More Fox News Spin? Comparing unemployment numbers between Presidents.

[somepeoplesay]

Right blame Bush, that is what liberals always do, campaign instead of leading. Bush inherited the Clinton recession but didn't complain about it. Any surplus that Clinton had was because of SS revenue being on budget and any surplus was wiped out by 9/11 or did you forget?

It is you that needs to give me a break, stop defending this empty suit and realize what he is doing to this economy and thus YOUR future. How long does Obama have to be in office before he accepts responsibility for his own actions. He was in Congress and voted for the Bush spending and helped do nothing after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. Has Obama made things better or worse since taking office. Unemployment was 11 million and now it is over 15 million, debt was 10.6 trillion and is now over 13 trillion, Budget was 3.5 trillion and is now 3.8 trillion. How much damage are you going to allow to happen before speaking up about the actions of this President?

Hey don't get me wrong, I actually DON'T support Obama, and didn't vote for him. However, I think it is disingenuous to suggest that all the hardships our country faces right now is a result of Obama's policies when Republicans we're in power for 8 years before that (Dems were elected in 06, but all their legislation was still blocked by the repubs). It seems conservatives want to immediately shift the blame when you know damn well if a Democrat had been president from 2000-2008 and left us in this mess and a Republican was currently president, you'd be singing a very different tune.

 

[winston53660]

And Clinton blame his predecessor . . . and so on.

In the last few months I read a lot of archived articles in which this was done - apparently it's common practice which is just on the rise, but it's not *new*

I think it would be ludicrous for the Bush Administration to not point out they were inheriting the beginnings of a recession and complain about it. That is one way of figuring out what is going wrong.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I think it would be ludicrous for the Bush Administration to not point out they were inheriting the beginnings of a recession and complain about it. That is one way of figuring out what is going wrong.

I think the administrations do it less than everyone else - if you were to add up all the blames on a scorecard.

I think the media and individuals hop on it more often. . . and that is then assigned to the administration as if they control the media.

 

[Conservative]

Really Bush did not complain about the Clinton Administration?


Justified or not I certainly would call that complaining. BTW the recession did not start untill 2 months after Bush took office..

March 2001, right after getting into office, not every day of his entire Presidency and certainly not 1 1/2 years later. Stop with the trolling

 

[Conservative]

Hey don't get me wrong, I actually DON'T support Obama, and didn't vote for him. However, I think it is disingenuous to suggest that all the hardships our country faces right now is a result of Obama's policies when Republicans we're in power for 8 years before that (Dems were elected in 06, but all their legislation was still blocked by the repubs). It seems conservatives want to immediately shift the blame when you know damn well if a Democrat had been president from 2000-2008 and left us in this mess and a Republican was currently president, you'd be singing a very different tune.

Let me see if I have this right, the bailout of GM/Chrysler, the Stimulus Plan, the healthcare bill, and now cap and trade have no impact on the economy? None of those were Bush's policies and all those have done nothing but make private sector unemployment worse. There is a time to complain and a time to lead, Obama is no leader thus all he can do is place blame. Obama is a campaigner, not a leader and we are seeing what was predicted before he took office.

 

[winston53660]

March 2001, right after getting into office, not every day of his entire Presidency and certainly not 1 1/2 years later. Stop with the trolling

Me the troll LOL you are to funny and just just plain lost.

 

[Conservative]

Me the troll LOL you are to funny and just just plain lost.

You are right, in your world I am lost. Facts, logic, and common sense have no place with you. Refute the economic facts instead of the personal attacks on me. Has unemployment risen since Obama took office and after the stimulus plan was passed? Has the debt increased since the stimulus plan was passed? Has govt. revenue dropped since Obama has taken office? Has the private sector been ignored by the Obama Administration? Where is the Obama leadership on any issue and when will he stop campaigning and start leading?

 

[somepeoplesay]

Let me see if I have this right, the bailout of GM/Chrysler, the Stimulus Plan, the healthcare bill, and now cap and trade have no impact on the economy? None of those were Bush's policies and all those have done nothing but make private sector unemployment worse. There is a time to complain and a time to lead, Obama is no leader thus all he can do is place blame. Obama is a campaigner, not a leader and we are seeing what was predicted before he took office.

They do have an effect on the economy, but in case you don't remember, our economy wasn't doing too great BEFORE he took office. Also, econ 101 tells you that any policy doesn't really show an effect on the economy until year(s) after it's implementation. Obama has only been around for 18 months...

