Deficits

[Arkady]

Here's a calculation of the increase or decrease of the federal budget deficit, as a share of GDP, during each presidential era. Since fiscal years don't line up with presidential terms, I provided two numbers for each era. So, for example, the first Bush number uses FY 2001 (the last budget proposed by Clinton) as the baseline for the Bush era, while the second uses FY 2000 (the last budget year in which Bush had no role) as the baseline. Similarly, I use two different end dates for the calculations (for Bush, eight years after FY 2001 or eight years after FY 2000, respectively). To simplify things, for the presidencies that changed hands mid-term, I've calculated as a unit.

Negative numbers denote increasing deficits/decreasing surpluses, positive numbers denote decreasing deficits/increasing surpluses:

FDR/Truman: +3.6 +2.8
Eisenhower: +0.5 +1.1
Kennedy/Johnson: -2.9 +0.9
Nixon/Ford: -1.3 -2.9
Carter +1.5 +0.1
Reagan: -0.4 -0.2
GHW Bush: -1.5 -1.1
Clinton: +6.8 +5.0
GW Bush: -5.4 -11
Obama: -0.6 6.1

To simplify , by averaging the two numbers, here are the presidential eras, from best to worst, in terms of the change in our fiscal situation:

Clinton: +5.9
FDR/Truman: +3.2
Obama: +2.8
Carter +0.8
Eisenhower: +0.8
Reagan: -0.3
Kennedy/Johnson: -1.0
GHW Bush: -1.3
Nixon/Ford: -2.1
GW Bush: -8.2

To do the comparison properly, you'd want to offset for the business cycle, since a president coming to power during a weak economy (like Reagan, FDR, Clinton, and Obama) has an unfair advantage in this comparison, and a president coming to power during a strong economy (like GW Bush and Nixon) has an unfair disadvantage. You'd also want to offset for inherited debt cost, since someone who inherits interest payments on debt run up by a predecessor is fighting uphill from the start. But, nonetheless, it's interesting.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Sure, it's interesting, but it requires one to think.

Thinking is hard. So is arithmetic.

 

[MaryAnne]

Here's a calculation of the increase or decrease of the federal budget deficit, as a share of GDP, during each presidential era. Since fiscal years don't line up with presidential terms, I provided two numbers for each era. So, for example, the first Bush number uses FY 2001 (the last budget proposed by Clinton) as the baseline for the Bush era, while the second uses FY 2000 (the last budget year in which Bush had no role) as the baseline. Similarly, I use two different end dates for the calculations (for Bush, eight years after FY 2001 or eight years after FY 2000, respectively). To simplify things, for the presidencies that changed hands mid-term, I've calculated as a unit.

Negative numbers denote increasing deficits/decreasing surpluses, positive numbers denote decreasing deficits/increasing surpluses:

FDR/Truman: +3.6 +2.8
Eisenhower: +0.5 +1.1
Kennedy/Johnson: -2.9 +0.9
Nixon/Ford: -1.3 -2.9
Carter +1.5 +0.1
Reagan: -0.4 -0.2
GHW Bush: -1.5 -1.1
Clinton: +6.8 +5.0
GW Bush: -5.4 -11
Obama: -0.6 6.1

To simplify , by averaging the two numbers, here are the presidential eras, from best to worst, in terms of the change in our fiscal situation:

Clinton: +5.9
FDR/Truman: +3.2
Obama: +2.8
Carter +0.8
Eisenhower: +0.8
Reagan: -0.3
Kennedy/Johnson: -1.0
GHW Bush: -1.3
Nixon/Ford: -2.1
GW Bush: -8.2

To do the comparison properly, you'd want to offset for the business cycle, since a president coming to power during a weak economy (like Reagan, FDR, Clinton, and Obama) has an unfair advantage in this comparison, and a president coming to power during a strong economy (like GW Bush and Nixon) has an unfair disadvantage. You'd also want to offset for inherited debt cost, since someone who inherits interest payments on debt run up by a predecessor is fighting uphill from the start. But, nonetheless, it's interesting.

Thanks Arkady. You will notice there are few answers to these researched facts.

And now the deficit under Obama is dropping faster than any President.

 

[GordonGecko]

Sure, it's interesting, but it requires one to think.

Thinking is hard. So is arithmetic.

Math has a liberal bias....it's a lie straight from the pits of Hell.

 

[GordonGecko]

Politically, it's a proven historical fact that "fiscal conservatives"....

only care about deficits when a Democrat is in the White House.

The evidence is clear...from Dick Cheney's "Deficits don't matter"....to the "odd absence" of ANY Tea Party or Tea Party protests during the Dubya years.

 

[Arkady]

Thanks Arkady. You will notice there are few answers to these researched facts.

And now the deficit under Obama is dropping faster than any President.

Well, numbers can be tough for conservatives, since they so often fly in the face of their assumptions. Conservatives like to think of themselves as being deficit hawks. Yet, as a practical matter, the tax-cutting, military-spending-hiking presidents tend to preside over deficit increases, whereas the tax-hiking presidential eras are clearly the stronger eras for our fiscal situation.

 

[Arkady]

Politically, it's a proven historical fact that "fiscal conservatives"....

only care about deficits when a Democrat is in the White House.

The evidence is clear...from Dick Cheney's "Deficits don't matter"....to the "odd absence" of ANY Tea Party or Tea Party protests during the Dubya years.

Yep. There are a few real fiscal conservatives out there. But a real fiscal conservative knows that that revenue shortfalls have been the critical factor in periods with soaring deficits, not spending overruns. For example, in the Bush years, annualized federal spending growth was actually below the historical average, yet we went from record surpluses to record deficits because of revenue growth that was VASTLY below historical norms. A real deficit hawk would have to acknowledge that and think primarily in terms of preventing such revenue shortfalls, not in terms of throttling our already below normal (by first-world terms) government spending. And when it comes time to focus on spending cuts, a real deficit hawk would have to acknowledge that, by far, the biggest area of discretionary spending is the military. That's where the biggest savings can be found, and that's the one area of our budget where we're clearly vastly overspending relative to other leading nations.

On the right, though, you'll find almost no real fiscal conservatives. Instead, you find people who masquerade as fiscal conservatives while, hilariously, advocating boosting military spending, starting wars of choice, and cutting taxes. It's that kind of thinking that gave us the Bush-era plunge from record surpluses to record deficits in just a few years.

 

[MaryAnne]

That is also the reason you see our infrastructure falling so far behind other countries . Bush spent nothing on the repair of our country,choosing to siphon it all for his wars. We are still paying for them while Republicans refuse to do anything to help repair the damage of those wasted years.

This is why you never get decent answers to these types of posts. All are too busy picking at Obama. You know I did not vote for him the first time because I knew so little about him, but once I watched him in action I knew what he was capable of. He has my backing all the way.