Guess who is the most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History.

[min0 lee]

Economist Justin Wolfers tweets a graph from Mark Thoma that's very much worth talking about. It measures per capita growth in government spending for the last seven presidents' first term in office. This is what he finds:

​

The graph tells a simple story that I've recounted before. For all the talk you hear about ******** historic spree, government spending actually hasn't increased so dramatically under this president. The stimulus was big, but it's over. It's been replaced by, if not austerity (which has struck our states and cities) then a hard correction to the center.

Here's another way to tell the story ... It's a quiz! I present to you the first three years in spending for three recent presidents: Barack Obama, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan. To make it a game, I've removed their names and indexed the spending increases to their first month of office. And I've replaced the dates with integers from 1-10 so you can't guess by looking at the years.

Can you guess which president is which?

​

President #1

President #2

 

[min0 lee]

President #3

​

The hint that solves the puzzle: They're in chronological order. It goes Reagan, Bush, Obama. Going by federal expenditures (and note these are nominal figures), it would seem that if Obama's a socialist, Ronald Reagan is Karl Marx with an ICBM.
​

​

​

Let me anticipate some of your objections before you make them. (1) Reagan was fighting a war, he jacked up defense spending instead of discretionary spending, and he inherited a recession with inflation that might, well, inflate his numbers. This is all true, but expanding defense was Reagan's choice, and a dollar spent, on no matter what, is a dollar taxed or borrowed. (2) Bush was fighting a war and battling a recession, too. Yes, but he has neither inflation nor a Great Recession. (3) Don't play relativity games with me, Derek, too much government spending is too much government spending, even if Obama's predecessors were worse! There is a time for government cuts, but it's not when you have 9 percent unemployment and your interest rates are below 2%. (4) The language of Obamacare and financial reform are better indicators of big government than federal spending. It's fair to measure government size by its total involvement in people's lives, but that deserves a longer post. (5) We should be more concerned about the taxes and spending to come than the spending that has past. But they haven't happened yet, so they're not part of the president's record.

Maybe I missed some objections -- I'm sure you'll let me know -- and I'll answer in the comment section.

But the bottom line is that it is really, truly time for the myth about Big Spender Obama to die. If anything, it is remarkable that, after a recession and a private sector implosion, the public sector expanded less under this administration than it did under Bush or Reagan, especially when you consider the government cuts made at the state and local levels.

Source: Reuters​

 

[IronAddict]

President #3

​

The hint that solves the puzzle: They're in chronological order. It goes Reagan, Bush, Obama. Going by federal expenditures (and note these are nominal figures), it would seem that if Obama's a socialist, Ronald Reagan is Karl Marx with an ICBM.
​

​

​

Let me anticipate some of your objections before you make them. (1) Reagan was fighting a war, he jacked up defense spending instead of discretionary spending, and he inherited a recession with inflation that might, well, inflate his numbers. This is all true, but expanding defense was Reagan's choice, and a dollar spent, on no matter what, is a dollar taxed or borrowed. (2) Bush was fighting a war and battling a recession, too. Yes, but he has neither inflation nor a Great Recession. (3) Don't play relativity games with me, Derek, too much government spending is too much government spending, even if Obama's predecessors were worse! There is a time for government cuts, but it's not when you have 9 percent unemployment and your interest rates are below 2%. (4) The language of Obamacare and financial reform are better indicators of big government than federal spending. It's fair to measure government size by its total involvement in people's lives, but that deserves a longer post. (5) We should be more concerned about the taxes and spending to come than the spending that has past. But they haven't happened yet, so they're not part of the president's record.

Maybe I missed some objections -- I'm sure you'll let me know -- and I'll answer in the comment section.

But the bottom line is that it is really, truly time for the myth about Big Spender Obama to die. If anything, it is remarkable that, after a recession and a private sector implosion, the public sector expanded less under this administration than it did under Bush or Reagan, especially when you consider the government cuts made at the state and local levels.

Source: Reuters​

Come on MinO, do you really think this is going to fly ?

People aren't going to believe this, him or their lying eyes.

 

[min0 lee]

Come on MinO, do you really think this is going to fly ?

People aren't going to believe this, him or their lying eyes.

I know, I do like to see the hilarious responses and excuses people make.

 

[IronAddict]

I know, I do like to see the hilarious responses and excuses people make.

I can think of a few adjectives myself, but hilarious isn't one of them!

 

[LAM]

I know, I do like to see the hilarious responses and excuses people make.

don't go trying to confuse the ideologues with facts mino, they don't need such things. it's 2012 and most American's still don't know that several US and British energy producers are part of OPEC, it's not just the Arabs. it's why the US and UK just can't stay out of the middle east, the Israel thing is secondary.

 

[squigader]

Don't go trying to confuse people with the truth...

 

[GearsMcGilf]

I would say it was GWB. You can't count the $ for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because those were necessary to defend us from the terrorists. The graph only shows a slight dip in the end. We still have for more years to go also. The analysis also doesn't take into consideration that Hussein now has a majority republican house and only a slight majority in the Senate. It's harder for him to spend us into oblivion with a mostly republican congress.

 

[troubador]

Are those numbers based on percentage of spending of the previous president or do they represent the magnitude of spending?

 

[squigader]

I would say it was GWB. You can't count the $ for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because those were necessary to defend us from the terrorists.

When did terrorists from Iraq ever threaten the US? The whole invasion of Iraq was a huge scam.

 

[troubador]

Whether it's percentage above previous president or total expenditure above, still Obama's graph shows a greater increase than GWB's. I don't see how this supports Obama at all and I don't see how having a smaller spending increase makes you more fiscally conservative. To me it only means he's slightly less conservative than GWB.

 

[GearsMcGilf]

The graph doesn't take into account the fact that he's a muslim either or that he's not even a citizen.

 

[LAM]

The graph doesn't take into account the fact that he's a muslim either or that he's not even a citizen.

if you are going to subscribe to that theory then what would be the purpose of putting a muslim or non-us citizen in the highest office? there has to be a purpose....GWB already destroyed the economy so that can't be it and the US has been warring since the end of WWII, the MIC has seen to that..

so what is the purpose?

 

[GearsMcGilf]

No purpose. He simply won the election. Anyhoo, since Bush already got us into a deep hole, why doesn't Barry quit digging?

 

[LAM]

logic would dictate that the corporate welfare should be the first thing to go. that would help level the playing field for small business that have to compete with those under gov protection...

figure the odds of that happening...

take Germany as an example the gov subsidized their energy industry to get to the point they are now with solar soon that subsidy will be removed and used somewhere else. in the US subsidy to the large firms with lobbyists in DC never ends....