 

[winston53660]

You are right, in your world I am lost. Facts, logic, and common sense have no place with you. Refute the economic facts instead of the personal attacks on me. Has unemployment risen since Obama took office and after the stimulus plan was passed? Has the debt increased since the stimulus plan was passed? Has govt. revenue dropped since Obama has taken office? Has the private sector been ignored by the Obama Administration? Where is the Obama leadership on any issue and when will he stop campaigning and start leading?

Did Obama inherit a severe recession?

 

[Conservative]

They do have an effect on the economy, but in case you don't remember, our economy wasn't doing too great BEFORE he took office. Also, econ 101 tells you that any policy doesn't really show an effect on the economy until year(s) after it's implementation. Obama has only been around for 18 months...

Exactly right however we are no better off today than we were when he took office and that is the point. he continues to blame Bush. We have a govt. of three equal branches, where was the legislative branch under the control of the Democrats during the last two years of the Bush Administration and the first two years of the Obama Administration. Anything that Obama wanted he has a Congress in place to get it yet he still blames Bush. We had a financial crisis in 2008 mostly due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are now being dropped from the major indexes and going to the OTC markets. TARP bailed out the banks and TARP funds have been paid back. TARP was a Bush bill and he left 350 billion of the 700 billion fund for Obama.

How long are you going to allow Obama to campaign and not lead? This whole argument of he has only been in office 18 months is a joke, He has a Democrat Congress and can get anything he wants passed. What he has passed has made things worse.

 

[Conservative]

Did Obama inherit a severe recession?

Yep, and one he contributed to by doing nothing while Democrats were in charge of the legislative branch which controls the legislation that the President wanted. Learn civics, we have three equal branches of the govt, yet for some reason anything bad is blamed on the President while the legislative branch gets a pass. Fact is now Obama has the WH and the Democrats still control Congress yet you and others blame Bush. Just goes to show exactly who you are.

 

[obvious Child]

Still trying to boost the Presidency of this empty suit, I see. Tell me what Obama has done to promote the private sector job creation?

Much of the same things Bush did. But you being arguably the biggest partisan hack here won't admit that.

Obama pushed bonus depreciation. He cut taxes on millions. He pushed reductions on cost of leverage. But again, you being the poster child of "I Hate Obama, No Matter What He Does" will never admit that.

The current unemployment rate shows over 16 million unemployed and discouraged workers and any job creation has been in the public sector, not the private sector.

Okay...your point is?

Too many people continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. No business is going to hire people with the uncertainty of taxes, healthcare costs, and now cap and trade.

Actually, no business is going to hire people when consumer purchasing is still relatively low. Periods of uncertain high tax, rising health care and enviromental regulation saw growth, while periods of stagnate health costs, low taxes and no environmental changes but economic recession didn't see hiring. You as usual, are ignoring the blatantly obvious to suit your ideology. I really don't expect someone who cannot even define linear regression to get this, but there is more to the economy then what you believe.

Those that want to point out the 10+% unemployment of Reagan are the same people that call this the worst economy since the Depression. That doesn't compute but nothing else that this empty suit and his supporters say does.

LOL. Along with not knowing what linear regression is, you don't understand the impact of inflation on the economy.

10% unemployment with 1% inflation is nowhere as bad as 10% unemployment at 15% inflation.

What a hoot you are. I have never seen someone so exceedingly arrogant yet so massively uneducated and uninformed.

It is about economic policy and the best way out of recession. Reagan got it right, promote the private sector and grow your way out of the recession.

And how did he do that? By throwing trillions at the defense industry. Watch, Conservative is going to pretend I NEVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT.

And Reagan blowing trillions in fiscal policy during periods of rampant inflation was utterly stupid. What better way to destroy the value of savings when you're pouring trillions into an already inflationary economy?

Obama believes you can spend your way out of recession

So he's like Reagan. Got it. eace

and thus is promoting public sector growth.

By cutting taxes on business and giving them bonus depreciation, neither of which are related to public sector growth. :2wave:

Seriously, you want to be taken as something other then a hack, stop being one.

The two policies are stark contrasts and the results are quite telling. We currently have a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal budget and a 13 trillion dollar govt.. Govt. revenue is down, GDP growth is stagnant, and govt growth is unsustainable. When the left is complaining about "their" President you know things are bad. Some here will never get it

Which reminds of me a former Republican president....

