FDR halved unemployment in 4 years

[MannyGoldstein]

I can't say that enough.

That is all.

[ProSense]

1. Visual aid

Unemployment climb during the first half of FDR's first year, dropped in the second half, and then in 1934, it steadily climbed back up to nearly 22 percent. It went from 25 percent to 12 percent in his first term, and then it shot back up to 20 percent in the following year. Next came the war.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. In 1937, FDR became a deficit hawk.

Big mistake that no President would ever repeat. Oh, wait...

P.S. - it stopped climbing as soon as FDR took office, and quickly plummeted.

[ProSense]

4. "Big mistake that no President would ever repeat."

Finally, you admit FDR screwed up!

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Readily. It is what it is.

Forest... trees...

[Arkana]

49. He also left segregation in the South untouched

because he knew it would crack his coalition in Congress.

He tried to pack the Supreme Court with more judges in a blatantly political maneuver because he was afraid the New Deal would be declared unconstitutional.

FDR was good, but he wasn't perfect--so let's stop pretending.

[mikekohr]

91. More Visual Aids On President Obama's Job Creation Accomplishment

?
"As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of Bush’s term, the former president had the “worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.” And job creation under Bush was anemic long before the recession began. Bush’s supply-side economics “fostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades,” along with “sluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth,” the Center for American Progress’ Joshua Picker explained. “On every major measurement” of income and employment, “the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms,” the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein observed, parsing Census data."
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/07/obama-more-jobs-bush

?

President Obama took over at the depths of the George W. Bush Great Recession and immediately stopped the stunning increase in monthly job loss and reversed the trend. We have now witnessed 10 of the last 11 month's producing positive private sector job growth.
(October and November of 2010 also showed an increase in private sector job growth which makes 12 of the last 13 month's in positive territory)

President Obama's economic policies have created more private sector jobs in less than 2 years than did George W. Bush's economic policies did in 8.

?
One should also note that in the very first quarter that President Obama was in office, the effects of the stimulus began to reverse the free fall he inherited from George W. Bush. In the ending of George W. Bush's Great Recession, we see the same pattern repeated: Republicans cause recessions, Democrats clean them up (see History of Recessions).

It took 6 months for President Obama's economic and tax policies to return GDP to positive territory. If we as a nation want to avoid the painful recovery from the climb out of economic holes we have to quit electing those digging them.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mHSyEv8vBt4/TIKJmVIq8xI/AAAAAAAAAFI/AInWHvWVIxA/s400/New+Picture.jpg?
9 of the last 10 recessions occurred under Republican economic policy, including todays George W. Bush’s “Great Recession,” the deepest economic downturn since Hoover’s “Great Depression” of 1929. President Obama has not only halted the staggering job loss of over 780,000 per month he inherited from George W. Bush but President Obama’s “Bubble Up Economic” policies has reached positive increase in monthly job creation with unmatched speed.

The economic pain being felt today is a result of the depth of the hole that was dug by the Republican “Trickle Down” policies of the Republican Party. The nation suffered a loss of 8.4 million, or 7% of all jobs, in George W. Bush’s “Great Recession.” This compares with a loss of 3.1% of all jobs lost during George W. Bush’s first recession of March–November of 2001, and 1.9% of all jobs lost during George H.W. Bush’s recession of July 1990-March of 1991. -The deeper the hole, the longer the climb out of it- If Americans wish to avoid the pain of recovery from recession, we need to quit electing the sons-of-bitches digging the holes.

[WolfoftheWild]

7. somehow I think this obvious rebuttal will be stubbornly ignored

[eridani]

14. Excellent point--in 1938 unemployment skyrocketted when FDR became a deficit hawk

And Obama is hell bent on repeating that mistake because why?

[Avant Guardian]

44. He went along with the republicans for a while

Which stalled the recovery from the great depression. This is old news.

