America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by FuzzNJ. 32 replies replies.
Unemployment under Obama
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
FuzzNJ Offline
#1 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 12:46 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
His first month in office, Jan 2009 7.8% (he was in office 1/3 of that month)
Now 8.6%
An increase in unemployment of .8%

Bush, first month, Jan 2001 4.2% (again 1/3 of that month)
When he left office, 7.8% (2/3 of that month)
An increase of 3.6%.

So as we can see here, Obama is so much worse than Bush.
z6joker9 Offline
#2 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 12:59 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2011
Posts: 5,902
Not that I'm defending Bush or attacking Obama, but it's easier to go from 4 to 5% unemployment than 8 to 9% unemployment. The unemployment approaches a limit. To continue growing the unemployment rate by a percent, you'd have to make more bad decisions than the previous percent took.

Additionally, Bush was not voted in on the promise of getting more people jobs. Obama was. Unemployment under Bush was trending downwards over his term, only spiking at the end. One could make the argument that the Democrats gaining control of the House and Senate around that time played a part of it.

I don't care much for either of them; I'm simply trying to get people to be more critical of "statistics".
dubleuhb Offline
#3 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 1:02 PM EST
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
Nice try, don't you have laundry to fold or isn't time to watch you 10 easy steps for tighter buns video?
jeff.foxy Offline
#4 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 1:09 PM EST
Joined: 01-09-2008
Posts: 1,727
72% of statistics are made up on the spot...
z6joker9 Offline
#5 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 1:09 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2011
Posts: 5,902
I don't dip into the politics threads here much... did I get trolled?
FuzzNJ Offline
#6 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 1:12 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
z6joker9 wrote:
Not that I'm defending Bush or attacking Obama, but it's easier to go from 4 to 5% unemployment than 8 to 9% unemployment. The unemployment approaches a limit. To continue growing the unemployment rate by a percent, you'd have to make more bad decisions than the previous percent took.

Additionally, Bush was not voted in on the promise of getting more people jobs. Obama was. Unemployment under Bush was trending downwards over his term, only spiking at the end. One could make the argument that the Democrats gaining control of the House and Senate around that time played a part of it.

I don't care much for either of them; I'm simply trying to get people to be more critical of "statistics".



Obama had to run on the promise of getting more people jobs because unemployment was so high under Bush. Bush had no such burden because he followed Clinton whose job record was really good. Secondly, how does not promising new jobs make it ok to have unemployment go up 4%? Strange reasoning.

Sure, one could argue that, but not someone who says "Unemployment under Bush was trending downwards over his term, only spiking at the end" since that's also what happened with the Democratic congress, right?

And yes, 'statistics'. Always wrong when showing something someone doesn't 'think' is true.
yardobeef Offline
#7 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 1:13 PM EST
Joined: 10-25-2011
Posts: 849
I see a t-shirt opportunity!

Obama: Losing Jobs at Slower Rate than George W.

Maybe need to tighten that up a bit.
FuzzNJ Offline
#8 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 1:13 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
dubleuhb wrote:
Nice try, don't you have laundry to fold or isn't time to watch you 10 easy steps for tighter buns video?


Try?
FuzzNJ Offline
#9 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 1:14 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
jeff.foxy wrote:
72% of statistics are made up on the spot...


http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
FuzzNJ Offline
#10 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 1:16 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
yardobeef wrote:
I see a t-shirt opportunity!

Obama: Losing Jobs at Slower Rate than George W.

Maybe need to tighten that up a bit.


The unemployment rate has dropped by 1.2% in the last year if we'd like to talk about 'trends'.
z6joker9 Offline
#11 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 1:28 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2011
Posts: 5,902
FuzzNJ wrote:
Obama had to run on the promise of getting more people jobs because unemployment was so high under Bush. Bush had no such burden because he followed Clinton whose job record was really good. Secondly, how does not promising new jobs make it ok to have unemployment go up 4%? Strange reasoning.

Sure, one could argue that, but not someone who says "Unemployment under Bush was trending downwards over his term, only spiking at the end" since that's also what happened with the Democratic congress, right?

And yes, 'statistics'. Always wrong when showing something someone doesn't 'think' is true.


Hold on there buddy, I never said it was right. I was trying to bring some balance. You keep assuming that in order to dislike Obama, someone would have to like and defend Bush. They both screwed up. I'm just trying to say that A) 4% from 4 to 8% aren't the same as 4% would be from 8 to 12% and B) the President alone doesn't make all the decisions that affect unemployment.

