How can Republican/conservatives attack Obama on the unemployment rate when his numbers are better than their?

standard bearer Ronald Reagan and George Bush?

These are called facts backed up with a link to support them:

Ronald Reagan became President in Jan. 1981 in Feb. 1981 unemployment was 7.4

July1983 it was 9.4% (it was above 10% for 10 straight months. Sept. 1982 to June 1983)

During Bush's last 30 months Aug 2007 it was 4.7%. in Jan 2009 it was 8.5%

For Obama's first 30 months Feb 2009 it was 8.9% in July 2011 it was 9.1%

Bush 80% increase.

Reagan 27% increase.

Obama 2% increase.


You will have to change the output option from 2000 to 1981

Update 2:

@How would I know an increase from 4% to 8% is higher than an increase of 8% to 9% so it is you who need to go back to school.

Update 3:

It is fair to compare Reagan's first term to Obama's first term.

11 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I'm no Bush fan, but the unemployment rate when Bush left office and Obama took office in January 2009 was 7.7%. (Your link shows 7.8%, but it was adjusted down to 7.7% the next year.)

    You are right that Reagan did inherit a declining unemployment rate and a declining inflation rate. It was just too little too late for Carter, however, and he simply didn't have Reagan's appeal. And then, of course, the Iran hostage crisis was just a killer for Carter. But after he took office, Reagan's policies, particularly the tax cuts in 1981 seemed to cause a steep rise in the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate stayed high until, with the help of Dems in Congress, a tax cut was passed in late 1982. Finally in spring of 1983, the unemployment rate started to go down.

    You are also trying to compare apples and oranges. You would have to compare the first 30 months of Bush, Reagan, and Obama to have a valid comparison. All three inherited a difficult economy; the bubble had just burst when Bush took over, but Obama definitely inherited the worst of the three situations.

    So let's take the first 30 months of Bush, Reagan, and Obama:

    First 30 months: Reagan: 7.5% to 10.1% Up 35%

    Bush: 4.2% to 6.3%. Up 50%.

    Obama: 7.7% to 9.2%. Up 20%

    So Obama does beat both Reagan and Bush when looking at their first 30 months of the nemployment in their administrations.

    Source(s): Same as above, the page. Also general knowledge.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Once again, your partisanship clouds your ability to reason. There are many factors to consider in the unemployment statistics, for instance in Reagan's first term ( notice that you cut off the data halfway through his first term and didn't include any of his second, aren't being dishonest now are we?) included trying to get rid of the stagflation that we had been suffering under since the latter half of Nixon's term. Also, you need to look at the differing levels of unemployment for whatever reason. The stats you use are for those looking for work, and does not include the discouraged workers who have completely given up and are no longer drawing unemployment. Some experts say that the real unemployment rate is closer to 20%.

    But I am sure that you will not be able to follow this, since the Democrats have told you to not think.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Your figures are totally bogus. Reagan inherited a crushing recession from Jimmy Carter. It took a while, but the unemployment rate went from 15% with Carter to about 5% with Reagan. George W Bush had to get past Al Gore's fraud, 9-11-01, and the bashing he took from the biased media, over the water damage in New Orleans. By 2007, the unemployment rate was a very low 4.6%.

    Obama is at 9.2% and has been over 9% for months, with no relief in sight. The economy is a mess. We need to vote Obama out of office.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Have you every considered an education? Because it takes an amazing amount of ignorance to think that Obama's 9-10% unemployment rate is better Bush's 4-8% unemployment rates. This is 1st grade math you're failing on here.

    You had to have realized how stupid this rant was going to make you look. Were you trying to make yourself look as foolish as possible?


    ROFL! Even after I point it out to you.. you're still not intelligent enough to realize that 9-10 is greater than 4-8? You've made a lot of idiotic posts in the past, but this level of ignorance is really setting a new low for you. Seriously, get an education.. first grade math really isn't as hard as you may think.

    And if you can't grasp something that simple.. you won't get what we're talking about when we point out that Bush's job creation numbers are +1 million while Obama's are at about a -3 million.. huh?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Because Bush & Reagan are no longer President... Stop blaming the past Presidents.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    lol... "but Reagan inherited a bad economy"...

    apparently Obama inherited a good one? ahahaha

    you cons are clowns tap dancing away...

    EDIT: according to one conservative, JIMMY CARTER was better than Reagan, since Reagan had 8-10 percent unemployment for his first 3 years while Jimmy Carter was 5-7 in his term... LOLOLOL

    and he's calling YOU STUPID...

    maybe he'll read this and realize that when you subsitute in a dem for a rep in the same situation, he's the fool... partisan blinders...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Dude, for about 3/4 of Bush's presidency the unemployment rate was around 5%. Were you living under a rock?

    During Reagan's 2nd term we experienced economic prosperity the likes of which this country hasn't seen again.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    From your link:

    after nov 2006 the unemployment started slowly to raise....

    After nov 2010 the unemployment started slowly to decrease....

    ... Just a coincidence?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    wow even with a source the 0blameo sheeple can't get it right,LMAO at the lib intellect (low) level !!!! You posted a lib link, with numbers that included a lib controlled congress (Bush years and fail to mention Tip the idiot O'Neil), see the pattern, republican control of congress the unemployment is down, when the anti-American libs take control things go to schit!!! Its in your own damn link, get a grown up to help you !!!

    Hey wolf try your magic link machine on this,.....who controlled congress from 2007- to this past year!!! LMAO lib links, propaganda and messiah worship is all you American hating libs have left!!! BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA for 0blameo!!!!

    you need to go back to school and learn that congress controls!!! LOL this is the funniest damn question ever and is border line pathetic!!!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Thank you for proving how much the dems have hurt the economy. Aug. 2007 was 6 months after the dems took control of both Houses of Congress - that's what they inherited from Bush. Everything after that was done by the dems. Thanks again.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.