More Fox News Spin? Comparing unemployment numbers between Presidents.

[Aunt Spiker]

Well - I directly blame Bush's war decisions on our crap economy. Every strike he made accounted for every major spike we suffered through . . . and continue to reel from, today. He's not 100% responsible for 100% of it - but maybe 100% responsible for 75% of it.

The remaining 25% is from Clinton and further back.

 

[obvious Child]

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

Define disaster. How they got rid of the trade in cars was bad, but the overall notion is little more then shuffling production and demand from later periods to earlier periods, the same behavior behind the real drive that got us out of the 2001 recession.

Bush did bonus depreciation which achieved the same goal. Yet I hear no attacks on him when the principle behind the CARS and BD wee the same.

 

[Ockham]

Well - I directly blame Bush's war decisions on our crap economy. Every strike he made accounted for every major spike we suffered through . . . and continue to reel from, today. He's not 100% responsible for 100% of it - but maybe 100% responsible for 75% of it.

The remaining 25% is from Clinton and further back.

So I guess 10-15 years from now, we'll find out from you how much Obama's responsible for. Until then...scott free. Is that right?

 

[Objective Voice]

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.

If this were a criticism of the use of employment numbers to judge presidents in general, I'd be on board, but it's something I've seen employed with great enthusiasm by both sides when they think it will benefit them. This is no worse than normal.

Actually, the fact that Pres. Obama hasn't held office for a full term IS relevant. You can't honestly compare unemployment rates across presidencies unless and until you've looked at the figures fairly for each president's full 4-year (minimum) term in office.

Now, Fox could say that at the rate things are going for this president (Obama), he could end his first term with the highest unemployment rate of any president in this nation's history since LBJ, but to illustrate his unemployment numbers as "definitive" when he's only held office for 18 months compared to every other president on that list whose figures are based on their full terms (4 yr minimum) is unfair. Show me the numbers after Obama's first four years and if they average higher than any other president's on that list then I'll say FoxNews has conducted a fair comparison. Until then, it's just more spin and biasness.

 

[Ockham]

Actually, the fact that Pres. Obama hasn't held office for a full term IS relevant. You can't honestly compare unemployment rates across presidencies unless and until you've looked at the figures fairly for each president's full 4-year (minimum) term in office.

Now, Fox could say that at the rate things are going for this president (Obama), he could end his first term with the highest unemployment rate of any president in this nation's history since LBJ, but to illustrate his unemployment numbers as "definitive" when he's only held office for 18 months compared to every other president on that list whose figures are based on their full terms (4 yr minimum) is unfair. Show me the numbers after Obama's first four years and if they average higher than any other president's on that list then I'll say FoxNews has conducted a fair comparison. Until then, it's just more spin and biasness.

I agree that 18 months does not equal4 years. However, what you call spin and biasness - I call an estimate. Given the current state of affairs, what in the next 30 months would turn the estimate around? I find little to go on, but I'd agree - the definative view would be after 4 years to then make the comparison.

 

[Conservative]

Let's see if I have this correct, this President with a Democrat Congress passed a 800+ billion stimulus plan, bailed out GM/Chrysler, increased the unemployment from 11 million to 15 million, the debt from 10.6 trillion to 13 trillion and that is a success in your world? When do you and the other Obama cult followers take responsibility for the disaster we have in the WH?

If you generated the results of Obama after spending as much has he has spent you would be fired, yet you and others say we need to give him a chance. How is that hope and change working out for you?

 

[Conservative]

A disaster is taking the debt from 10.6 trillion to 13 trillion in less than 2 years, adding a trillion each year for the next 10 years, not submitting a 2011 budget, adding 4 million to the unemployment role and watching another million leave the labor force, having a massive expansion in the size of govt. and a lot of part time jobs, but of course he has plenty of time to play golf and not do what was right in the Gulf. Brilliant results and an example of a liberal success story.

 

[Conservative]

I am a partisan conservative because that is the only ideololgy that makes any sense and actually generates private sector jobs.