Bush wasn't focused on lowering the unemployment. Obama was. It wasn't okay for Bush to let unemployment go up like he did, but it's even more inexcusable for Obama to have let unemployment go up when he was promising to fix everything. It's why we elected him.

Additionally, at the same point in Bush's run, he was only up 1.6%. You're only comparing a portion of Obama's term, since we don't know how it ends.

As for relative percentages, look at it from the other way. It would be a LOT easier to go from 8% to 4% unemployment compared to going from 4% to 0%.
HockeyDad Offline
#12 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 1:38 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,160
The best way to further unemployment would be to not extend unemploment benefits. Boner and Cantor are falling right into Obama,s trap,
ZRX1200 Offline
#13 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 1:44 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,627
How they figure the UE rate is a joke.


If only we paid more taxes this wouldn't be a problem!
yardobeef Offline
#14 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 1:55 PM EST
Joined: 10-25-2011
Posts: 849
FuzzNJ wrote:
The unemployment rate has dropped by 1.2% in the last year if we'd like to talk about 'trends'.


We could get off on a tangent regarding the real unemployment rate and the number of people leaving the workforce, but that might be a bit too high brow and I believe slightly off-topic.

Instead, I offer this opinion: The POTUS has very little to do with unemployment rates. As ruler, he gets far too much blame/credit.
FuzzNJ Offline
#15 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 2:10 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
z6joker9 wrote:
Hold on there buddy, I never said it was right. I was trying to bring some balance. You keep assuming that in order to dislike Obama, someone would have to like and defend Bush. They both screwed up. I'm just trying to say that A) 4% from 4 to 8% aren't the same as 4% would be from 8 to 12% and B) the President alone doesn't make all the decisions that affect unemployment.

Bush wasn't focused on lowering the unemployment. Obama was. It wasn't okay for Bush to let unemployment go up like he did, but it's even more inexcusable for Obama to have let unemployment go up when he was promising to fix everything. It's why we elected him.


I assumed no such thing. I was pointing out the logical inconsistencies in the argument you were making. I never even argued your A or B, said nothing about that at all.

ALL Presidents focus on jobs, some more than others, but as a president one would have to. And all presidents promise to fix everything. If you don't think so you aren't paying attention to the primaries right now.

z6joker9 wrote:
Additionally, at the same point in Bush's run, he was only up 1.6%. You're only comparing a portion of Obama's term, since we don't know how it ends.


So? I'm not making that comparison, I'm refuting the 'Obama is worse than Bush and is responsible for all the unemployment' talking point, which is demonstrably untrue. Besides, the figure you point out is still twice as much as Obama at the same time.

z6joker9 wrote:
As for relative percentages, look at it from the other way. It would be a LOT easier to go from 8% to 4% unemployment compared to going from 4% to 0%.


Ok, 'buddy', wtf? Before you said:

z6joker9 wrote:
it's easier to go from 4 to 5% unemployment than 8 to 9% unemployment


Excellent logic. It's nice when you can claim to argue all sides of an argument.
FuzzNJ Offline
#16 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 2:11 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
ZRX1200 wrote:
How they figure the UE rate is a joke.


If only we paid more taxes this wouldn't be a problem!


Could be. But has nothing to do with the thread since we are comparing apples to apples here.
FuzzNJ Offline
#17 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 2:15 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
yardobeef wrote:
We could get off on a tangent regarding the real unemployment rate and the number of people leaving the workforce, but that might be a bit too high brow and I believe slightly off-topic.

Instead, I offer this opinion: The POTUS has very little to do with unemployment rates. As ruler, he gets far too much blame/credit.


We could, but then again we would be comparing apples to apples. If you would like to bring in those numbers that would be cool too because it would show an even bigger difference in the two administrations. And yes, I've looked at those figures as well. If that's a tangent you would like to go down, please feel free.
HockeyDad Offline
#18 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 2:15 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,160
Four separate quote blocks in a single post?!

We have achieved Fuzzrage!
FuzzNJ Offline
#19 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 2:20 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
HockeyDad wrote:
Four separate quote blocks in a single post?!

We have achieved Fuzzrage!


Yeah, I split it up so it was obvious what it was I was responding to. /outrage
ZRX1200 Offline
#20 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 2:35 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,627
A little high brow?


Oh boy........tell me you at least had the family in stitches as you typed that one.


We know twp facts:

1. Palin gives RICKMAVEN a boehner.

2. Fuzzy likes arguing.

Merry christmas.
herfidore Offline
#21 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 2:38 PM EST
Joined: 02-21-2008
Posts: 4,031
dubleuhb wrote:
Nice try, don't you have laundry to fold or isn't time to watch you 10 easy steps for tighter buns video?


