 2011 jobs report says only 200,000 were created, and this is good news?! So what about the other nearly 49 million who are already looking for work?!"
%48 of young blacks are now unemployed...
The GOP sucks for their lack of sensitivity to this important issue. No doubt, they truly believe that as long as America remains FAT, there will be no revolution. All their issues revolve around maintaining a critical mass of fat, stupid, and uneducated supporters.
How are the policies of extended u/e benefits working out for job creation, there TTC?
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 08, 2011, 02:21:38 PM
" The REAL USA Unemployment rate is 30% http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-REAL-USA-Unemployment-rate-is-30/135828199819572
The official Unemployment rate is supposed to be 9.5%. Let's see if the Stats add up though....... Total US population: 311,000,000 (from the 2010 Census) 18-65 yr old Civilians in the USA: 195,308,000 (62.8% of people) 18-65 yr olds who are Employed: 130,381,000 (BLS figure) People in Prison: 2,200,000 People in Colleges: 14,261,800 (many are IN the workforce or looking as well) Updated overall civilian base population: 178,846,200 Unemployed people not in Prison or College available 4 work: 48,465,200 So those figures give you............................... (maximum) Percentage of people working = 72.9% (MINIMUM!!!!!) Unemployment rate = 27.1%!!! (Maximum) Unemployment rate = 33.3%!!!!!!!!!! If there's one thing you can't manipulate, it's statistics. And this is all based off of THEIR stats! 8.8%?! Yeah right! And just to be able to give all those people in College a job when they graduate in the next 4 years, the Economy will need to be producing a MINIMUM of 297,121 jobs a month. To get Unemployment down to 0% in 4 years, the economy will need to produce a whopping 1,306,813 jobs a month!!!! The March 2011 jobs report says only 200,000 were created, and this is good news?! So what about the other nearly 49 million who are already looking for work?!"
%48 of young blacks are now unemployed...
The GOP sucks for their lack of sensitivity to this important issue. No doubt, they truly believe that as long as America remains FAT, there will be no revolution. All their issues revolve around maintaining a critical mass of fat, stupid, and uneducated supporters.
God forbid there are actually people in this country who have decided not to work.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 08, 2011, 01:29:14 PM
I'd pick something better to crow about if I were you. Maintaining an unemployment rate of above 9% for most of his presidency is nothing to point to as an achievement. It's only been below 9% for four months of his presidency. He's dropped from the high number under his watch a whopping 1%. That's embarrassing.
In comparison, unemployment was at or below 6% for 85 months under President Bush and at or below 5% for 43 months of his presidency.
President Bush turned around a high u/e number of 6.3 in 2003 to a low of 4.4, nearly two points lower.
Unemployment rates almost doubled when Bush was President, but you want to focus on the middle years when it was stagnant and claim victory? Yet you say that Obama's unemployment going up 25% is embarassing?
Again, you like to use goal posts of the beginning and end of the Bush administration so you can ignore facts like these as well as the massive gains and record high made on the Dow during the Bush years.
Massive gains during the Bush administration? When Bush took office the Dow was at 10,900 and when he left office it was at 8,000. When Clinton took office the Dow was at 3,300 and went up over 300%. Under Obama the Dow has gone from 8,000 to 11,300 for a 40% gain. How can you focus on the highs of 14,000 under Bush and then ignore that it dropped so low?
But I guess when your guy stinks as bad as this one does, you can always resort to trying to blame the previous guy or ignore certain facts to try and make your guy look better.
Right back at ya.[/i]
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 08, 2011, 02:21:38 PM
If there's one thing you can't manipulate, it's statistics.
What planet do you live on?
Quote from: JCnOwasso on September 08, 2011, 03:10:05 PM
God forbid there are actually people in this country who have decided not to work.
If I can afford it, I will decide not to work in about another 6 or so years. If I don't like the Prez, I'll claim to be looking for work.
:D
RM- you cherry picked two snap-shots in time eight years apart to illustrate a fallacious point that the economy suffered the entire time Bush was in office. That's simply bogus. Yes, you are correct, the unemployment rate was higher the day Bush left office than the day he was sworn in. Conveniently you've left out the point that average unemployment was 5.3% for both his terms versus the 5.2% under Clinton. Again, had it not been for the advent of the internet, explosion in communication technology and bio-tech, the Clinton years could have turned out a whole lot different. Bush managed to turn the 2001 recession around and the economy prospered with no dramatic increases in innovation to benefit from.
