Comparing Obama and Reagan's Economic Records

[carlfense]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/comparing-obama-and-reagans-economic-records/2011/08/25/gIQAHFJcaQ_blog.html

 

Interesting read.

[NUance]

Both of them sunk our country deeper into debt. MUCH deeper. That's all I need to know about them.

[carlfense]

Both of them sunk our country deeper into debt. MUCH deeper. That's all I need to know about them.

Yes they did.

[knapplc]

Both of them sunk our country deeper into debt. MUCH deeper. That's all I need to know about them.

 

Myopic.

 

Reagan had better hair. Obama has a wicked crossover dribble. Reagan brought down The Wall. Obama brought down bin Laden. Reagan loved jelly beans. Obama likes roasted almonds. Reagan never emailed anybody during his presidency. Obama sent me an email last week.

 

And now you're educated.

[Mavric]

I think presidents get too much blame (or credit) for how things are going than they actually deserve, especially on taxes/spending/deficits. It's really more congress that sets tax policy and enacts a budget (in theory). Yes, the president has to sign off on it but - in my admittedly limited research - I couldn't find an example of a president vetoing a budget. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

 

This isn't exactly the graph I was looking for but it's the only one I could find:

 

Federal Debt as a Percentage of GDP overlaid on President/Control of House/Control of Senate

 

I wasn't really looking for it as a Percent of GDP because that adds more variables but it also serves to somewhat inflation-adjust the numbers so maybe it's not so bad. Also it's not a perfect example because decisions made in one year can have long-term effects or may not go into effect for several years but it's an interesting overview.

 

There are three blocks where Republicans controlled both houses for more than two years (1901-09, 1919-29 & 1995-2005). In all three, the percentage was lower at the end of the block than when it started. It's not as clear-cut on the other side of the coin because Democrats happened to control both houses at the outbreak of both World Wars and the Stock Market crash of 1929 happened during a transition. Democrats held both houses the vast majority of the time from 1933-93 so you don't get nice breaks to compare. However, some of the problems we are having today are due to the long-term effects of social programs that tend to be more Democratically-supported.

 

Reagan had a Democratic house throughout his presidency so Democrats also had quite a bit of influence on spending policy. Even though GW Bush wasn't great on spending, the percentage was fairly flat until Democrats took control of both houses and the economy went into the crapper (no, I'm not implying a cause-and-effect relationship there).

 

Many like to point out what happened in such-and-such a president's term but it's way to complicated on many issues to make such a black-and-white generalization.

[husker_99]

I think presidents get too much blame (or credit) for how things are going than they actually deserve, especially on taxes/spending/deficits. It's really more congress that sets tax policy and enacts a budget (in theory). Yes, the president has to sign off on it but - in my admittedly limited research - I couldn't find an example of a president vetoing a budget. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

 

This isn't exactly the graph I was looking for but it's the only one I could find:

 

Federal Debt as a Percentage of GDP overlaid on President/Control of House/Control of Senate

 

I wasn't really looking for it as a Percent of GDP because that adds more variables but it also serves to somewhat inflation-adjust the numbers so maybe it's not so bad. Also it's not a perfect example because decisions made in one year can have long-term effects or may not go into effect for several years but it's an interesting overview.

 

There are three blocks where Republicans controlled both houses for more than two years (1901-09, 1919-29 & 1995-2005). In all three, the percentage was lower at the end of the block than when it started. It's not as clear-cut on the other side of the coin because Democrats happened to control both houses at the outbreak of both World Wars and the Stock Market crash of 1929 happened during a transition. Democrats held both houses the vast majority of the time from 1933-93 so you don't get nice breaks to compare. However, some of the problems we are having today are due to the long-term effects of social programs that tend to be more Democratically-supported.

 

Reagan had a Democratic house throughout his presidency so Democrats also had quite a bit of influence on spending policy. Even though GW Bush wasn't great on spending, the percentage was fairly flat until Democrats took control of both houses and the economy went into the crapper (no, I'm not implying a cause-and-effect relationship there).

 

Many like to point out what happened in such-and-such a president's term but it's way to complicated on many issues to make such a black-and-white generalization.

 

Well they do have influence it's just that their work doesn't get done usually til their out of office. Then you see the effect and the current President takes the credit, but never the blame. Unless something dramatically happens i can see this country failing and it will be a long drop down.

