If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   President Obama did not "inherit" his unemployment from President George W. Bush. The annual unemployment rate never got above 6 percent during the eight years of President George W. Bush's administration   (townhall.com) divider line 74
    More: Obvious, President Obama, President George W. Bush, President Herbert Hoover, working age, unemployment  
•       •       •

1338 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2012 at 9:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-07 08:08:18 AM  
So.....?

You think the years of the Bush administration's misspending had no effect on the economy....?

Why aren't you willing to look at the big picture?

Or are you just butthurt.....?

That's probably it. Butthurt.
 
2012-11-07 08:10:42 AM  
TO THE POLITICAL TIME MACHINE!
 
2012-11-07 08:17:27 AM  
Diagnosis: Butthurt.
 
2012-11-07 08:19:14 AM  
And you still farking lost you cocks!
 
2012-11-07 08:25:51 AM  
but.. but... but Bush
 
2012-11-07 08:26:21 AM  
Well that does it. I'm voting for Bush.

So when is this election anyway?
 
2012-11-07 08:32:46 AM  
i53.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-07 08:34:26 AM  
i1151.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-07 08:41:08 AM  

gilgigamesh: Well that does it. I'm voting for Bush.

So when is this election anyway?


In four years. His name is Jeb.
 
2012-11-07 08:48:05 AM  
Subby, it's nice you don't see the correlations between the economy and unemployment, so you just don't worry your pretty little head and let us with an understanding of the world at large worry about this stuff and try to fix it.

BunkyBrewman: gilgigamesh: Well that does it. I'm voting for Bush.

So when is this election anyway?

In four years. His name is Jeb.


This is seriously going to happen. I know it in my bones. And he's going to have a damn good chance of winning if America prospers in Obama's second term like we did in Clinton's second term.
 
2012-11-07 08:49:46 AM  

FlashHarry: [i53.tinypic.com image 640x480]


Indeed!
 
2012-11-07 09:00:37 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Subby, it's nice you don't see the correlations between the economy and unemployment, so you just don't worry your pretty little head and let us with an understanding of the world at large worry about this stuff and try to fix it.

BunkyBrewman: gilgigamesh: Well that does it. I'm voting for Bush.

So when is this election anyway?

In four years. His name is Jeb.

This is seriously going to happen. I know it in my bones. And he's going to have a damn good chance of winning if America prospers in Obama's second term like we did in Clinton's second term.


Republicans haven't won since 1928 without either Nixon or a Bush on the ticket, so there's a good chance Jeb runs just on statistics.
 
2012-11-07 09:15:55 AM  
EAT ME

8==D
 
2012-11-07 09:16:54 AM  
I'll just leave this here.

yafh.com
 
2012-11-07 09:22:48 AM  
What the fark are you smoking? GW Bush left office in January, 2009. Here's the unemployment figures for his last 6 months in office:

August, 2008 - 6.1
September, 2008 - 6.1
October, 2008 - 6.5
November, 2008 - 6.8
December, 2008 - 7.3
January, 2009 - 7.8

I'm not even going to get into the whole "GW Bush left a huge mess for Obama" thing - the headline is easily proven wrong, dumbassbutthurtfailmitter.

Source:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
 
2012-11-07 09:26:15 AM  

GAT_00: HST's Dead Carcass: Subby, it's nice you don't see the correlations between the economy and unemployment, so you just don't worry your pretty little head and let us with an understanding of the world at large worry about this stuff and try to fix it.

BunkyBrewman: gilgigamesh: Well that does it. I'm voting for Bush.

So when is this election anyway?

In four years. His name is Jeb.

This is seriously going to happen. I know it in my bones. And he's going to have a damn good chance of winning if America prospers in Obama's second term like we did in Clinton's second term.

Republicans haven't won since 1928 without either Nixon or a Bush on the ticket, so there's a good chance Jeb runs just on statistics.


That's a heluva statistic right there. 84 farking years. Wow.
 
2012-11-07 09:32:55 AM  
Between the end of the 2001 recession (2001Q4) and the peak of that expansion (2007Q4), the U.S. economy experienced the worst economic expansion of the post-war era.

the worst economic expansion of the post-war era.

the worst economic expansion of the post-war era.

Link, .pdf
 
2012-11-07 09:36:25 AM  
Since, Obama is a continuation of the Bush administration, I say we just blame Bush.
 
2012-11-07 09:45:08 AM  
I will now create my own reality and bash Obama for causing it.
 