[eridani]

46. Not to the born-again defenders of the new "deficit hawk" profile of the Democratic Party n/t

[obamafourmore]

16. The war is what really end the depression. Maybe Obama should go on a new war...

[nxylas]

53. The war ended the depression because of the huge amounts of government spending involved

Spending that money on a bigger and better stimulus program would have had the same effect.

[mkultra]

29. more BS owned by facts. lol

[Phx_Dem]

56. Manny doesn't care about facts, he only cares about criticizing Obama.

For anything and everything.

[Pisces]

93. Bingo!!

[ZombieHorde]

104. Gee, I wonder what happened from 1942 to 1945 to cause that dip?

Certainly something liberal and wonderful.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

111. Government deficit-spending?

[bluestateguy]

3. He also sent Japanese Americans into internment camps

and ignored racial segregation in the South.

So, what's your point again?

[MannyGoldstein]

6. And saved America, then saved the planet

Forest... trees...

[WolfoftheWild]

12. Obama saved America from a Second Great Depression. He saved the American Auto Industry.

And after his 8 years are up he will probably have saved the planet several times.

[SkyDaddy7]

66. I think one of big factors agianst Obama is...

He has done such a good job dealing with the economy people have NO IDEA how bad it actually was! I know Obama is not the kind of President to get in front of the camera to pat himself on the back but I think he should! People do not realize what Obama did with GM & the 1-3 million jobs he saved! Not to mention all the other things he has done!

Obama was left with a country that has so many problems & none of the problems have a fix that won't piss people off! The truth is Bush & the Republicans literally destroyed this nation yet the public put them right back in power!

[Diclotican]

112. WolfoftheWild

WolfoftheWild

If he got 8 year in office, he would posible have saved the planet many times over, maybe more times than we wil know for decades...

He is president for USA, in a sea of snakes, both doministc and overseas.... And Im not so sure about how dangrous the snakes overseas when you take into the account the snakes he have to fight at home.. A snake need just ONE bite to kill a person...

Diclotican

[Bluerthanblue]

33. he was president- not king or god. He didn't do anything

single handedly. :shrug:

I believe FDR was an excellent President, but you're trying to make him into some kind of god.

The world was a much different place in the 1930's. But then, I'm sure you know that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

52. Saved the planet? Really?

The Soviets defeated Germany, ultimately; the US won the war in the Pacific, but would have done anyway given the disparity in manufacturing capacity and manpower between the US and Japan regardless of who was president; the US couldn't have won the war in Europe singlehandedly, not while fighting on two fronts, and indeed the turning points in the war against Germany came before there were any US troops in combat in Europe or North Africa (Stalingrad and El Alamein, look it up). And it was the RAF decimating the Luftwaffe and inflicting losses they never really recovered from, and the abandoning of Operation Sealion, that drove Hitler to turn east and invade Russia in a fit of suicidal megalomania.

[namahage]

13. The point, apparently, is that civil rights are just acceptable collateral damage

in the battle to preserve FDR's mythic image.

[golfguru]

18. In case you are unaware, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor

in an unprovoked attack killing scores of Americans.
And lots of Japanese Americans were caught spying for Japan.
That internment was one reason we defeated Japan, the other
being of course nuking 2 industrial cities.

[vaberella]

20. But not the Japanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans that were rounded up & forced to fight the war.

n/t

[old mark]

24. Our government also rounded up and put in camps many Italians and Germans

who had been living in the US for years. It certainly was not "only the Japanese"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_American_internment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_internment

Many who were interned had begun but not completed US citizenship procedures. Many had been in the US for decades, and had families who were citizens, but had never become citizens themselves.

mark

[vaberella]

25. Thanks Old Mark...very informative. n/t

[girl_interrupted]

54. Obama doesn't need camps, he's got the Patriot Act

where everything you say and do and buy can be "observed". And if they don't like what they see, you can expect to hear a knock on your door. So much for civil rights & the Constitution. And of course we now have someone like Manning stripped naked and forced to stand in front of his cell. Take a look at how our government has handled Wikileaks, not to mention the "enhanced interrogation" we still practice in other countries. We live in a virtual prison, it's just that most people either don't know it or don't want to acknowledge it.