Btw, still haven't figured out what linear regression is?

Btw, have you seen the size of Texas's current operating deficit? Since when did DEFICIT mean surplus in the English language?

 

[obvious Child]

Let me see if I have this right, the bailout of GM/Chrysler, the Stimulus Plan, the healthcare bill, and now cap and trade have no impact on the economy? None of those were Bush's policies and all those have done nothing but make private sector unemployment worse. There is a time to complain and a time to lead, Obama is no leader thus all he can do is place blame. Obama is a campaigner, not a leader and we are seeing what was predicted before he took office.

O'rly?

FAIL

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html

Bush signs stimulus bill; rebate checks expected in May - CNN.com

So you're saying that bonus depreciation did not help the economy?
So you're saying that massive purchases of private goods for government use did not help the economy?
So you're saying the CARS program had no impact upon car dealerships?

Go back to the kiddie pool where you belong and leave the thinking for those who have functional brains.

 

[Degreez]

I don't really trust FauxNews polls/charts/graphs etc:

 

[PeteEU]

I don't really trust FauxNews polls/charts/graphs etc:

Yea they love to have 100+% statistics!

 

[zimmer]

Actually, anyone who understands basic economics knows that it would be impossible to predict, exactly, what unemployment will look like in 2 years.

True.

But anyone with basic economics, and an understanding of history knows that Obama is going in the wrong direction when it comes to encouraging growth in the private sector.

Obama is the anti-Reagan.

Obama is the anti-John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

I though Obama's plans were designed to prevent unemployment hitting 9%?

JFK, Address at the Economic Club of New York, December 14th, 1962

The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system; and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.

I am not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last 5 years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.

In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.

In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

Economics 101.

Quite the difference from what Obama learned and embraces with fervor. Marxism/Socialism 101, 201, 301 and 401. He's learned his lessons well, and Alinsky gave him the tools to spread the misery. Obama has a PhD...
...in Failure and spreading misery.

.

 

[Conservative]

Much of the same things Bush did. But you being arguably the biggest partisan hack here won't admit that.

Obama pushed bonus depreciation. He cut taxes on millions. He pushed reductions on cost of leverage. But again, you being the poster child of "I Hate Obama, No Matter What He Does" will never admit that.



Okay...your point is?



Actually, no business is going to hire people when consumer purchasing is still relatively low. Periods of uncertain high tax, rising health care and enviromental regulation saw growth, while periods of stagnate health costs, low taxes and no environmental changes but economic recession didn't see hiring. You as usual, are ignoring the blatantly obvious to suit your ideology. I really don't expect someone who cannot even define linear regression to get this, but there is more to the economy then what you believe.



LOL. Along with not knowing what linear regression is, you don't understand the impact of inflation on the economy.

10% unemployment with 1% inflation is nowhere as bad as 10% unemployment at 15% inflation.

What a hoot you are. I have never seen someone so exceedingly arrogant yet so massively uneducated and uninformed.



And how did he do that? By throwing trillions at the defense industry. Watch, Conservative is going to pretend I NEVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT.

And Reagan blowing trillions in fiscal policy during periods of rampant inflation was utterly stupid. What better way to destroy the value of savings when you're pouring trillions into an already inflationary economy?



So he's like Reagan. Got it. eace



By cutting taxes on business and giving them bonus depreciation, neither of which are related to public sector growth. :2wave:

Seriously, you want to be taken as something other then a hack, stop being one.



Which reminds of me a former Republican president....

Btw, still haven't figured out what linear regression is?

Btw, have you seen the size of Texas's current operating deficit? Since when did DEFICIT mean surplus in the English language?

Ok, same old, same old, it is impossible to have a discussion with you as you use the same condescending remarks as usual and you call me partisan. Obama's rebate checks were one time and did nothing to the economy and were nothing like the rate cuts of Bush. BEA.gov will show you the results but they don't seem to matter to you.

Since Obama took office the unemployment numbers have increased by over 4 million and the debt has increased by 2 million. The large majority in this country are getting it but the truly partisan never will. Not sure what economic data you are looking at but apparently nothing credible. I suggest again bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury for actual data that is non partisan. 42% of the people in this country support Obama to some extent and that should tell it all to you but it doesn't.