Unemployment nearly doubled, going to a high of 10.1 from the Bush average of 5.3 under President Obama.
Now, here's the good news as it relates to the current president: It took roughly 2 1/2 years for the tide to turn from the '01 recession and unemployment was stagnant for quite a few months following that. I'm looking at the trends for President Obama and perhaps we are close to a steady drop in u/e. That would be great news for all if that were to happen.
Anyone who didn't make money on the way up with Bush is a total moron. Anyone who stayed in the market beyond 13 to 13.5K was a chump. It was obvious there was a huge bubble about to burst.
Next time don't bring a rock to a gun battle.
Why do you think it is fair to only use the "average" unemployment rate for a President of 96 months to compare to an average unemployment rate for a President of 30 months? Tell that to the millions of Americans who became unemployed under Bush that "average unemployment" was better.
Do you really believe that having the unemployment rate almost double is better than having it go up 25% because on average it was lower?
It is laughable that you accuse me of cherry-picking stats.
RM, don't argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference... ;D
Don't flatter yourself Conan.... if government sat there and did nothing in a time of economic crisis in 2009, then thousands and thousands of college students would have had to quit school, the only domestic car company would be Ford, we'd have millions more uninsured than we already have due to the cost of COBRA, and we'd still have double digit unemployment.... but hey, the Bush bailout saved Wall Street....
When I say "partisan hack chattering class," I mean people who are so dogmatic in their anti-gubmint zeal, they can't see the forest for the trees.... like yourself....
Even more facts to piss off dogmatic, partisan hack, republican cult members...
http://www.truthout.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
Quote from: Conan71 on September 08, 2011, 10:57:47 PM
Anyone who didn't make money on the way up with Bush is a total moron. Anyone who stayed in the market beyond 13 to 13.5K was a chump. It was obvious there was a huge bubble about to burst.
Next time don't bring a rock to a gun battle.
So the tens of millions of Americans who have their retirement invested in the stock market are chumps?
How can you possibly believe that having the stock market plummet almost 2,800 points during Bush years term better than having it rise 2,800 points during Obama?
Next time bring a squirt gun because you need to blame something on the wet spot in your pants.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 09, 2011, 12:17:30 AM
So the tens of millions of Americans who have their retirement invested in the stock market are chumps?
How can you possibly believe that having the stock market plummet almost 2,800 points during Bush years term better than having it rise 2,800 points during Obama?
Next time bring a squirt gun because you need to blame something on the wet spot in your pants.
The Dow went up roughly 4000 points during the Bush years. If people aren't educated enough to spread their risk around, and observe the markets, that's hardly the fault of a president. What will your excuse be if the market plummets again prior to Obama leaving office?
It's amazing how you will completely divorce yourself from reality in order to blame a previous leader just to bolster the image of a failing leader whom you supported. How is a period of average unemployment not "fair"? If Obama gets 96 months in office, he can be judged by the same yardstick and I hope his average comes out in the same neighborhood. You see, I care far more about the well-being of our country rather than being a political tool for my party.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nDM0Ltre_Tk/TfytOpcc7gI/AAAAAAAAA30/AGJZ8fRNzTo/s1600/jane+you+ignorant+slut.jpg)
"Jane you ignorant s!ut."
Conan, quit it already....those wars cost money. They went to war on a complete fabrication.... a lie. That is the main reason our economy is in the doldrums. That, and the lack of over sight and control of the SEC propagated by everyone from Reagan on down to get home ownership to grow our economy. Now, we need a new vehicle. It's so obvious.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on September 08, 2011, 03:10:05 PM
God forbid there are actually people in this country who have decided not to work.
When there are folks who can decide that making $20,000 per year on unemployment bennies as opposed to making $15,000 on minimum wage their decision is to not work. Perhaps, lower unemployment benefits and raise the minimum rage?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 11:10:11 AM
If Obama gets 96 months in office, he can be judged by the same yardstick and I hope his average comes out in the same neighborhood.