[phleshdef]

100. And that makes it better how?

[boppers]

101. I'll take "things my High School failed to teach me" for $200, Alex.

Thanks for the eye-opener.

[golfguru]

61. War is never pretty or just

Which is why our country should NEVER start a war unless attacked first violently
such as the UNPROVOKED attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor.

Iraq never attacked us, so it was a stupid war.
Afghan is more justified since Al Qaeda had sanctuary there to operate terror camps.
But if the country must go to war, do it quick and with everything you got. Neither
is the case in Afghanistan.

[DCBob]

26. Wow, your true colors come out every once in awhile.

:thumbsdown:

[golfguru]

58. Are you against FDR & Truman doing everything to "win" WWII

or you are OK with being a loser in wars?

[DCBob]

72. In America we do not (or should not) arrest people based on ethnicity or nationality..

There were reasons and excuses back then, but clearly looking back on it now, FDR made a mistake interning Japanese Americans. At least that would be the feeling of most Democrats and I think most Americans.

[golfguru]

85. You are correct EXCEPT

when you are fighting a world war which is a deadly serious business,
all bets are off.

[DCBob]

89. Spare me.. as if any idiot does not know fighting a war is "deadly serious business"..

You also dont throw basic civil rights out the window when fighting a war.

[golfguru]

94. Yes you do...Marshall law is one option

You spare NOTHING to avoid defeat. Japan and Germany certainly did not.
You never want to fight a WAR with one hand tied behind your back.

You must be young & still idealistic.

[DCBob]

95. Nearing retirement and still idealistic,..

You must be old and still ignorant.

[SidDithers]

98. Who is this Marshall fellow? And why does he have a law named after him?...nt

Sid

[golfguru]

102. Never met him but he is the one who

suspends all civil rights due to emergency conditions.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[totodeinhere]

116. But that doesn't change his overall place in history. He was a great president. He wasn't perfect

but then no president can ever be perfect.

As far as the internment camps so, it is easy for his to sit back and condemn that now. We didn't have to live through that war. It was a different time back then and standards were different then too.

[bluestateguy]

34. I'm going to assume this defense of internment is some kind of a sick sarcastic joke

As I'd hate to think that such views are permissible on DU.

[golfguru]

62. FDR must have had good reasons for internment

I am not privy to contrary information, so I will assume it was justified
and necessary at the time.

Again, why did Japan attack us UNPROVOKED and killed hundreds of human beings
in that dastardly attack which will live for ever in infamy.

[ZombieHorde]

106. Do you consider yourself a supporter of institutional racism?

You sound like one.

[Vattel]

109. Unbelievable.

"I am not privy to contrary information, so I will assume it was justified
and necessary at the time."

My God, what high evidential standards you have.

[Bluerthanblue]

35. "that internment" will always be a shameful record of our nation's

ignorance and bigotry.

There is NO excuse for what was done at Pearl Harbor- there is no excuse for the internment of innocent citizens based on their ethnicity- Japanese or otherwise.

(I need to say that I consider FDR to be one of our greatest Presidents. He was not without fault though and he couldn't have accomplished what he did without lots of help.)

[golfguru]

63. You and I do not know why FDR did internments

We are not privy to intelligence which was available to him.
So I will give him the benefit of doubt.

War is neither pretty or "just". Which is why the country should avoid
all wars unless attacked first by a sovereign country.

[dkf]

36. Lots of Japanese Americans were caught spying for Japan?

Really? Where are your sources on this?

[golfguru]

64. FBI & CIA did not share that information with me

But they did with FDR so I will give him the benefit of doubt.

[Bluerthanblue]

67. people were placed in internment camps SIMPLY because they

were of Japanese descent. Sorry Golfguru, but that is bigotry- and prejudice.

Two thirds of the people interned were American Citizens.

FDR was not infallible. This decision was a poor one on his part. It doesn't mean that he was a terrible president.