As for the President having an affect on the economy, apparently that only happens with a Republican is in the WH? Suggest taking a civics course and learning the three branches of govt. When the Democrats control two of them, then it is the President's agenda being implemented and thus his responsibility.

The rest of your post is nothing more than baiting, revisionist history, and typical liberal diversion. Had Obama followed the Reagan-Bush model we would be headed out of this mess by now but no, they had to implement their socialist model. Keep spinning.

By the way, bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury Dept are better sources than your opinion as to the economic conditions in this country and where the dollars went.

 

[Objective Voice]

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.

I think you need to look at the numbers again, but this time put the figures in order based on when each president held office. If you do that you'll find that starting w/Ike(R) his unemployment figures were by far the lowest of any president's on that chart. The numbers increased under JFK(D) but decreased under LBJ(D). Unemployment increased slightly again under Nixon(R) but significantly under Ford(R) then dropped slighly under Carter(D). They increased again under Reagon(R), dropped consecutively under Bush-41(R) and Clinton(D), increased slightly under Bush-43(R) and then reached their highest to date under Obama(D).

So, you can't based the figures strictly on political affiliation alone. A true measure of why the numbers changed has more to do with domestic/world economic events and presidential policies. Being as impartial as I can be, I'd have to say that Obama's unemployment numbers has more to do with domestic/world events than his policies. But only time will be the true evaluator.

 

[Objective Voice]

Let's see if I have this correct, this President with a Democrat Congress passed a 800+ billion stimulus plan, bailed out GM/Chrysler, increased the unemployment from 11 million to 15 million, the debt from 10.6 trillion to 13 trillion and that is a success in your world? When do you and the other Obama cult followers take responsibility for the disaster we have in the WH?

If you generated the results of Obama after spending as much has he has spent you would be fired, yet you and others say we need to give him a chance. How is that hope and change working out for you?

I never said the figures showed President Obama's presidency as a success. I'm just saying you can't make such distinctions of his employment figures based on 18-months in office while the numbers for those who came before him were based on their full terms. It's just not fair to concluded that his numbers would be that much worse once his presidency is over. We don't know if he'll be in office for a second term. But that notwithstanding, the man hasn't finished his first! Let's see where things stand December 31, 2012 and then we can talk about the real numbers.

 

[Conservative]

I never said the figures showed President Obama's presidency as a success. I'm just saying you can't make such distinctions of his employment figures based on 18-months in office while the numbers for those who came before him were based on their full terms. It's just not fair to concluded that his numbers would be that much worse once his presidency is over. We don't know if he'll be in office for a second term. But that notwithstanding, the man hasn't finished his first! Let's see where things stand December 31, 2012 and then we can talk about the real numbers.

You ignore that Obama had a Democrat Congress and thus total control over the economic agenda. Democrats controlled the legislative process since 2007 so tell me what they did to prevent the recession and what they have done to get us out of it. When Obama took office he had a Democrat Congress and there is no way anyone would assume that the unemployment would get worse after the promises Obama made during the campaign. Not sure why people here cannot see what he has done in light of total control of Congress.

 

[Objective Voice]

Again, judge the numbers when the man's term is over. Until then, his figures in relation to those who came before him are "present day" numbers and cannot be viewed in their full historical content as FoxNews is attempting to convince its viewers to believe.

BTW, whatever political makeup forms Congress either helps or hurts presidential policy. Part of that is how influential the President is over Congress, part of it is how the opposition reacts to said President. But not ever President can move his agenda through Congress exactly as he envisions. Sometimes, he has to compromise. Who's to say that what any given President wanted to achieve couldn't have been better than the legistlation that eventual came through Congress? What we're seeing now is a President who honestly believes that the middle-class has been shafted over the decades and wants to do more to bring things alittle more in balance across the economic divide...a "redistribution of wealth" rather than relying on its "trickle-down" effects. Who's to say which works better. All I know is eventually history will show which method worked better for this nation. But to make such a judgement now when the man has only been in office for 18-months is absord!

