somepeoplesay
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 74
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
How else would you create the table?
Numbers can certainly be deceiving, and employment numbers in particular are terrible for measuring presidents, but how is this misleading aside from that? The fact that Obama's only been in there for a year and a half is irrelevant, as its an average.
I'd hardly call that irrelevant. The other presidents' have the benefit of having bad years averaged out with good years. What we are seeing with Fox's chart is Obama having only bad years being shown. As the link I provided shows, many presidents have pretty awful years and months. Effectively, the other presidents have smoothing being done on their numbers where Obama has no such benefit. IMO, a better chart would either be highest unemployment, or two years sampling that are similar to each other.
Highest unemployment isn't a good number either, as it doesn't really reflect the totality of the situation and is affected by whether the president had a 4 or an 8 year term. My point is that unemployment numbers are **** for judging a president, no matter how you look at them. Despite that, news organizations and partisans have no problem throwing them around as if they're conclusive proof of a president's value. IMO, this use of the numbers is no worse than any other.
The unemployment numbers aren't just an indictment of Obama, but and idictment of Democrat leadership as a whole, since the highest uemployment numbers on that table occured under Democrat controlled congresses.
Was it even necessary to make a bar graph to begin with? Anyone that understands basic economics already knows that Obama will have the worst unemployment of any president. Maybe I'm wrong and you really can get a job from a moocher.
As are the lowest.
No you see that's not important because
No you see that's not important because
The unemployment numbers aren't just an indictment of Obama, but and idictment of Democrat leadership as a whole, since the highest uemployment numbers on that table occured under Democrat controlled congresses.
....and so are the lowest unemployment numbers as the Democrats controlled congress for substantially all of the period delineated. That all said, it is generally held that the President, as the chief policy maker and the guy that appoints the fed chair, controls the treasury and pretty much controls the budget, at least from a pragmatic standpoint, is generally held responsible for the state of the economy, much to the chagrin of our very conservative friends.
....and so are the lowest unemployment numbers as the Democrats controlled congress for substantially all of the period delineated. That all said, it is generally held that the President, as the chief policy maker and the guy that appoints the fed chair, controls the treasury and pretty much controls the budget, at least from a pragmatic standpoint, is generally held responsible for the state of the economy, much to the chagrin of our very conservative friends.
OMG! So, now the Federal Chairman controls unemployment? That's even more rediculous than the notion that the government can create jobs and wealth.
Uh not controls, and which he did not state. And yes, the Fed Chairman likely has more impact upon unemployment then the president. The capacity to quickly change the lifeblood of the economy, leverage costs has truly epic impacts upon business. Much of the good years of Bush are attributed to cheap credit under Greenspan. And Volcker was able to engineer an artificial recession under Reagan in his war on inflation. Furthermore, monetary policy can change interest rates overnight. Fiscal policy takes months, if not years. One of the Governors of the Fed stated that the 2001 recession was over a month before Bush's stimulus/tax cuts was passed. Fiscal policy to those with brains always lags behind monetary.
You really, really, really should not talk about economics.
As for government creating jobs and wealth, how do you think the defense industry got so fat and happy? You are directly calling the growth of companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin "ridiculous."
When Bush inherits Clinton's economic surplus, it's Bush's economy. When Obama inherits Bush's dismembered economy, it's Obama's economy. The guys only been in office for a year and a half, give me break. Conservatives blamed Clinton for 9/11, and they have no right bitching about people who still blame Bush.
When Bush inherits Clinton's economic surplus, it's Bush's economy. When Obama inherits Bush's dismembered economy, it's Obama's economy. The guys only been in office for a year and a half, give me break. Conservatives blamed Clinton for 9/11, and they have no right bitching about people who still blame Bush.
Right blame Bush, that is what liberals always do, campaign instead of leading. Bush inherited the Clinton recession but didn't complain about it.
WASHINGTON _ President Bush argues that the nation's economic problems began on his predecessor's watch, but analysts say sooner or later they will all belong to him.
Article: Bush blames Clinton administration for economic slowdown.(The Dallas... | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?