Congress apologized and made 'retribution' for what was done to Japanese-Americans in 1988.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/archive/resources/documents/ch30_06.htm

Are you familiar with the anti-Japanese sentiment that was rampant in the U.S. decades before Pearl Harbor ?

Your defense of this action is disturbing.

[golfguru]

68. I never said internment was "good"

FDR may have had information that it was necessary to fight the
war successfully. So again, I will give him the benefit of doubt.

And the real main point is WAR IS NEVER PRETTY OR JUST. It is a deadly
and serious business where thousands of young and not so young get killed.
FDR did not have the luxury of worrying about what is fair and what is just.
The Japanese king and military were deadly serious in defeating USA. And so
FDR did not take anything off the table.

[ProSense]

71. So if it's not good, why are you defending it?

"FDR may have had information that it was necessary to fight the
war successfully. So again, I will give him the benefit of doubt."

The U.S. officially apologized for the internment. You think FDR had some secret information that he took to his grave?

It's 2011, there's no need to defend or try to justify a past atrocity.

[golfguru]

83. Because a World War is a deadly serious business

There is no room for what is moral, what is just or even what is legal.
It is either win or get slaughtered.

At least give FDR some credit for not sending the internees to gas chambers
as his enemy in WWII did.

[Vattel]

110. Nice defense of cowardice.

Cowards are willing to do anything, however immoral, to preserve their own life. They will even murder. Nations on your view, should also behave in this way.

[uponit7771]

38. you forgot the /sarcasm tag

[golfguru]

59. When the country goes to war, it has to be all out

and to win. Nothing good comes out of half-ass war strategy which still
costs a lot of blood & treasure and no gain in the end. So my hats off
to FDR & Truman for winning the war. And that includes internment for
minimizing damage by internal spies.

Which is why I am against Iraq & Afghan wars. We should get out instead
of drip drip of losing blood & treasure.

[DCBob]

90. Nonsense.. there are many levels of warfare and we should never simply go "all out" in every case..

There many examples over history of limited/restrained acts of war that ended in a positive way. Going in with all guns blazing is not usually the best option.. imo.

[namahage]

39. Yep. Those Japanese-American children were a national threat, too,

so imprison them before they can do damage, right?

[golfguru]

65. Excesses are known to happen in every war

and I am sure there were in WWII. Which is why I am anti-war.
But once you get in a war, never fight it half-ass. Throw everything
you got at the attackers. A war is not a legal fight in court. It is
either you win or get killed. War is never pretty or just.

[ProSense]

70. Hmmmm?

"Which is why I am anti-war.
But once you get in a war, never fight it half-ass. Throw everything
you got at the attackers."

Sounds like the Vietnam strategy.

[golfguru]

84. Exactly

Viet-Nam was the absolutely the worst method of fighting a war.
We lost 50,000 soldiers killed, and hundreds of thousand maimed and injured.
We did not fight to win with every thing we had.

Moral of the story is, never get in a war unless you are in it it win as
fast as possible by throwing every weapon in your armor at the enemy.

LBJ should have bombed Haiphong harbor where most of the war supplies were
coming from to the VC.

[boppers]

86. "unprovoked attack"

Cute.

Hint: embargoing a nation is a provocation.

[ZombieHorde]

105. Should we lock up people in the US with middle eastern ancestry? nt

[Vattel]

108. Thank you Michelle Malkin.

Please provide some serious evidence that the internment camps were crucial to our victory in WWII or shut the fuck up. Malkin's recent book arguing for their necessity has been thoroughly discredited by serious historians. The internment camps were a product of racism and a violation of the rights of thousands of American citizens.

[WolfoftheWild]

8. is this your reaction to a good jobs report?

[pnwmom]

9. Congress helped. n/t

[bigwillq]

10. So, then you should at least wait 2 more years

before posting this thread! :)

[Kahuna]

21. +1

:)

[villager]

11. predictably unrecc'd by the "Economic Royalists ain't so bad" crowd...

n/t

[SidDithers]

99. Unrecc'd...

just 'cause I can.