[carlfense]

I think presidents get too much blame (or credit) for how things are going than they actually deserve, especially on taxes/spending/deficits. It's really more congress that sets tax policy and enacts a budget (in theory). Yes, the president has to sign off on it but - in my admittedly limited research - I couldn't find an example of a president vetoing a budget. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

 

This isn't exactly the graph I was looking for but it's the only one I could find:

 

Federal Debt as a Percentage of GDP overlaid on President/Control of House/Control of Senate

 

I wasn't really looking for it as a Percent of GDP because that adds more variables but it also serves to somewhat inflation-adjust the numbers so maybe it's not so bad. Also it's not a perfect example because decisions made in one year can have long-term effects or may not go into effect for several years but it's an interesting overview.

 

There are three blocks where Republicans controlled both houses for more than two years (1901-09, 1919-29 & 1995-2005). In all three, the percentage was lower at the end of the block than when it started. It's not as clear-cut on the other side of the coin because Democrats happened to control both houses at the outbreak of both World Wars and the Stock Market crash of 1929 happened during a transition. Democrats held both houses the vast majority of the time from 1933-93 so you don't get nice breaks to compare. However, some of the problems we are having today are due to the long-term effects of social programs that tend to be more Democratically-supported.

 

Reagan had a Democratic house throughout his presidency so Democrats also had quite a bit of influence on spending policy. Even though GW Bush wasn't great on spending, the percentage was fairly flat until Democrats took control of both houses and the economy went into the crapper (no, I'm not implying a cause-and-effect relationship there).

 

Many like to point out what happened in such-and-such a president's term but it's way to complicated on many issues to make such a black-and-white generalization.

Good post.

 

I agree about the credit/blame issue. However, sometimes you can see heavy presidential lobbying for issues that incontrovertibly increased the deficit.

 

Decreasing revenues while lobbying for massive new entitlement programs will lead to the sort of spike that you see in the 2009 fiscal year . . . which began on October 1, 2008.

[carlfense]

Well they do have influence it's just that their work doesn't get done usually til their out of office. Then you see the effect and the current President takes the credit, but never the blame. Unless something dramatically happens i can see this country failing and it will be a long drop down.

Yep.

[knapplc]

Well they do have influence it's just that their work doesn't get done usually til their out of office. Then you see the effect and the current President takes the credit, but never the blame. Unless something dramatically happens i can see this country failing and it will be a long drop down.

Yep.

 

Bill Clinton being a very obvious example.

[Mavric]

Good post.

 

I agree about the credit/blame issue. However, sometimes you can see heavy presidential lobbying for issues that incontrovertibly increased the deficit.

 

Decreasing revenues while lobbying for massive new entitlement programs will lead to the sort of spike that you see in the 2009 fiscal year . . . which began on October 1, 2008.

This is very true - Presidents definitely have input that carries weight. I was going to say this might especially be true when the president's party at least has one house but I was apparently didn't realize how infrequently the two houses are split in terms of which party has the majority - only six times in the last 112 years. And only once for more than a two year stretch.

[carlfense]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/column-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2011/08/25/gIQALDBchQ_blog.html#pagebreak

[Mavric]

http://www.washingto....html#pagebreak

Eh ... lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

As I've said, Bush was not great on spending by any means but I'm not sure about how they picked and chose what numbers to include. We've been well over trillion-dollar defecits for several years so to say Bush was responsible for basically the entire debt accumulated during his presidency while Obama is only responsible for about 20% during his doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

Also, I'm not sure why some numbers are included on Bush's side but not Obama's.

- Obama doesn't get anything for Iraq and Afganistan? You can claim it was Bush's War but there was pretty wide support throught government at the outset.

- Defense spending increased some $42B in FY2009 and another $33B in FY2010 so I'm not sure how Bush gets docked $616B while Obama gets credit for decreasing the defecit $271B on defense.

- Non-Defense discretionary has also increased significantly in the last two years (by nearly 50%) but again Obama gets credit for reducing the defecit.

- Showing a health care reduction is sketchy at best. It isn't scheduled to be fully implemented until 2014 so it only counts for three years on the chart but may have longer-term implications that could be much worse. Plus, it looks like we're already having to abandon the CLASS Act part because it isn't fiscally sustainable. Makes me wonder what other parts won't add up how they're "supposed" to.

[carlfense]

http://www.washingto....html#pagebreak

Eh ... lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

As I've said, Bush was not great on spending by any means but I'm not sure about how they picked and chose what numbers to include. We've been well over trillion-dollar defecits for several years so to say Bush was responsible for basically the entire debt accumulated during his presidency while Obama is only responsible for about 20% during his doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

Also, I'm not sure why some numbers are included on Bush's side but not Obama's.

- Obama doesn't get anything for Iraq and Afganistan? You can claim it was Bush's War but there was pretty wide support throught government at the outset.

- Defense spending increased some $42B in FY2009 and another $33B in FY2010 so I'm not sure how Bush gets docked $616B while Obama gets credit for decreasing the defecit $271B on defense.