 

[Conservative]

What you seem to miss that in the working world there are yearly evaluations yet with Obama it is a four year evalution. Anyone with the results Obama has generated would be on probation after year one and fired after year two. We are into year two. Are you ever going to hold this guy responsible for his performance? No President controls Congress? LOL, now naive. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are out of the same mold yet you believe Obama has no influence? That is naive at best.

 

[somepeoplesay]

What you seem to miss that in the working world there are yearly evaluations yet with Obama it is a four year evalution. Anyone with the results Obama has generated would be on probation after year one and fired after year two. We are into year two. Are you ever going to hold this guy responsible for his performance? No President controls Congress? LOL, now naive. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are out of the same mold yet you believe Obama has no influence? That is naive at best.

So, the whole economic situation is solely Obama's fault then? Oh, I forgot, the Democrats were trying pass legislation since 2006 only to have most of it blocked by the GOP, so it's their fault! Seriously though, this is not just Obama's fault. We had an idiot at the wheel for 8 years before him who had more control over his congress then Obama does now, partially because he didn't give two ****s about the minority party.

 

[Conservative]

Who said it was all Obama's fault? You really have to get off this partisan BS. Democrats and Bush were responsible for the recession and Obama was part of that Congress. Now Obama has a total Democrat controlled Congress and the results are there for you to see. Why the different standards with Bush? Seems that you ignore reality to stick to your partisan BS. There are three equal branches of govt, Democrats control two of them now, 1 of them the last year of Bush yet things are worse today than then. How can that be or don't results matter to you?

 

[Conservative]

You really have a serious Bush Derangement Syndrome problem. No President in recent history had a veto proof Congress like Obama had and still screwed things up because of Pelosi and Reid being lapdogs for the radical leftwing President that we have. Instead of thinking and showing some common sense you prefer to be a partisan hack. You bought what the media told you and thus hated GW Bush. Now we have a total disaster in the WH and you ignore it preferring instead to give Obama a pass and continue to blame Bush. Bush didn't have 15 million unemployed Americans, Bush didn't create a stimulus plan that stimulated nothing but bailouts for Democrat constituents, Bush didn't create the deficits that Obama is creating, Bush didn't make things worse after taking office. So continue to blame Bush thus showing how little you know.

You can avoid the facts but that doesn't change the facts. The majority in this country are finally getting what many of us tried to tell them before voting for Obama. This President is a disaster and anyone that cannot see that truly is out of touch with reality and buries their head in the sand.

 

[obvious Child]

I am a partisan conservative because that is the only ideololgy that makes any sense and actually generates private sector jobs.

Unlikely. You are a partisan probably because you have no education.

Recap:

You called a recession with massive inflation not as bad a recession with minor inflation when both had the same unemployment numbers.
You have no understanding on basic statistics.
You cannot define or understand what linear regression is.
You ignore (or either have no understanding) how Obama is following many of the same practices as Bush did.
You ignore (or either have no understanding) that Reagan pushed Keynesian policies.
You ignore (or either have no understanding) or basically anything fact based.

As for the President having an affect on the economy, apparently that only happens with a Republican is in the WH? Suggest taking a civics course and learning the three branches of govt. When the Democrats control two of them, then it is the President's agenda being implemented and thus his responsibility.

Still don't know what linear regression is do you, eh liar?
Still won't admit you were wrong eh?

The rest of your post is nothing more than baiting, revisionist history, and typical liberal diversion.

Which, if you had a gun to your head, you couldn't prove. All you've done is admit I'm right. If I was wrong, you would have been able to prove it. But similar to the time you claimed that Texas had a surplus despite its own comptroller saying otherwise, you will simply fall back on insults rather then actually prove you are correct. I have more then enough of your stupid arguments to show anyone you have no credibility whatsoever.

Had Obama followed the Reagan-Bush model we would be headed out of this mess by now but no, they had to implement their socialist model. Keep spinning.

Except that he did. And you fail to recognize that Reagan and Bush's recessions were not financially based. That alone suggests you have no use for facts, history or economics.

By the way, bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury Dept are better sources than your opinion as to the economic conditions in this country and where the dollars went.