2012-11-07 09:45:58 AM  
Best part about the TardHall article: There was advertising ready to go for "Barrack Obama Has Won Now What". Proves the point that neither they or their sponsors believe their derp....they are just shoveling shiat to the sows to stupid to realize it.
 
2012-11-07 09:46:24 AM  
you would hope you could get low unemployment during a housing boom and not only that you are spending 5 trillion dollars more than you are taking in.
 
2012-11-07 09:46:49 AM  
Wow, that was not only dumb, but so laughably wrong that I'm mystified as to the rationale behind greenlighting that tripe.
 
2012-11-07 09:47:17 AM  
Calm down righties. I know last night was hard for you, but no need to take it out on everybody else. Here, I got you a present:

content.ytmnd.com
 
2012-11-07 09:49:23 AM  
herp-a-derp

i48.tinypic.com 

/more accurately known as traitorous liars
 
2012-11-07 09:49:36 AM  

minoridiot: Since, Obama is a continuation of the Bush administration, I say we just blame Bush.


Half of voters still do, at least for the economic problems we face.
 
2012-11-07 09:49:49 AM  
Presidential changes of power don't work that way.
 
2012-11-07 09:50:37 AM  

FormlessOne: Wow, that was not only dumb, but so laughably wrong that I'm mystified as to the rationale behind greenlighting that tripe.


So the rest of us can laugh at it?
 
2012-11-07 09:51:04 AM  
Cause and effect. How does that farking work?

ICP_magnets.jpg
 
2012-11-07 09:52:37 AM  
blog.comedycentral.co.uk
 
2012-11-07 09:52:59 AM  
I remember reading a jobs article on cnn.com a couple of months ago and then I read the comments. One angry guy said "Bush had an avg unemployment rate of 5.7% (or something similar) during his presidency, while Obama's unemployment rate avg is over 9% so far."

I had to actually create a logon so that I could replied back to his quote and tell him that Bush started with 4.2 and left with 7.8...  Nothing to be proud with your 5.7% avg analysis when he was handed a 4.2% to start with.

He did not reply back.
 
2012-11-07 09:53:21 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Between the end of the 2001 recession (2001Q4) and the peak of that expansion (2007Q4), the U.S. economy experienced the worst economic expansion of the post-war era.

the worst economic expansion of the post-war era.

the worst economic expansion of the post-war era.


Which was arguably caused by the massive migration of manufacturing jobs to countries outside the US. Which was arguably caused by Clinton's liberalization of international trade.

Not that I think it was wrong to do so. Massive economic expansion in India, China and Latin America will be great for everyone, including the US, in the long term. I'm just saying one should consider the possibility that it wasn't all Bush's fault.

I do think we would have recovered a lot faster from the Great Recession if Bush hadn't blown most of our available credit in Iraq, so he doesn't get off the hook completely, in my view.
 
2012-11-07 09:55:21 AM  
It's being just fee hours and they still fail at math, facts and numbers again. Like having several hundred thousand jobs being lost every month had nothing to do.


It's like driving a car at 100mph against a wall and just 3 seconds before crash you pass the wheel to the other guy "here all yours!" (full brakes)..... CRASH!!! "LOOK WHAT YOU DID!!! damn it man! The car was in perfect shape when I handled it to you!!!!"
 
2012-11-07 09:56:19 AM  
President Obama did not "inherit" his unemployment from President George W. Bush. The annual unemployment rate never got above 6 percent during the eight years of President George W. Bush's administration>

Come again trolltardmitter?

i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2012-11-07 09:58:19 AM  
take a look at the economy from the day of the election in 2008 until Obama was sworn in. The shiat hit the fan big time in that period. That was George II's problem.
 
2012-11-07 09:59:42 AM  
Ah, now we're using U3 because it's less inconvenient to our delusions, yes?

research.stlouisfed.org 

/Wish FRED would allow vertical axes to be drawn too. We'd know where exactly 2009 cuts the horizontal lines.
 
2012-11-07 10:01:48 AM  
I couldn't read the article as it sounded like wacko talk, but the comments are pure gold.
 
2012-11-07 10:03:16 AM  
I found this sitting in the corner guys:

http://www.commonsensedemocracy.com/2012/01/03/president/jobs-creatio n -under-the-obama-administration/
 
2012-11-07 10:03:43 AM  

Jairzinho: It's being just fee hours and they still fail at math, facts and numbers again. Like having several hundred thousand jobs being lost every month had nothing to do.