Sid

[obamafourmore]

15. If there was Internet back in FDR's days

He would get the Obama treatment. Probably even worse.

[DCBob]

31. Indeed. And if there was a Faux news FDR would have been a one termer.

Obama has been tremendously successful despite all the resistance from the RW mob and the disgruntled left.

[golfguru]

17. Clinton created 22 million jobs!

Jobs were going begging for people during Clinton.
Now people are begging for jobs. What a contrast.

[vaberella]

19. Congress had his back. Congress doesn't here---become aware of the political climate.

He's not a king with 100% power to change things the way he wants.

[RBInMaine]

22. Many good things were done. But the entry into WW2 is what really ended the depression.

[flpoljunkie]

23. From what to what percentage did it decline?

[DCBob]

27. Absurd to compare the 1930's to our current situation.

pineapples and persimmons

[Teaser]

28. Obama is responsible for the Bataan Death March.

AND he shot "Big X" in "The Great Escape".

[mkultra]

30. FDR was an evil man

interment camps are the only proof needed

[JoePhilly]

32. And .... FDR is just as DEAD as Reagan is.

[uponit7771]

37. FDR had an 83% dem congress too, bashers usually leave that fact out of the equation...

...not that you're a basher or anything.

[TheKentuckian]

40. With actual jobs too, not just accounting tricks.

[Beacool]

41. Obama ain't no FDR..........

:shrug:

[WolfoftheWild]

42. Neither is Hillary.

[Avant Guardian]

43. Hillary isnt president

In case you havent checked lately

[WolfoftheWild]

45. you're right. thanks for reminding me!

but even if she was, she would been far less FDR-esque than Obama.

[NillaWafers]

60. Can you offer any proof for that assertion?

[Beacool]

73. And you know that how?

Got a crystal ball?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beacool]

80. Sexism? Probably.........

But it's likely more of a reaction to any Obama criticism. If that means trashing FDR, Clinton & Hillary in the process, so be it. In the eyes of some here he's not just a politician, he's some kind of hero who's infallible.

:eyes:



:7

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WolfoftheWild]

92. I'm just glad I don't have to know it from experience.

But I see that the grudge will go on and on....

[Avant Guardian]

76. She would have been more like her husband

She would be tough too.

[treestar]

47. So?

He could not have done it alone, for one. It was 70 or more years ago under different conditions for another. He's dead, so he can't be put on the job now.

[Arkana]

48. Take a look at the numbers in my sig, Manny.

Those two Congresses were FDR's first two Congresses. You can get a lot done with 69 Democrats, can't you?

And you'd have hated FDR just as much as you hate Obama--he made concessions to Southern Democrats about segregation that stopped them from blocking his legislative agenda. There's that dirty word, Manny--"concessions". I know you and yours HATE the idea of negotiation, but even the best Presidents have done it to get things they want.

[great white snark]

57. Thanks Arcana.

Especially on the concessions point. Polls overwhelmingly show that the average voter wants bipartisanship and Obama is trying. Even when it doesn't work out the people know he tried and that's why he has the image of the only grown up in the room. It's also the reason why he will be re-elected.

[Doctor_J]

97. What horse shit

Polls overwhelmingly show that the average voter wants bipartisanship

Then why do they vote for the Repukes who say out loud they ant to destroy Obama?

Come back from denial

[girl_interrupted]

50. Why is it necessary to demean every Dem president to defend Obama?

It's beyond stupid. FDR had his good points, and FDR had his bad points. Clinton had his good points, Clinton had his bad points. Obama has his good points & Obama has his bad points. Each of these presidents had different challenges during their administrations. I don't think Obama is better than either one of them or worse. Personally I think FDR faced greater challenges than Obama or Clinton, but each one has to deal with what is going on, on their watch. As far as Obama is concerned, he has yet to establish his legacy. He's a work in progress. The other two were reelected, so we know voters approved of what they did and wanted them back. We don't know how they feel about Obama just yet. We will see that in 2012.