LOL. Still ignoring what linear regression is eh?

I doubt you can even define it.

 

[obvious Child]

So, the whole economic situation is solely Obama's fault then? Oh, I forgot, the Democrats were trying pass legislation since 2006 only to have most of it blocked by the GOP, so it's their fault! Seriously though, this is not just Obama's fault. We had an idiot at the wheel for 8 years before him who had more control over his congress then Obama does now, partially because he didn't give two ****s about the minority party.

I should inform you, you are discussing a topic with someone who believes what he wishes to be true, not what the verifable facts suggest are true. It's pretty much impossible for anyone to get Conservative to admit he's wrong, even when we post hard evidence he is in fact wrong. If he believed the moon was made of cheese, no amount of evidence would convince him otherwise.

For instance, he once argued that Texas had a surplus. Except that we posted quotes and financials showing that the government of Texas was $10 billion in the hole at that very second. All he did was scream insults at everyone who pointed out the simple math. That $10 billion in the red is not a surplus.

 

[obvious Child]

Who said it was all Obama's fault?

You.

You really have to get off this partisan BS. Democrats and Bush were responsible for the recession and Obama was part of that Congress.

Except that you ignore that the GOP repealed the GSA. Furthermore, you bash Obama for not following Bush. Except you NOW say Bush is also responsible. HACK.

[qyuote]Now Obama has a total Democrat controlled Congress and the results are there for you to see. Why the different standards with Bush?[/quote]

How about you answer that?

After all, many of the policies in the stimulus were similar, if not identical to Bush's spending acts. Yet you constantly bash Obama for not following Bush despite him doing just that. HYPOCRITE ALERT!

Seems that you ignore reality to stick to your partisan BS. There are three equal branches of govt, Democrats control two of them now, 1 of them the last year of Bush yet things are worse today than then. How can that be or don't results matter to you?

Care to show quick rebounds on recessions caused by financial crisises? Hint, you won't because there aren't. This has relatively little to do with government and far more to due with the underlying nature of financial/liquidity crisises.

 

[Conservative]

Glad to hear that I have such an impact on you, most of that which you posted is from your own imagination but it doesn't matter. Since obviously bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury data mean nothing to you and feelings trump facts you deserve exactly what Obama is delivering for you. OC, I will take my record in business and my record as a family person over anything you have to offer. You and your ilk will get it one day. "Your" President is a disaster as is the liberal agenda. This isn't about Reagan or Bush, this is about the empty suit you voted for. Stick to the present and stay in the minority that believes this President has a clue. Wonder what he shot today on the golf course?

 

[Conservative]

As a member of Congress he helped create it. Guess you don't understand the role of Congress in the legislative process, not surprising.

"Your" President will be a one termer and "your" President is a disaster. Not sure what it is going to take to get you to understand that but from what I can see you are one hard headed liberal. In case you missed it TARP bailed out the banks with most of the money repaid. The entities that caused the problem, Freddie and Fannie, continue to be the disaster but that is ok, they fund housing for low income people like you. Obama created the Stimulus, the GM/Chrylser bailout, the cash for clunkers program, the home owner credit which again provides mortages for people who probably cannot pay for their home but to you those are great programs, another "free" handout on the backs of the taxpayer, short term fix for live for today people like you. The results are great, aren't they, 15 million unemployed, 2.4 trillion added to the debt, GDP growth due to govt. expansion. Guess people like you need a job, Obama is just what you needas apparently you cannot compete in a free enterprise society.

Stop making this personal but without making it personal you have nothing. Move on little person.

 

[obvious Child]

Glad to hear that I have such an impact on you, most of that which you posted is from your own imagination but it doesn't matter.

So:
You believe you never argued Texas had a surplus?
You never argued that Bush did not have a stimulus or did the bailouts of Detroit?
You never argued that just tax cuts, nothing else caused Reagan's expansion?

Look Conservative, Hard questions, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!

Since obviously bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury data mean nothing to you and feelings trump facts you deserve exactly what Obama is delivering for you

Cute. Still don't know what linear regression is do you? Nor have you figured out what correlation and causation are.