Let's try to stay in the present, this isn't Reagan's problem, this isn't Bush's problem, this is Obama's problem and maybe one of these days you will recognize that this campaigner in chief doesn't have a clue how to lead. Not sure what it is about people like you that don't understand how our economy works. It is the private sector that is going to bring us out of this mess but Obama and you don't seem to get it. Nothing Obama has done has generated private sector jobs or created an atmosphere for that creation of jobs but like a blind partisan, an intellectual elite, you have to talk down to people who point that out to you.

Any tax cut was offset by increased business costs promoted by this Adminstration. Keep your blind partisanship intact and ignore actual results. Just adds to your lack of credibility.

We are in a bad recession added to by Obama. It is liberalism that has an arrogance that just will not go away. Nothing this empty suit has done promotes economic growth except by the govt. Apparently that is what you want. Congratulations, Saul Alinsky would be proud.

 

[Conservative]

O'rly?

FAIL

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html

Bush signs stimulus bill; rebate checks expected in May - CNN.com

So you're saying that bonus depreciation did not help the economy?
So you're saying that massive purchases of private goods for government use did not help the economy?
So you're saying the CARS program had no impact upon car dealerships?

Go back to the kiddie pool where you belong and leave the thinking for those who have functional brains.

I am saying results matter and tell me the results show that his economic plan has been successful. Why don't you get out on the real world, make a payroll, deal with monthly expenses and stop acting and talking like an arrogant liberal? All of what you listed provided short term gain and not long term economic growth. Apparently what you have in intellectual book smart brilliance is offset by your lack of logic and common sense. Too bad your arrogance is offset by any sense of reality.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

I guess the part I find funny is that blind "job creation" is all that liberals care about. The fact that they are census worker jobs, temp jobs, at full cost to the taxpayer doesn't matter. A job is a job, right? Problem is, when this guy pays taxes, he's just giving a little bit of the gov'ts money right back to them, not really creating income for the gov't. If I pay a yard worker 100 dollars and he gives me back 30.......does it matter that I have him 100 bucks? He's paying me with my own money. It wasn't wealth created outside of my property, just a bunch of money being tossed around on my land.

I can say that as of late I do not disagree with Bobo on everything. He's doing some good things. He's going back on his word about Miranda rights for terrorists, closing Gitmo, etc. I don't know if I say he's a bad president (ok he's a horrible president but I digress) as much as I think he was totally ignorant of how the world works and so he was able to campaign, and is still in full campaign mode, on things that SOUND good but that everyone knows (everyone with half a brain cell) isn't going to happen. I think Obama is getting slapped with a reality check and seeing that it's easy to be an armchair quarterback (what he was from 2006-2008) but when dropped in the hotseat it turned out to be pretty damn hot.

 

[Redress]

Moderator's Warning:

The topic is not other posters. Talk about the topic, not how stupid or ignorant some one else is

 

[obvious Child]

Ok, same old, same old, it is impossible to have a discussion with you as you use the same condescending remarks as usual and you call me partisan.

Because you are a partisan.

And it is impossible to have a discussion with you because you never admit you are wrong on anything and you deliberately ignore everything that refutes you.

Obama's rebate checks were one time and did nothing to the economy and were nothing like the rate cuts of Bush.

Thanks for not reading the links. Obama's tax cuts were larger then Bush's rebates and nothing happened.

BEA.gov will show you the results but they don't seem to matter to you.

Still don't know what linear regression is do you? :2wave:

Since Obama took office the unemployment numbers have increased by over 4 million and the debt has increased by 2 million.

Since when did the president control the economy? I note you aren't saying the same thing about Bush's inheritance of Clinton's recession.

The large majority in this country are getting it but the truly partisan never will. Not sure what economic data you are looking at but apparently nothing credible. I suggest again bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury for actual data that is non partisan. 42% of the people in this country support Obama to some extent and that should tell it all to you but it doesn't.

LOL. You still don't understand the difference between correlation and causation eh? Good luck actually proving your arguments. All you have is speculation based upon your failure to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Let's try to stay in the present, this isn't Reagan's problem, this isn't Bush's problem, this is Obama's problem and maybe one of these days you will recognize that this campaigner in chief doesn't have a clue how to lead.

Nice attempt at changing the subject. Rather then address how Obama is following the same path as two presidents you defend, you'd rather attack him.

Not sure what it is about people like you that don't understand how our economy works.

I dunno. I understand math. A $10 billion operation deficit to me is not a surplus. You however have repetitively argued that being $10 billion in the hole is actually in the black.