It's like driving a car at 100mph against a wall and just 3 seconds before crash you pass the wheel to the other guy "here all yours!" (full brakes)..... CRASH!!! "LOOK WHAT YOU DID!!! damn it man! The car was in perfect shape when I handled it to you!!!!"


Well, actually Bush hit the first two freeway columns, damaging the car pretty badly. He then handed the car to Obama, while the car still had enough momentum to hit the last column before the car finally stopped.

Then the GOP congress highjacked the towing truck that came to tow the car to the body shop so that it could get fixed.
 
2012-11-07 10:04:27 AM  

LazarusLong42: FormlessOne: Wow, that was not only dumb, but so laughably wrong that I'm mystified as to the rationale behind greenlighting that tripe.

So the rest of us can laugh at it?


Probably. Too soon, though - too busy enjoying the afterglow to deal with bullshiat artists trying to harsh my mellow.
 
2012-11-07 10:05:13 AM  
Either a president inherits some things from his predecessor or everything is wiped clean on first day in office, you can't have it both ways.

If that's the case, I'm perfectly willing to say the economy is Obama's and Obama's alone to blame for, if the Republicans are willing to say Bush is completely responsible for 9/11 and Obama was completely responsible for killing Bin Laden.
 
2012-11-07 10:05:17 AM  

Thats No Moose: We'd know where exactly 2009 cuts the horizontal lines.


More realistically, mid-2009 minimum unless the Right holds Obama to blame for not reversing their near-Depression before unpacking.
 
2012-11-07 10:06:12 AM  
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
 
2012-11-07 10:08:25 AM  
I did not know that. Is it too late to change my vote?
 
2012-11-07 10:09:36 AM  
LOL. Cry, Tom Sowell. Cry.
 
2012-11-07 10:12:10 AM  
...thank god Bush didn't inherit his unemployment numbers from Bill Clinton
 
2012-11-07 10:15:34 AM  
Has the unemployment rate ever NOT lagged other economic indicators?

I'm thinking tfa's thesis stands or falls based on the answer to that question.
 
2012-11-07 10:16:59 AM  

Thats No Moose: Ah, now we're using U3 because it's less inconvenient to our delusions, yes?


The U3 and U6 are right where they've always been. The U3 is the "unemployment number" everyone here uses, the U6 is always higher and is often used by the minority party to make things look worse for the majority.

BLS releases both numbers every month. The U6 has some noise the U3 doesn't (like counting retiring people as "leaving the workforce" - technically true, but not the same as some who's resigned to eating ramen and cardboard for the next 15 years), and the U3 leaves out some important measures (like people who have given up looking for work, other than people who do that to go back to school and such).

Why does this need to be explained in EVERY FARKING discussion about the unemployment numbers? Do you know absolutely nothing about the number? Is this your first day reading the news? Are you only trying to score points with people that are less informed than you?

// the U6 is trending down, too
// so by any measure, we're adding more and more people to the workforce for the last...20 months and counting?
 
2012-11-07 10:21:21 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Is this your first day reading the news?


Is this yours? He's referring to the fact that the right has been hammering the U6 and "real" unemployment figures and misleadingly juxtaposing them with the U3 figures throughout the recovery to disingenuously paint a picture that unemployment is increasing.
 
2012-11-07 10:22:13 AM  
People over in the yahoo comments still think Romney is going to win after they count the absentee ballots.
 
2012-11-07 10:22:14 AM  

BunkyBrewman: GAT_00: HST's Dead Carcass: Subby, it's nice you don't see the correlations between the economy and unemployment, so you just don't worry your pretty little head and let us with an understanding of the world at large worry about this stuff and try to fix it.

BunkyBrewman: gilgigamesh: Well that does it. I'm voting for Bush.

So when is this election anyway?

In four years. His name is Jeb.

This is seriously going to happen. I know it in my bones. And he's going to have a damn good chance of winning if America prospers in Obama's second term like we did in Clinton's second term.

Republicans haven't won since 1928 without either Nixon or a Bush on the ticket, so there's a good chance Jeb runs just on statistics.

That's a heluva statistic right there. 84 farking years. Wow.


And in 9 out of the 11 times, if I remembered it right, that Nixon or a Bush was on the ticket, they won. Only in 1960 and 1992 did they lose. But they won in 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004.

On that alone, they'd be stupid not to make Jeb run.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report