How about this, you demonstrate you understand those concepts and I'll stop beating the **** out of you for a week?

OC, I will take my record in business and my record as a family person over anything you have to offer.

What record? You said that inflation is not relevant to the impact of a recession! You trying to argue your evidence free claims of having a business make you a better judge of economics after saying that and you expect me not to laugh at you? Really? Oh Boy. Head down to the basement if you really want to see some action.

You and your ilk will get it one day.

My ilk? I didn't vote for Obama and I know far more then you about business. Notice I actually bring up specifics. You don't. I address your points with specifics. You can't even answer a single question. I bring up historical examples. You vaguely refer to Reagan without any understanding of what happened. You cannot even address my arguments. I seriously doubt you are more then 13 years of age. Or even less.

"Your" President is a disaster as is the liberal agenda.

You mean the guy I didn't vote for?

This isn't about Reagan or Bush, this is about the empty suit you voted for.

I voted libertarian. And you can stop making **** up to compensate for your utter lack of any skill.
And you attacked Obama for not following Reagan and Bush despite his many policies in the same mold.

Stick to the present and stay in the minority that believes this President has a clue. Wonder what he shot today on the golf course?

He has more of a clue then you do. At least he never argued that $10 billion in the hole is a surplus. And he never argued that a recession with 10% inflation is not as bad as a recession with 1% inflation. And he never argued that moving ad revenue between shows means the overall company lost money. Really, the more you post, the more idiotic examples I have to bash you over the head with.

 

[Redress]

Moderator's Warning:

Time to calm this thread down. Any more namecalling or uncivil behavior will result in thread bans.

 

[obvious Child]

As a member of Congress he helped create it. Guess you don't understand the role of Congress in the legislative process, not surprising.

Way to fail. The origin of this crisis can be found in the repeal of the GSA. Who did that? The Republican Congress under Clinton who also signed it.

"Your" President will be a one termer and "your" President is a disaster.

You know, lying about who I voted for when there are plenty of my posts showing who I voted for pretty much makes you a liar. But that's not news.

Not sure what it is going to take to get you to understand that but from what I can see you are one hard headed liberal.

So, you consider the following a list of liberal ideas? (you might want to ask Navy how that went last time he called me a liberal)

1) Pro Trade
2) Strong Defense
3) Non-intervention
4) Small, limited government
5) Term Limits
6) Partial abortion ban
7) Elimination of Social Security

That's just for starters. Since you think you're not a liberal, you must stand for:
1) Protectionism
2) Weak Defense
3) Intervention
4) More Goverment
5) Unlimited terms
7) No limits on abortion
8) Expansion of Social Security.

Thanks, I'm going to reference this thread every time you claim you're a conservative. You're not by your own definition.

In case you missed it TARP bailed out the banks with most of the money repaid.

When did I say otherwise? What you are wrong about is your claim that Bush never bailed out Detroit. You still refuse to admit you are wrong. Crying shame you can't change your old posts.

The entities that caused the problem, Freddie and Fannie, continue to be the disaster but that is ok, they fund housing for low income people like you.

Low income? Seriously? Freddie and Fannie own the vast majority of loans in this country. I guess you think the vast majority of people in America are low income. :2wave:

One really must wonder if you know what Google is considering you never fact check.

Obama created the Stimulus, the GM/Chrylser bailout

So Bush never bailed out GM/Chrylser? Care to revisit an old post in this thread? And Bush signed his own stimulus.

the cash for clunkers program

Which operated on the same principle as Bush's bonus depreciation. Why you refuse to bash him on that is because you are a hack.

The results are great, aren't they, 15 million unemployed, 2.4 trillion added to the debt, GDP growth due to govt. expansion.

And apparently you think doing nothing would be better.

Guess people like you need a job, Obama is just what you needas apparently you cannot compete in a free enterprise society.

I went to work today on a Saturday. Amusing, you just bash me on perceived things, where I attack you on things you actually said.

How about you start addressing what I write rather then make **** up?