It is the private sector that is going to bring us out of this mess but Obama and you don't seem to get it. Nothing Obama has done has generated private sector jobs or created an atmosphere for that creation of jobs but like a blind partisan, an intellectual elite, you have to talk down to people who point that out to you.

LOL. Except that the post after the one you quoted shows you are wrong and rather then admit you are wrong, you go off on a tangential rant.

Yeah...Obama didn't do anything...except do many of the same actions Bush did.

Any tax cut was offset by increased business costs promoted by this Adminstration. Keep your blind partisanship intact and ignore actual results. Just adds to your lack of credibility.

As was any tax cut offered by Reagan and Bush which was offset by massive debt. Oh wait. For you to admit that, you'd have to be honest, and we both know, that will never happen.

We are in a bad recession added to by Obama. It is liberalism that has an arrogance that just will not go away. Nothing this empty suit has done promotes economic growth except by the govt. Apparently that is what you want. Congratulations, Saul Alinsky would be proud.

So Bush and Reagan were liberals? After all, Obama is following their models. Oh wait. That would be consistency at work here.

Notice this:

"And how did he do that? By throwing trillions at the defense industry. Watch, Conservative is going to pretend I NEVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT. "

 

[obvious Child]

I am saying results matter

Incorrect. Now you are saying results matter. What you originally said was blantantly false. And you refuse to admit you are wrong. Bush did a stimulus AND the Detroit Bailouts contrary to your as usual, wrong opinion. Rather then act as a mature adult, you LIE about your argument and say despite being obviously deceptive, that you really argued something else.

YOU ARE WRONG. And you are incapable of admit it.

Why don't you get out on the real world, make a payroll, deal with monthly expenses and stop acting and talking like an arrogant liberal? All of what you listed provided short term gain and not long term economic growth. Apparently what you have in intellectual book smart brilliance is offset by your lack of logic and common sense. Too bad your arrogance is offset by any sense of reality.

lol. Says the one who cannot answer very real world questions.

The spike in car purchases from the CARS program alone shows you, as, usual, are wrong. The real question now is how many times you can be wrong in a single post.

Notice, you cannot actually address what I say. You just go off into tangents that in no way refute anything I post and then attempt to insult me despite your epic failure to actually reply to what I wrote.

And next time you want to pretend you know more about the economy then me, learn what inflation is. You just called a recession with 1% inflation worse then a recession with 10% inflation with equal levels of unemployment. Seriously.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

What CARS program? You mean that cash for clunkers disaster? If that's not the CARS program, let me know!

 

[Aunt Spiker]

What CARS program? You mean that cash for clunkers disaster? If that's not the CARS program, let me know!

Did ALL that paperwork finally get processed?
Did all that payments owed by the government to dealerships finally go through?

It would be damning if they were still waiting for the bureaucracy to finish itself off into the sink, wouldn't it?

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1918692,00.html

In my opinion - to derail the thread further - I think CARS was the biggest flop ever. Almost everyone was a sucker. . . and got taken for a spin. Why? I'll be happy to tell you.

To qualify you had to meet a few basic requirements: own (no longer be paying on) your vehicle. Your vehicle had to be under a certain mileage (tachometer and mpg) - that knocked quite a few cars off the "qualify" list to begin with.

So - if someone owned their vehicle and, say, was getting crappy gas mileage (15 mpg, let's say) - and filled the 12gallon tank 5 times a month they were, then, spending $3.50/gallon (the high in my town at that time) - 12 x 3.5 = $42.00/tank x 5 = $210/month in gas.

Well - a new vehicle, say, had a sticker + overhead cost of $22,000. Take away the government's difference of $4,200 (if your car qualified for that much) and maybe 8% interest on a 60 month loan and you end up with a payment (ignoring sales tax and title, pretend you'll pay for that separately) your payments will be $360.00/month for the next 5 years. . . the shorter your loan term, the higher your interest, the higher your monthly payment.

THAT is a deal?

If GAS for the old car was $210.00/month - and a new vehicle payment costs MORE than that + gas every month - then you're just throwing away your money = no deal.

The only time at which I think it was smart was if someone had no choice and their sole mode of transportation was costing them more in repairs + gas than their new vehicle.

 

[ecofarm]

When I opened the thread, I thought it was going to be about how silly it is to blame a president for the economy. Given lag time and the lack of a command economy, I've kind of always figured that the president has little if anything to do with it (after all, congress makes the bills).

But the OP is worried about averages. So nevermind.