- Non-Defense discretionary has also increased significantly in the last two years (by nearly 50%) but again Obama gets credit for reducing the defecit.

- Showing a health care reduction is sketchy at best. It isn't scheduled to be fully implemented until 2014 so it only counts for three years on the chart but may have longer-term implications that could be much worse. Plus, it looks like we're already having to abandon the CLASS Act part because it isn't fiscally sustainable. Makes me wonder what other parts won't add up how they're "supposed" to.

The numbers are collected from every piece of legislation that Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama signed into law. Every one.

 

I'm cherry-picking . . . but why do you think Pres. Obama is responsible for Iraq? He probably wouldn't have been elected if he hadn't voted against that invasion.

 

Defense spending - These numbers take into account the reductions that were agreed to as part of the trigger mechanism.

 

Non-defense discretionary - Where are you getting the 50% increase in non-defense discretionary spending in the last two years?

 

Doesn't killing the CLASS act show a commitment to fiscal responsibility in the ACA? Sure the results from the ACA could be much worse . . . but I could just as easily argue that the results will be much better.

[Mavric]

The numbers are collected from every piece of legislation that Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama signed into law. Every one.

 

I'm cherry-picking . . . but why do you think Pres. Obama is responsible for Iraq? He probably wouldn't have been elected if he hadn't voted against that invasion.

 

Defense spending - These numbers take into account the reductions that were agreed to as part of the trigger mechanism.

 

Non-defense discretionary - Where are you getting the 50% increase in non-defense discretionary spending in the last two years?

 

Doesn't killing the CLASS act show a commitment to fiscal responsibility in the ACA? Sure the results from the ACA could be much worse . . . but I could just as easily argue that the results will be much better.

How has there been nearly as much added to the deficit in three years under Obama as there was under 8 years of Bush yet the entire amount under Bush gets put on him but only about 20% goes to Obama. Seems to me like they're the ones cherry-picking numbers. Where is the other $4B since he was elected? Maybe Obama didn't directly sign off on it but he's done nothing to stop it. IIRC, there's been bigger deficits in each year under Obama than ever under Bush. Obviously the economy has a lot to do with that but that's a pretty weak distinction, IMO. Also, it goes back to my point about Congress having more responsibility over the budget. Maybe it's not any bigger because the "party of No" has the majority in the House.

 

On Iraq, etc., again, it's not so much that he's "responsible" for it, just that he's kept the operations going but doesn't get marked down for that because it wasn't "his decision" (btw, I don't think he voted against it as he wasn't elected until 2004 but I assume he would have). My point was that the resolution passed by better than a 2-1 margin in both the House and Senate so there was wide support for it. Not as much support amongst Dems but many still supported it. I've also always wondered how legit the cost of war numbers are. Are they gross or net numbers - that is, we're going to have equipment and manpower costs whether we're at war or not but I've never seen it explained which way the numbers are being presented. Not arguing that being at war increases costs, just don't know if the numbers being show are the increased costs (net) or the total costs (gross). My guess is they're gross but I don't know.

 

Defense costs - so Obama fought against any strings on the debt ceiling increase but gets credit for the ones that happen? Pretty much like having your cake and eating it too. And he doesn't get blamed for increases in defense spending on his watch because he didn't sign off on it? Then what are Bush's other costs outside the wars?

 

I was looking at the CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook paper for the numbers (Appendix F). I couldn't find the 2011 data the other day but I did now. I must have looked at something wrong because it should have been about 26% over those two years (24% on the 2011 data). But, compared to 2008, there was $58B more in 2009, $136B in 2010 and $124B in 2011. But it shows a decrease to the deficit for Obama in that area.

 

So Obama pushes the CLASS Act which fails in less than two years, the Republicans are pushing to repeal it but the White House and Senate say they don't want to. But you're still giving Obama credit for being "fiscally responsible" based on that program? How do you explain that? I would say the chances of ACA coming out in the black are slim based on Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office and the not-even-implemented CLASS Act all running in the red. I'm not sure what major government social program isn't running deficits (I'm not including the Post Office as a "social program").

[carlfense]

How has there been nearly as much added to the deficit in three years under Obama as there was under 8 years of Bush yet the entire amount under Bush gets put on him but only about 20% goes to Obama.

It's clearly explained in the link. This is the cost (or benefit) of every single piece of legislation signed by Obama and Bush. If it was signed by Bush, it goes to his column. If it was signed by Obama, it goes to his column.

 

No more and no less than that.

 

(Edit: I'll respond to the rest of your points later. Getting ready for a very busy week.)