Equal parts brilliant, quick wit and deep thought. Sarcasm horse
HockeyDad Offline
#22 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 2:38 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,160
FuzzNJ smells fresh meat on this thread!
z6joker9 Offline
#23 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 2:38 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2011
Posts: 5,902
I'll split it up too so it's easier to follow.

FuzzNJ wrote:
I assumed no such thing. I was pointing out the logical inconsistencies in the argument you were making. I never even argued your A or B, said nothing about that at all.


You're right. I thought since you skimmed over those points, you didn't agree. Though I'm not sure where I made a logical inconsistency.

Quote:
ALL Presidents focus on jobs, some more than others, but as a president one would have to. And all presidents promise to fix everything. If you don't think so you aren't paying attention to the primaries right now.


That's true, but we vote for the candidate we feel is most likely to fix our problem. Our largest (perceived) problem during his term has been unemployment. We elected Obama in large part because he said he could fix them, and he hasn't yet. That's why he's being judged so heavily on this one issue. We're not judging Obama on his response to the 9/11 terror attacks, because it was not a central issue during his term. Unemployment was not an issue during Bush's term, until the very end.

Quote:
So? I'm not making that comparison, I'm refuting the 'Obama is worse than Bush and is responsible for all the unemployment' talking point, which is demonstrably untrue. Besides, the figure you point out is still twice as much as Obama at the same time.


I didn't know what talking point you were referring to. I just figured you were making a general observation, which I felt was skewed. But yes, while twice as much, remember that 1.6% in the 4-5% range is different than the same percentage at 7-8% range.

Quote:
Ok, 'buddy', wtf? Before you said:

Excellent logic. It's nice when you can claim to argue all sides of an argument.


I guess I should have used a better word than "easier" there. If you were the president, it's easier to enable policies that drop from 8 to 4% than 4 to 0. That's because you have diminishing returns as you approach 0%, which is generally impossible to reach.

It's not as bad for the country if the rate goes from 4 to 5 as it is from 8 to 9, and it's easier to overlook that 1% at lower levels, since 4 and 5% are both low percentages. Once it hits 8, it becomes a central issue and you have to take action.
z6joker9 Offline
#24 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 2:40 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2011
Posts: 5,902
I will probably avoid clicking on political threads from now on.
ZRX1200 Offline
#25 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 2:45 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,627
Hehe.....poor joker thought he could talk to Fuzzy!
yardobeef Offline
#26 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 2:49 PM EST
Joined: 10-25-2011
Posts: 849
FuzzNJ wrote:
We could, but then again we would be comparing apples to apples. If you would like to bring in those numbers that would be cool too because it would show an even bigger difference in the two administrations. And yes, I've looked at those figures as well. If that's a tangent you would like to go down, please feel free.


Hey thanks for skipping the core concept of my post and focusing on the beginning, where I specifically stated it wasn't worth the effort. But hey, since you wanted to take us there: Fine, I will grant you that a portion of the jobs lost under the current administration have returned. However part of the current dip in unemployment is not related to job creation but to those leaving the workforce:

http://rortybomb.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/alternative_unemployment.png

As I said, though, I don't think that the pres is the key factor in all of this.
yardobeef Offline
#27 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 2:51 PM EST
Joined: 10-25-2011
Posts: 849
z6joker9 wrote:
I will probably avoid clicking on political threads from now on.



LOL
Stinkdyr Offline
#28 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 3:24 PM EST
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
shadowstats.com
ZRX1200 Offline
#29 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 3:28 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,627
^ good site.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#30 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 4:28 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
FuzzNJ wrote:
The unemployment rate has dropped by 1.2% in the last year if we'd like to talk about 'trends'.



and the debt is now 15 trillion! Yeah, score the win.
FuzzNJ Offline
#31 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 4:36 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
and the debt is now 15 trillion! Yeah, score the win.



And here I was thinking that you thought changing the subject was stupid n stuff.
FuzzNJ Offline
#32 Posted: Thu, Dec 22 2011, 4:55 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
and the debt is now 15 trillion! Yeah, score the win.


And, just fyi, the debt increased $6 trillion under the last administration. 2 so far with Obama. Clinton is was less than 2 during his entire administration.

And just an fyi, the debt increased by 112% under the last administration. 27% so far with Obama. 36% under Clinton, 46% under Bush Sr. and 180% under Reagan.

So yeah, you're right, it's Obama and the Democrats.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top