You can post on a message board till kingdom come about how great Obama is, but it isn't going to matter one iota, unless the voters agree with you. If they feel he has made their lives better, he'll be back for a second term, if not he won't. It's that simple. But tearing down other Democratic presidents is like doing the republicans job for them and I don't see where that gets Democrats. There is no logic in it. I think most people on this board want to see another Democratic president reelected. God knows there was a huge gap between FDR and Clinton before we saw that happen. And it's something we should all keep in mind. These men achieved that. When we express dissatisfaction with Obama, it's not because we hate him, but that we want him to do better, we want to see him succeed, we want him to understand what's troubling voters and why they may or may not work to get him reelected.

So what does it accomplish to compare or tear down other Democratic presidents? Except to make Democrats look really foolish, like we put up candidates that aren't fit for the job. In the meantime, the voting public disagrees, they brought these men back. So what is the point? On their worse days, FDR & Clinton were better than their republican counterparts. Obama belongs to the same party they did. If he can learn something from them...good. If he can add even more to the Democratic agenda.... even better. I'm so sick of the endless primary wars, especially between Obama & Hillary, when he has chosen to work with her and the former president. Get over it already, Obama has. How stupid does it make him look, to criticize the very people he has chosen to work with? And I'm sick of the stupid bashing of FDR, a man who was not only physically challenged, but who handled a depression, rampant unemployment, an attack on the country and a world war and still managed to be reelected 4 times. No easy feat. While Republicans drool over Reagan, and for the life of me, I don't know why, he didn't face half of what FDR did, yet people in our party barely acknowledge him. What a waste. Just plain depressing.

[vaberella]

81. Why did you choose to participate in this thread, if you feel this way?

In particular in posts that would be what some would say a "defense" of FDR. Basically you should be a neutral player in all of this. The whole point of the thread was a way to pit FDR against Obama. If you so strongly believe that FDR and Obama did not face the same thing---you should bloody state that it's apples and oranges and shouldn't be compared AT ALL. You shouldn't also be taking a side to say that FDR went through this and Obama goes through this---because it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Yet, you seem to fail to see that. And then you go on a pedestal to state that all the President's face challenges. Well why don't you stand there and say that to the OP. Because logically, based on your statement the OP was in the wrong for even starting this thread. You did not. In actuality, this post and all your other posts is you basically putting yourself on the side of the OP. However, there seems to be more negative responses by posters than positive in regards to this issue.

Most of the people who are responding are responding to the combative nature of the post itself which is not new to the OP. I personally don't think it's cool pit a dead President who had his own issue against a President who has a new set of issues. However, this is what s/he does and then others who come here respond in kind.

As for the primary battles---that doesn't come from the camp of Obama supporters. Normally someone who is not an O supporter mentions something about HRC and then his supporters respond in kind. There is a baiting system in effect here and until you really see ultimately what's going on as a whole---don't get on a soap box. You participated perfectly fine.

And to add one final thing. As a Black person, I'm bloody glad I was not around during FDR's time. It wasn't good for us in America, even then.

[GSLevel9]

51. yeah, Hope and Change in a BIG way.

Oh and he also kinda' saved the free world and set up 20 years of American wealth.

[Phx_Dem]

55. Oh Manny, you're such a Republican.

You should change your picture from Dean to Palin.

[BklnDem75]

69. Yeah, Obama sucks...

Funny how comparing a President of two years to the most successful Democratic President = suck. Never anyone mediocre, always compared to the best. Think about that.

[ClarkUSA]

74. FDR had an 83% Democratic Congress and Republicans who were comparatively moderate.

Apples and oranges.

Someone's gotta distract from the great jobs report numbers, right?

[BklnDem75]

78. I've never seen such an all out effort...

to counter what should be considered good news for Democrats in general... Well, at least, not on a site that supports Democrats.