Given his better-than-most average job creation numbers, that seems likely. Presuming McConnell fails at his stated effort to keep the economy in the toilet until after the election so as to prevent Obama from being elected to another term.
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2011, 01:32:19 PM
Given his better-than-most average job creation numbers, that seems likely. Presuming McConnell fails at his stated effort to keep the economy in the toilet until after the election so as to prevent Obama from being elected to another term.
Cough!
You love him a lot, don't you?
(http://www.thinkingforaliving.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/obama_hug.gif)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 09, 2011, 01:39:15 PM
Cough!
You love him a lot, don't you?
No. If I had my druthers he'd be primaried, but that's not going to happen. He is better than the Republican alternatives, or at least the ones likely to win the nomination. The fact of the matter is that Bush left office with fewer people employed than when he took office. Obama has done better than that, so far.
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2011, 02:31:48 PM
No. If I had my druthers he'd be primaried, but that's not going to happen. He is better than the Republican alternatives, or at least the ones likely to win the nomination. The fact of the matter is that Bush left office with fewer people employed than when he took office. Obama has done better than that, so far.
Give him a chance, he's only 3 years into this thing, and he's already broken so many records.
I shouldn't be surprised that you're wishing for failure.
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2011, 01:32:19 PM
Given his better-than-most average job creation numbers, that seems likely. Presuming McConnell fails at his stated effort to keep the economy in the toilet until after the election so as to prevent Obama from being elected to another term.
How are his job creation numbers that great when there's 2.4 million more people unemployed today than when he took office?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 03:11:49 PM
How are his job creation numbers that great when there's 2.4 million more people unemployed today than when he took office?
Leave it alone, he's on a roll.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 09, 2011, 03:35:58 PM
Leave it alone, he's on a roll.
(http://www.myteespot.com/images/Images_d/DSCF0726.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 03:11:49 PM
How are his job creation numbers that great when there's 2.4 million more people unemployed today than when he took office?
I looked again and you're right. He took office when 132,837,000 people were employed. It wasn't until a year later that the number of employed bottomed out at 129,246,000. We're at 131,132,000 at last count.
I was just looking at the graph before and somehow was off by a year. Bush created 307,000 jobs (net) in his 8 years, rather than having lost 7 million.
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2011, 04:05:17 PM
I looked again and you're right. He took office when 132,837,000 people were employed. It wasn't until a year later that the number of employed bottomed out at 129,246,000. We're at 131,132,000 at last count.
I was just looking at the graph before and somehow was off by a year. Bush created 307,000 jobs (net) in his 8 years, rather than having lost 7 million.
BLN says 11.6 million jobless Jan. 2009, 14.0 million as of last month.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 04:30:37 PM
BLN says 11.6 million jobless Jan. 2009, 14.0 million as of last month.
That's essentially what I wrote, except with the employed, rather than the unemployed. (There is a slight difference due to increased population, and I used February, rather than January, since the numbers are as of the first of the month)
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2011, 04:36:20 PM
That's essentially what I wrote, except with the employed, rather than the unemployed. (There is a slight difference due to increased population, and I used February, rather than January, since the numbers are as of the first of the month)
Ahh, looking at the 1/2 full glass rather than the 1/2 empty.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 04:41:20 PM
Ahh, looking at the 1/2 full glass rather than the 1/2 empty.
My sister told me the other day that the glass is always completely full, because it's got air in it. I asked her what happens if the glass is in space. She told me I was missing the point. I said that the glass is metaphorical, so a literalist interpretation defeats the entire purpose of the glass.
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2011, 05:13:57 PM
My sister told me the other day that the glass is always completely full, because it's got air in it. I asked her what happens if the glass is in space. She told me I was missing the point. I said that the glass is metaphorical, so a literalist interpretation defeats the entire purpose of the glass.
In space, the glass is full of vacuum, and maybe some stray particles of space stuff.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 04:41:20 PM
Ahh, looking at the 1/2 1/4 full glass rather than the 1/2 3/4 empty.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 09, 2011, 06:49:46 PM
In space, the glass is full of vacuum, and maybe some stray particles of space stuff.
If you want to get all quantum mechanics on it, it's full of virtual particles.