 

[ADK_Forever]

You really have a serious Bush Derangement Syndrome problem. No President in recent history had a veto proof Congress like Obama had and still screwed things up because of Pelosi and Reid being lapdogs for the radical leftwing President that we have.

Unless, of course, you look at Bush's Congress from 2001 thru 2006. You know, the one that gave Bush all those SPENDING bills of which Bush didn't veto one! You mean things like that? :lol:

Bush didn't have 15 million unemployed Americans, Bush didn't create a stimulus plan that stimulated nothing but bailouts for Democrat constituents, Bush didn't create the deficits that Obama is creating, Bush didn't make things worse after taking office. So continue to blame Bush thus showing how little you know.

You can avoid the facts but that doesn't change the facts.

Yep, youse right. The facts are the facts. So, here are some of those "facts" fer ya. And, they're from a government site like you like to quote from. So, I'm sure you'll have no quarrels with it. :lol:

The Bush Administration’s Failed Economic and Fiscal Record
Earlier this week, the Administration released its final Mid-Session Review of the budget. The new budget document showed a record deficit for 2009 – confirming that in eight years this Administration will have turned the largest surpluses in history into the largest deficits in history. This dismal fiscal record is unfortunately just one aspect of this Administration’s failed economic record.

This document details the Administration’s economic and fiscal record in a number of important areas.

Some of the key points are as follows:
• Current Administration will leave the nation with largest deficit in history — The
Administration’s 2009 budget will leave the country with a $482 billion deficit, trumping
its previous $413 billion record set in 2004.

• Debt balloons under Administration policies — Since the President took office in 2001,
the debt held by the public has swelled by $2.0 trillion, an increase of 59 percent – with
most of it financed by foreign investors.

• Economic growth is anemic — GDP grew just 1.9 percent in the second quarter of 2008
– mainly because of the economic stimulus Congress passed. This follows growth of just
0.9 percent in the first quarter of 2008 and revised negative growth (a contraction) of -0.2
percent in the last quarter of 2007, fueling the argument that we are already in a
recession.

• Thousands of jobs lost — Private payrolls have lost 578,000 jobs since December. To
date, this Administration has created just 58,000 new jobs per month on average
compared with 237,000 per month under President Clinton.

• Household incomes have fallen — Real median household income has decreased by
almost $1,000 under President Bush. During the Clinton Administration, real median
household income rose by $6,000, or 14.0 percent.

• The President’s fiscal policies impose heavy debt burden on America’s families — The $2.0 trillion added to the public debt under this Administration equates to $26,000 in additional federal debt for every family of four in the U.S. – far more than most families
have received in tax cuts.

Deficits and Debt
• Record surpluses squandered — This Administration inherited a $5.6 trillion, ten-year
projected surplus and transformed it into a $3.2 trillion projected deficit – a swing in the
wrong direction of nearly $8.8 trillion.

• Biggest deficits in history — The White House’s Mid-Session Review projects that this Administration’s budget for 2009 will leave the country with a record $482 billion
deficit. In fact, all five of the largest deficits in our nation’s history have occurred on this Administration’s
watch.

• Debt balloons under this Administration — Since this President took office, the debt held by the public has swelled by $2.0 trillion, an increase of 59 percent. The current Administration has already accrued more debt

Economic Performance
• Anemic economic growth — Today, real economic growth is threatening to stall and
many economists believe we are already in a recession. GDP grew just 1.9 percent in the
second quarter of 2008 – mainly because of the economic stimulus Congress passed.
This follows growth of just 0.9 percent in the first quarter of 2008 and revised negative
growth (a contraction) of -0.2 percent

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/fy2009/7.31.08_Bush economic_ and fiscal_ record.pdf

This is from July 2008. I guess those guys saw what Bush's so-called Economic Plan was already doing to the economy that they predicted a recession was coming. After all his drunken sailor spending, it wasn't a surprise to anyone. Anyone whose head wasn't bobbing for apples in the red kool-aid pitcher,:2rofll: that is.

Yeah, I can't imagine why people blame Bush for our economic disasters. :roll: