President Obama Cut the Unemployment Rate More Than Any President since FDR

Avatar image for mosquitobaby
#1 Edited by MosquitoBaby (74 posts) -

It's actually quite amazing and it's my number 1 reason why history will look at him, easily in the top 10 presidents. Personally, he's in my top 5.

Regardless of how you view Obama from the social spectrum, it's quite a feat to had cut the unemployment rate by 3.8% when he left office.

And before conservatives say "bu bu bu the debt." Every single president, including Trump have ballooned the U.S debt, Obama did it in order to save an almost collapsing economy.

I feel like Obama really doesn't get enough credit, especially when he had to make some really controversial decisions, like the auto bailout which were directly aligned with the recovering post 2008 crash economy.

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/president-obama-cut-unemployment-rate-president-since-fdr/?session=1

/Discuss

Avatar image for warmblur
#2 Posted by warmblur (2525 posts) -

But.. he wore a tan suit!!!

Avatar image for ezekiel43
#3 Edited by Ezekiel43 (1607 posts) -

I pity modern presidents. Imagine how little FDR would have gotten done if the two parties had been uncooperative, combative and childish then as they are now and if the media had excessively pervaded his privacy and made his disability public much sooner. It seems so difficult to accomplish anything under these conditions.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#4 Posted by mrbojangles25 (44045 posts) -

Going from Bush to Obama to Trump has been quite an experience, that is for sure.

@ezekiel43 said:

I pity modern presidents. Imagine how little FDR would have gotten done if the two parties had been uncooperative, combative and childish then as they are now and if the media had excessively pervaded his privacy and made his disability public much sooner. It seems so difficult to accomplish anything under these conditions.

It would be nice, I agree. The question I have is who is asking these people to be so divisive? Their constituents? I don't think so, not really; I feel that, despite what we see, most people are both moderate and generally want things to change for the better.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#5 Posted by mattbbpl (17208 posts) -

@mrbojangles25: Trump's GOP approval remains rock solid. I think you're underestimating the degree of the divisiveness.

Avatar image for zaryia
#6 Posted by Zaryia (9000 posts) -

It's hilarious when Trump tries to take credit for this.

Avatar image for Nuck81
#7 Posted by Nuck81 (7642 posts) -

@zaryia: well the unemployment numbers were fake news in 2016.

I mean he heard unemployment was as high as 70% some people were saying.

He's responsible for a trillion jobs. Believe me

Avatar image for Serraph105
#8 Edited by Serraph105 (33846 posts) -

@mosquitobaby said:

Regardless of how you view Obama from the social spectrum, it's quite a feat to had cut the unemployment rate by 3.8% when he left office.


https://tcf.org/content/commentary/president-obama-cut-unemployment-rate-president-since-fdr/?session=1

/Discuss

By my count he cut it by 5.3%, and honestly I'm not sure where the 3.8% even comes from based on the bureau of labor statics. When Obama stepped into office the national employment rate was still in free-fall thanks to the previous administration, as evidenced by by the fact that the rate was falling before he took office and still going after he took office. It didn't stop until October 2009 at 10% and when Obama left in January 2017 it was 4.7%.

We can get into what he really did, how much credit any president actually deserves for the economy and all that, but ultimately, unlike a lot of presidents, he signed large economic measures within his first days as president out of necessity for the country and that gives him a lot more ownership of the economy in my mind.

At any rate my count starts at where the economy finally stopped declining (because it was not a self-inflicted wound) and ends at the end of his presidency.

Citation: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns14000000

Avatar image for waahahah
#9 Posted by waahahah (2462 posts) -

Obama didn't "balloon" the debt. He made a zeppelin fleet.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#10 Posted by joebones5000 (2345 posts) -

The most astounding part of "Obama's debt" is that he took ownership of all Bush's off the books war spending.

Avatar image for JimB
#11 Posted by JimB (2473 posts) -

@mosquitobaby said:

It's actually quite amazing and it's my number 1 reason why history will look at him, easily in the top 10 presidents. Personally, he's in my top 5.

Regardless of how you view Obama from the social spectrum, it's quite a feat to had cut the unemployment rate by 3.8% when he left office.

And before conservatives say "bu bu bu the debt." Every single president, including Trump have ballooned the U.S debt, Obama did it in order to save an almost collapsing economy.

I feel like Obama really doesn't get enough credit, especially when he had to make some really controversial decisions, like the auto bailout which were directly aligned with the recovering post 2008 crash economy.

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/president-obama-cut-unemployment-rate-president-since-fdr/?session=1

/Discuss

https://georgetowner.com/articles/2011/12/14/abbot-and-costello-economics-lesson/

Avatar image for mosquitobaby
#12 Posted by MosquitoBaby (74 posts) -
@JimB said:
@mosquitobaby said:

It's actually quite amazing and it's my number 1 reason why history will look at him, easily in the top 10 presidents. Personally, he's in my top 5.

Regardless of how you view Obama from the social spectrum, it's quite a feat to had cut the unemployment rate by 3.8% when he left office.

And before conservatives say "bu bu bu the debt." Every single president, including Trump have ballooned the U.S debt, Obama did it in order to save an almost collapsing economy.

I feel like Obama really doesn't get enough credit, especially when he had to make some really controversial decisions, like the auto bailout which were directly aligned with the recovering post 2008 crash economy.

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/president-obama-cut-unemployment-rate-president-since-fdr/?session=1

/Discuss

https://georgetowner.com/articles/2011/12/14/abbot-and-costello-economics-lesson/

Nice try, but the article doesn't mention the unemployment rate when Obama left office. 4.1% - now it's at 4.0%.

Also, new jobs added but also new jobs lost. Hence why if you knew a bit about math you'd understand that if no jobs were loss the unemployment rate would be much lower than just a 0.1% deduction in almost 3 years.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#13 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (7205 posts) -

I liked a few things he's done but no matter how much I despise the right, they have a point about Obama spending trillion dollars deficits. He could and should have left a lot of businesses to fall. The stimulus packages were a huge waste.

Avatar image for horgen
#14 Posted by Horgen (120597 posts) -

@blaznwiipspman1 said:

I liked a few things he's done but no matter how much I despise the right, they have a point about Obama spending trillion dollars deficits. He could and should have left a lot of businesses to fall. The stimulus packages were a huge waste.

You're aware that Trump has a rather high deficit in a booming economy, right?

Avatar image for zaryia
#15 Edited by Zaryia (9000 posts) -
@waahahah said:

Obama didn't "balloon" the debt. He made a zeppelin fleet.

Donald Trump: As projected in Table S-10 in the FY 2020 budget, Trump plans to add $5.088 trillion to the debt in his first term. That's a 30 percent increase from the $20.245 trillion debt at the end of Obama's last budget for FY 2017. If he remains in office for a second term, he plans to add $9.1 trillion. Trump had promised to eliminate the debt during his campaign.

  • FY 2021 - $1.276 trillion.
  • FY 2020 - $1.281 trillion.
  • FY 2019 - $1.314 trillion.
  • FY 2018 - $1.217 trillion.

Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion

Only Trump doesn't have the Great Recession excuse.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
#16 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (1885 posts) -

Cutting unemployment is a pretty myopic measure of a good president.

Avatar image for zaryia
#17 Edited by Zaryia (9000 posts) -
@vl4d_l3nin said:

Cutting unemployment is a pretty myopic measure of a good president.

https://www.axios.com/experts-rank-trump-as-worst-president-obama-as-8th-best-1519065065-dd7781fd-2070-484a-9553-f9cc676635e6.html

Experts rank Trump as worst president, Obama 8th best

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/all-time-best-president-united-states-rankings-235149

Survey: Historians rank Obama 12th best president

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
#18 Edited by vl4d_l3nin (1885 posts) -
@zaryia said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:

Cutting unemployment is a pretty myopic measure of a good president.

https://www.axios.com/experts-rank-trump-as-worst-president-obama-as-8th-best-1519065065-dd7781fd-2070-484a-9553-f9cc676635e6.html

Experts rank Trump as worst president, Obama 8th best

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/all-time-best-president-united-states-rankings-235149

Survey: Historians rank Obama 12th best president

You're proving my point. Obama had the second best unemployment decline in 100 years and he's rated between 8th and 12th place. Trump is rated the worst, and unemployment has fallen under him as well. There are other factors at play here.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#19 Posted by mattbbpl (17208 posts) -

@zaryia: That's easy enough to fix. Just cut taxes again to increase the revenue.

Avatar image for zaryia
#20 Posted by Zaryia (9000 posts) -
@vl4d_l3nin said:
@zaryia said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:

Cutting unemployment is a pretty myopic measure of a good president.

https://www.axios.com/experts-rank-trump-as-worst-president-obama-as-8th-best-1519065065-dd7781fd-2070-484a-9553-f9cc676635e6.html

Experts rank Trump as worst president, Obama 8th best

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/all-time-best-president-united-states-rankings-235149

Survey: Historians rank Obama 12th best president

You're proving my point. Obama had the second best unemployment decline in 100 years and he's rated between 8th and 12th place. Trump is rated the worst, and unemployment has fallen under him as well. There are other factors at play here.

Probably behavior, foreign policy, approval, disapproval etc.

Avatar image for waahahah
#21 Posted by waahahah (2462 posts) -

@zaryia said:
@waahahah said:

Obama didn't "balloon" the debt. He made a zeppelin fleet.

Donald Trump: As projected in Table S-10 in the FY 2020 budget, Trump plans to add $5.088 trillion to the debt in his first term. That's a 30 percent increase from the $20.245 trillion debt at the end of Obama's last budget for FY 2017. If he remains in office for a second term, he plans to add $9.1 trillion. Trump had promised to eliminate the debt during his campaign.

  • FY 2021 - $1.276 trillion.
  • FY 2020 - $1.281 trillion.
  • FY 2019 - $1.314 trillion.
  • FY 2018 - $1.217 trillion.

Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion

Only Trump doesn't have the Great Recession excuse.

The deficits primarily because of entitlements, which is 2/3's of current government spending.

Barack increased spending, He increased the deficit wildly with mandatory spending. Trump is working within budget deficit Obama ballooned out of control. Unless he can roll back or reduce entitlements successfully, he's mandated to include 2/3's of the mandatory spending in the budget.

Bush added to the debt funding the war machine, but those aren't mandatory spending. That deficit isn't year over year the US is obligated to spend.

Avatar image for zaryia
#22 Edited by Zaryia (9000 posts) -
@waahahah said:
@zaryia said:
@waahahah said:

Obama didn't "balloon" the debt. He made a zeppelin fleet.

Donald Trump: As projected in Table S-10 in the FY 2020 budget, Trump plans to add $5.088 trillion to the debt in his first term. That's a 30 percent increase from the $20.245 trillion debt at the end of Obama's last budget for FY 2017. If he remains in office for a second term, he plans to add $9.1 trillion. Trump had promised to eliminate the debt during his campaign.

  • FY 2021 - $1.276 trillion.
  • FY 2020 - $1.281 trillion.
  • FY 2019 - $1.314 trillion.
  • FY 2018 - $1.217 trillion.

Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion

Only Trump doesn't have the Great Recession excuse.

Barack increased spending, He increased the deficit wildly with mandatory spending. Trump is working within budget deficit Obama ballooned out of control. Unless he can roll back or reduce entitlements successfully, he's mandated to include 2/3's of the mandatory spending in the budget.

How the Trump Tax Cut Is Helping to Push the Federal Deficit to $1 Trillion

Now that the 2018 fiscal year is over (as of Oct. 1), we can say with some confidence that the cuts have not begun to pay for themselves yet. The budget deficit has swollen under Trump’s hand to $782 billion, some $116 billion more than the year before. The wider gap can be attributed entirely to a shortfall in tax revenue; in particular, corporate tax receipts plunged $92 billion year-on-year.

GOP tax cuts are expanding the deficit

Treasury said revenues grew from 2017 to 2018 by slightly less than $14 billion. Given the federal government’s overall $113 billion deficit increase, you might assume that the deficit rose because spending was $127 billion higher.

Overall federal outlays did increase by $127 billion compared with what was actually spent in 2017, but that’s the wrong comparison. The right comparison is the total tax revenue the government would have collected under the old tax law versus the new one.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated fiscal 2018 revenue would be $3.5 trillion under the laws that were in place before President Donald Trump signed the GOP tax cut bill. The actual amount Treasury reported Monday was $202 billion less. That $202 billion would have more than covered the $127 billion in extra spending in 2018.

This comparison, to tax revenues that were expected had the laws stayed the same, unambiguously shows that virtually all of the federal deficit increase that occurred from 2017 to 2018 was because of the new cuts in corporate and individual taxes. Had the tax changes not been enacted, the federal deficit in 2018 would have dropped to well below $600 billion, rather than rising to close to $800 billion.

The amount of corporate taxes collected by the federal government has plunged to historically low levels in the first six months of the year, pushing up the federal budget deficit much faster than economists had predicted.

The reason is President Trump’s tax cuts.

Trump is increasing spending too, and it's not all due to Obama and the great recession he had to turn around.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#23 Edited by blaznwiipspman1 (7205 posts) -

@horgen: it doesn't matter who does it, it's absolutely disgusting to balloon the debt. Live within your means, it doesn't matter what happens, don't stray outside this philosophy. Unless you have a legitimate means of paying down the debt, a real plan then don't deficit spend. Fucking leeches

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#24 Posted by mattbbpl (17208 posts) -

@blaznwiipspman1: That's an overly simplistic mentality that does more harm than good. Deficit spending is a useful tool to help smooth out the economy, and everyone implicitly acknowledges that fact (even those who explicitly deny it).

Avatar image for tenaka2
#25 Posted by tenaka2 (17188 posts) -

But you idiots elected president bone spurs..... so there's that.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#26 Edited by blaznwiipspman1 (7205 posts) -

@waahahah: you're defending trump? Just read a few posts above and trump is on pace to exceed Obama's debt, and that's with Obamas terms during the greatest recession in modern history. Even with that fact, I still hated Obama deficit spending. Now trump spending even wors than Obama in boom times is a joke. This bum needs to be dragged out and tarred/feathered

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#27 Edited by blaznwiipspman1 (7205 posts) -

@mattbbpl: you're right it's simplistic thinking but I stick by it. Anything short of a nuke going off, doesn't matter to me how bad, do not deficit spend without a real plan to pay down the debt. Even a deep recession or a depression, do not deficit spend without a plan period. If the politicians in charge doesn't succeed in paying down the debt, then all responsible parties should be held directly financially liable.

Avatar image for waahahah
#28 Posted by waahahah (2462 posts) -

@blaznwiipspman1 said:

@mattbbpl: you're right it's simplistic thinking but I stick by it. Anything short of a nuke going off, doesn't matter to me how bad, do not deficit spend without a real plan to pay down the debt. Even a deep recession or a depression, do not deficit spend without a plan period. If the politicians in charge doesn't succeed in paying down the debt, then all responsible parties should be held directly financially liable.

MANDATORY spending means its up to congress to nuke entitlements. The entitlements alone cost something like 1.6 trillion a year thanks to Obama expanding Medicare and other entitlements.

@zaryia said:
@waahahah said:
@zaryia said:
@waahahah said:

Obama didn't "balloon" the debt. He made a zeppelin fleet.

Donald Trump: As projected in Table S-10 in the FY 2020 budget, Trump plans to add $5.088 trillion to the debt in his first term. That's a 30 percent increase from the $20.245 trillion debt at the end of Obama's last budget for FY 2017. If he remains in office for a second term, he plans to add $9.1 trillion. Trump had promised to eliminate the debt during his campaign.

  • FY 2021 - $1.276 trillion.
  • FY 2020 - $1.281 trillion.
  • FY 2019 - $1.314 trillion.
  • FY 2018 - $1.217 trillion.

Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion

Only Trump doesn't have the Great Recession excuse.

Barack increased spending, He increased the deficit wildly with mandatory spending. Trump is working within budget deficit Obama ballooned out of control. Unless he can roll back or reduce entitlements successfully, he's mandated to include 2/3's of the mandatory spending in the budget.

How the Trump Tax Cut Is Helping to Push the Federal Deficit to $1 Trillion

Now that the 2018 fiscal year is over (as of Oct. 1), we can say with some confidence that the cuts have not begun to pay for themselves yet. The budget deficit has swollen under Trump’s hand to $782 billion, some $116 billion more than the year before. The wider gap can be attributed entirely to a shortfall in tax revenue; in particular, corporate tax receipts plunged $92 billion year-on-year.

GOP tax cuts are expanding the deficit

Treasury said revenues grew from 2017 to 2018 by slightly less than $14 billion. Given the federal government’s overall $113 billion deficit increase, you might assume that the deficit rose because spending was $127 billion higher.

Overall federal outlays did increase by $127 billion compared with what was actually spent in 2017, but that’s the wrong comparison. The right comparison is the total tax revenue the government would have collected under the old tax law versus the new one.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated fiscal 2018 revenue would be $3.5 trillion under the laws that were in place before President Donald Trump signed the GOP tax cut bill. The actual amount Treasury reported Monday was $202 billion less. That $202 billion would have more than covered the $127 billion in extra spending in 2018.

This comparison, to tax revenues that were expected had the laws stayed the same, unambiguously shows that virtually all of the federal deficit increase that occurred from 2017 to 2018 was because of the new cuts in corporate and individual taxes. Had the tax changes not been enacted, the federal deficit in 2018 would have dropped to well below $600 billion, rather than rising to close to $800 billion.

The amount of corporate taxes collected by the federal government has plunged to historically low levels in the first six months of the year, pushing up the federal budget deficit much faster than economists had predicted.

The reason is President Trump’s tax cuts.

Trump is increasing spending too, and it's not all due to Obama and the great recession he had to turn around.

I never suggested he wasn't increasing the deficit. The tax policy is necessary for long term growth as the trend for businesses has been to operate less and less in the US and keep money over seas because of the uncompetitive taxes. If you don't understand supply side economics (not trickle down, that's a dumb system that doesn't exist) you wouldn't understand the importance. The tax reduction isn't a fixed or permanent deficit like mandatory spending is.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#29 Edited by blaznwiipspman1 (7205 posts) -

@waahahah: there's a great way to increase revenues other than cutting taxes. Threaten these corporations with 2 choices. Accept a tax increase or de regulate, gut all anti free market laws, the patents IP, trademarks, everything. Faced with those two choices, I bet you my left nut, the corps will take option number 1 all day every day.

There's no need to compete with other countries based on lower taxes. You can increase revenues through breaking up the monopolies by forced competition. The problem is the courts and politicians as well as the corporations are sleeping together. They have created a system where they only profit and smaller competitors are driven out. In this modern era we live in, there's far less businesses competing in any industry. Consolidation, mergers, acquisitions, these only happened because of scam intellectual property laws.

So you saying that we need to cut taxes on the rich is false, it's a scam and a lie. You can increase revenues through de regulation. Less monopolies, means more money being driven into the free market. Yes free market economics are still the best tool we have to drive growth. The problem are the courts and politicians, as well as corrupt corporations.

The other scam are the tax cuts. If you're going to cut taxes, then you need to de regulate. The problem is, the government is increasing regulation and cutting taxes. This is leading to massive wealth inequality. On top of that it's creating massive deficits every year. You say it's necessary, you're completely wrong.

Avatar image for waahahah
#30 Edited by waahahah (2462 posts) -

@blaznwiipspman1 said:

@waahahah: there's a great way to increase revenues other than cutting taxes. Threaten these corporations with 2 choices. Accept a tax increase or de regulate, gut all anti free market laws, the patents IP, trademarks, everything. Faced with those two choices, I bet you my left nut, the corps will take option number 1 all day every day.

There's no need to compete with other countries based on lower taxes. You can increase revenues through breaking up the monopolies by forced competition. The problem is the courts and politicians as well as the corporations are sleeping together. They have created a system where they only profit and smaller competitors are driven out. In this modern era we live in, there's far less businesses competing in any industry. Consolidation, mergers, acquisitions, these only happened because of scam intellectual property laws.

So you saying that we need to cut taxes on the rich is false, it's a scam and a lie. You can increase revenues through de regulation. Less monopolies, means more money being driven into the free market. Yes free market economics are still the best tool we have to drive growth. The problem are the courts and politicians, as well as corrupt corporations.

Of course they can choose 1... because even if you increase taxes on them... they just move their business overseas and invest elsewhere, and just import the end product to the US. Cutting taxes weren't only on the rich... not to mention corporations are consumers as well and they buy products and services from surrounding areas. Just having a super rich business in an area will lift everyone up because they'll spend money locally.

Consolidation/mergers/acquisitions didn't only happen because of intellectual property laws... they mostly happened because of economy of scale is the most important thing in an overregulated high tax market.

Secondly… the government is not increasing regulation, they have been removing something like 22 regulations for every 1 added.

The other scam are the tax cuts. If you're going to cut taxes, then you need to de regulate. The problem is, the government is increasing regulation and cutting taxes. This is leading to massive wealth inequality. On top of that it's creating massive deficits every year. You say it's necessary, you're completely wrong.

This makes NO sense... cutting taxes reduces the burden on individuals and companies making it easier for people to start or invest in creating or expanding businesses. Adding regulations makes it more difficult but its not obvious which has the larger impact... is it becoming easier? Well of course because the government is reducing regulation making the burden of figuring out what you need to comply easier. Less lawyers and what not.

Also.. IT DEPENDS ON THE REGULATION whether or not it helps or breaks up monopolies. Regulation is also used to prevent monopolies.

And secondly Its not even large businesses creating problematic inequality. The states that voted for Hillary received 85% of all venture capitalist money, trump's states received 15%... Inequality on an investor level is the problem. They need to start using their jets to invest in other states instead only investing locally. You have California with a consumer price index of 250% making 15/hr "living wage" a joke, and some places have 50% consumer price index making $15/hr lower middle class. There is really nothing that regulation can do about this.

Avatar image for JimB
#31 Posted by JimB (2473 posts) -

@mosquitobaby said:
@JimB said:
@mosquitobaby said:

It's actually quite amazing and it's my number 1 reason why history will look at him, easily in the top 10 presidents. Personally, he's in my top 5.

Regardless of how you view Obama from the social spectrum, it's quite a feat to had cut the unemployment rate by 3.8% when he left office.

And before conservatives say "bu bu bu the debt." Every single president, including Trump have ballooned the U.S debt, Obama did it in order to save an almost collapsing economy.

I feel like Obama really doesn't get enough credit, especially when he had to make some really controversial decisions, like the auto bailout which were directly aligned with the recovering post 2008 crash economy.

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/president-obama-cut-unemployment-rate-president-since-fdr/?session=1

/Discuss

https://georgetowner.com/articles/2011/12/14/abbot-and-costello-economics-lesson/

Nice try, but the article doesn't mention the unemployment rate when Obama left office. 4.1% - now it's at 4.0%.

Also, new jobs added but also new jobs lost. Hence why if you knew a bit about math you'd understand that if no jobs were loss the unemployment rate would be much lower than just a 0.1% deduction in almost 3 years.

4.1% with 100,000,000 people not working and not counted as unemployed. You read but don't understand what you read.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#32 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10767 posts) -

@JimB said:
@mosquitobaby said:

Nice try, but the article doesn't mention the unemployment rate when Obama left office. 4.1% - now it's at 4.0%.

Also, new jobs added but also new jobs lost. Hence why if you knew a bit about math you'd understand that if no jobs were loss the unemployment rate would be much lower than just a 0.1% deduction in almost 3 years.

4.1% with 100,000,000 people not working and not counted as unemployed. You read but don't understand what you read.

Where is this 100,000,000 coming from? Are you seriously counting children or the elderly?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#33 Posted by mattbbpl (17208 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan: He reads, but he fails to understand.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#34 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (10767 posts) -

@mattbbpl said:

@HoolaHoopMan: He reads, but he fails to understand.

I've heard arguments about not counting those who have given up on work as being disingenuous with regards to employment measures...but children? Jesus Christ.

Avatar image for waahahah
#35 Edited by waahahah (2462 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:
@mosquitobaby said:

Regardless of how you view Obama from the social spectrum, it's quite a feat to had cut the unemployment rate by 3.8% when he left office.


https://tcf.org/content/commentary/president-obama-cut-unemployment-rate-president-since-fdr/?session=1

/Discuss

By my count he cut it by 5.3%, and honestly I'm not sure where the 3.8% even comes from based on the bureau of labor statics. When Obama stepped into office the national employment rate was still in free-fall thanks to the previous administration, as evidenced by by the fact that the rate was falling before he took office and still going after he took office. It didn't stop until October 2009 at 10% and when Obama left in January 2017 it was 4.7%.

We can get into what he really did, how much credit any president actually deserves for the economy and all that, but ultimately, unlike a lot of presidents, he signed large economic measures within his first days as president out of necessity for the country and that gives him a lot more ownership of the economy in my mind.

At any rate my count starts at where the economy finally stopped declining (because it was not a self-inflicted wound) and ends at the end of his presidency.

Citation: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns14000000

The unemployment rate was dropping because the participation rate dropped to 62% by 2016… let alone the suicide rate at a 30 year high. Of course the unemployment is down.. people that live in their parents basements playing video games or are dead... aren't counted. He made it easier to not participate by expanded entitlements.

Avatar image for horgen
#36 Posted by Horgen (120597 posts) -

@waahahah: Is the suicide rate in Us high enough to have a big impact on the unemployment rate? If yes, perhaps some steps should be taken to lower this rate?

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Where is this 100,000,000 coming from? Are you seriously counting children or the elderly?

What? Should kids not have to work? Those slackers. Leeches. :P

Avatar image for mandzilla
#37 Posted by Mandzilla (4109 posts) -

That's all very well OP, but didn't he order the wrong type of mustard that one time... how do you explain that, huh?!

Avatar image for waahahah
#38 Posted by waahahah (2462 posts) -
@horgen said:

@waahahah: Is the suicide rate in Us high enough to have a big impact on the unemployment rate? If yes, perhaps some steps should be taken to lower this rate?

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Where is this 100,000,000 coming from? Are you seriously counting children or the elderly?

What? Should kids not have to work? Those slackers. Leeches. :P

Only 62% of people choose to work, of the 62% the unemployment is calculated. The suicide rate doesn't help that people are just choosing not to work. So unemployment rate isn't that indictive of more people working.

Avatar image for migina
#39 Posted by Migina (56 posts) -

@waahahah said:
@Serraph105 said:
@mosquitobaby said:

Regardless of how you view Obama from the social spectrum, it's quite a feat to had cut the unemployment rate by 3.8% when he left office.


https://tcf.org/content/commentary/president-obama-cut-unemployment-rate-president-since-fdr/?session=1

/Discuss

By my count he cut it by 5.3%, and honestly I'm not sure where the 3.8% even comes from based on the bureau of labor statics. When Obama stepped into office the national employment rate was still in free-fall thanks to the previous administration, as evidenced by by the fact that the rate was falling before he took office and still going after he took office. It didn't stop until October 2009 at 10% and when Obama left in January 2017 it was 4.7%.

We can get into what he really did, how much credit any president actually deserves for the economy and all that, but ultimately, unlike a lot of presidents, he signed large economic measures within his first days as president out of necessity for the country and that gives him a lot more ownership of the economy in my mind.

At any rate my count starts at where the economy finally stopped declining (because it was not a self-inflicted wound) and ends at the end of his presidency.

Citation: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns14000000

The unemployment rate was dropping because the participation rate dropped to 62% by 2016… let alone the suicide rate at a 30 year high. Of course the unemployment is down.. people that live in their parents basements playing video games or are dead... aren't counted. He made it easier to not participate by expanded entitlements.

Jesus Christ, is this post serious?