[Diclotican]

114. ClarkUSA

ClarkUSA

FDR had an congress that would have been moderate compared to the nutcases who are in the republican party today.. IF FDR have had the GOP of today in 1930s, and 1940s, Germany would have been the greatest power in the world, and Herman Goering had a palace outuside Washington DC by 1950... Thanks to the fact that FDR dosen't HAD a republican party like today - we are free, and the familiy of Goering, have not a palace outside of Washington DC..

Diclotican

[dave29]

75. and how many people were in America, then?

Not to take away credit from FDR and his Democratic majorities and completely different dynamics... but I think when you play with percentages, you might consider the numbers that make them up.

In order for Obama to "half" unemployment he would have to create significantly more jobs than FDR did to achieve a similar percentage. The task is simply not the same in order of magnitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_2000.svg

Beyond that, I'm not sure which years you are talking about. He did not half unemployment in his first four years:

1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9
1938 19.0
1940 14.6
1942 4.7%
1944 1.2%


He more than cut it in half over his entire three presidencies (before the fourth), but even these numbers of folks getting jobs do not begin to compete with the number of jobs Obama would have to create to achieve similar "percentage" of success.

The biggest drop in unemployment during FDR's Presidencies came when a significant portion of the population was away in the armed forces, and our grandmothers were building parts for planes and bombs.

(Maybe another world war will do the trick this time around?)

-Dave

[dave29]

77. context

It looks like between 1933 and 1935 (his first two years) he dropped it by almost 5% from 24.9% to 20.1%. During his first four years it dropped it by 8%, leaving it at 16.9%. In 1937, it dropped further to 14.3% before climbing back to 19% in 1938. Between 1938-1940, unemployment failed to drop to the levels it had reached in 1937 (majority of his second Presidency).

Then begins the runup to WWII.

1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19.0
1939 17.2
1940 14.6
1941 9.9%
1942 4.7%
1944 1.2%

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm

Still, hats off for great work on unemployment. With any luck, President Obama is able to achieve similar percentages, but we're just not talking about the same kinds of actual numbers, and we're especially not talking about similar economic paradigms (FDR was not having to compete with robots or off-shore labor -- as just two small examples).

Keeping this strictly to percentages, Obama would have to drop unemployment by 8% in his first four years to keep pace with Roosevelt. As we all know, unemployment is currently at 8.9% If Obama were to drop unemployment by 8% in four years, he would have achieved what FDR did in 12 with a population more than doubled -- almost complete employment.

Is this what the expectation level is?

-Dave

[boppers]

87. Obama could totally fix unemployment by rationing food, clothing...

....shutting down factories to make weapons, and not only killing vast amounts of citizens, but vast amounts of people around the world, in brutal and violent conflict.

Yes, Obama could do that, if it wasn't totally indefensible.

edit: typo

[BzaDem]

88. Unemployment under Obama hasn't ever even approached what it was under FDR pre-WW2.

I can't say that enough.

That is all.

[creon]

96. true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/73rd_United_States_Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/74th_United_States_Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75th_United_States_Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76th_United_States_Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/77th_United_States_Congress


The above links shows the compsition and legislative results of the first five congresses of the FDR Admin.
People may want to read some of it.

FDR was far from perfect. He became a deficit hawk about 1937. He did next to nothing about race. Japanese, Italian and Gernam ( at least of that extraction) were interned during the war. He was not perfect.
But, look at the results of the first five Congresses. I call that fairly decent.

What all this has to do with Obama is beyond me.

[Mimosa]

103. The Presidents who most help the working people are the ones who deserve admiration.

If Obama is really on our side it's not very apparent or obvious. He's been trusting in private enterprise and trickle down just as much as Bushies 41 and 43. Obama sold out our health care to the for profit industry. That is undeniable.

Obama is in with the military industrial complex and the big corporations because he dares not stand up for us.

[NorthCarolina]

113. We were a manufacturing nation back then. Now we are a consumer nation with very little

manufacturing capability, that relies on Service Industry jobs to employ the public.

[bigwillq]

115. Wow, Obama's been president for four years already?

Time flies.