This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Obama Outperformed Reagan? Hardly!
Submitted by Lance Roberts of STA Wealth Management,
"There are three types of lies; Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics." - Mark Twain
Last week, Adam Hartung qualified for the "Mark Twain Award" if there was such a thing. In his article, "Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth & Investing," Adam goes to some length to try and show that unemployment rate, the S&P 500 and economic growth are currently better under the current administration than they were during the Reagan administration.
Adam's first mistake was in the use of the Bureau Of Labor Statistics measure of unemployment (U3) as a comparative benchmark of success as President. To wit:
"“President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his 6th year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration."
While this is "technically true," it falls within Twain's category of a "statistical lie."
The BLS's measure of unemployment has become obfuscated by the rise in the number of individuals that are no longer counted as part of the labor force. As I discussed in "Why The Unemployment Rate Is Irrelevant," the measure of labor force participation is markedly different between Reagan and Obama.
During Reagan's Presidency, workers that were unemployed longer than 52-weeks were still part of the labor force. This inclusion gave a more accurate measure of the relative size of the labor force overall. However, in 1994, Clinton removed individuals from the labor force that were currently unemployed for longer than 52-weeks. This adjustment immediately improved the overall measure of unemployment by shrinking the labor force by some 500,000 individuals. Since then, the number of individuals no longer counted as part of the labor force has swelled to more than 92 million individuals, or roughly 45% of the working age population (16-54) as of the end of 2013
In other words, a large part of the drop in the U-3 unemployment rate is due to the increase in the number of individuals excluded from the workforce. In theory, if the dropout rate continued at the current pace, the unemployment could fall towards zero allowing the Federal Reserve to win the battle of unemployment, but losing the war of economic prosperity.
The chart below shows the annual change in those not counted as part of the labor force by President from 1981-Present.
One of the arguments made by Adam is that the slack in the Labor Force Participation Rate is due to "Baby Boomers" retiring. This is hardly the case as I discussed in "Don't Blame Boomers For Not Retiring:"
"Recent statistics show that the average American is woefully unprepared for retirement. On average, 40% of American families are NOT saving for retirement, and of those who are, it is primarily about one year's worth of income. Furthermore, important to this particular conversation, one-fourth of those at retirement age postponed retirement with only 18% being confident of having enough saved for retirement.
With 24% of "baby boomers" postponing retirement, due to an inability to retire, it is not surprising that the employment level of individuals OVER the age of 65, as a percent of the working age population 16 and over, has risen sharply in recent years."
This also explains that while the unemployment RATE has fallen to levels more commonly associated with full-employment, the actual levels of full-time employment have not risen. Critically, in an economy that is nearly 70% driven by consumption, it is ONLY full-time employment that leads to increasing levels of consumption, household formation and ultimately economic growth.
However, for the sake of argument, let's exclude all individuals OVER THE AGE OF 54 from the analysis so we can focus on those of working age 16-54. If the employment has indeed improved better under the Obama Administration then the level of full-time employment for the working age population should have improved markedly.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. At the end of Reagan's administration full-time employment relative to the working age population was at 51.98% versus 47.78% for Obama currently. However, following the recession in 1981, full-time employment under Reagan surged sharply as the real economy gained traction. This has not been the case as full-time employment has remained primarily a function of population growth and little else.
Adam also makes another critical mistake in his analysis using the stock market as a measure of economic performance. To wit:
"“However, it is undeniable that President Obama has surpassed the previous president. Investors have gained a remarkable 220% over the last 5.5 years! This level of investor growth is unprecedented by any administration, and has proven quite beneficial for everyone."
Again, it is a true statement but a "statistical fallacy."
The surge in the stock market since 2009 has not been a representation of underlying economic strength but rather a direct correlation to the expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. The chart below shows the level of excess reserves of depository institutions and the S&P 500 index by President.
As you will notice, the surge in excess bank reserves beginning in 2009 has correlated with the surge in asset prices that is a benefit that the Reagan did not have. Therefore, to judge which President had better stock market performance we must extract the effect of the Federal Reserve interventions. The next chart shows, by President, the ratio of the S&P 500 Index divided by excess reserves at depository institutions.
During the Reagan administration the stock market was growing at a rate faster than excess reserves which was a reflection of actual economic strength. Since 2009, growth of the stock market has only been a function of monetary interventions rather than broad-based economic prosperity.
Lastly, there is one point that must be considered. If we are truly going to compare President Obama to Ronald Reagan, it should be on the basis of a level playing field. As shown in the chart below, President Reagan's achieved real, inflation-adjusted, economic growth of 3.88% annually on average as compared to 2.04% under President Obama.
This outperformance was achieved despite headwinds of an average interest rate nearly 5-times that of the current administration and an inflation rate that was more than double.
When considering that President Obama has been able to achieve real economic growth of just 2.04% annually despite historically low levels of inflation and interest rates combined with massive government interventions and balance sheet expansions; it makes his overall performance even more disappointing.
However, I do agree with Adam on his concluding point:
"There are a lot of reasons voters elect a candidate. Jobs and the economy are just one category of factors. But, for those who place a high priority on jobs, economic performance and the markets the data clearly demonstrates which presidential administration has performed best."
Clearly, the right answer was Reagan. Reagan, faced with skyrocketing inflation and interest rates, laid the groundwork that paved the way for a 20-year expansion of economic growth and prosperity. Unfortunately, as we move into the fifth longest economic recovery in history, there is little evidence such an economic "boom" is on the horizon.
»
- 12546 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
*grabs popcorn*
Just mention Reagan or Jesus.
Seriously. Reagan was riding the funny money pork and gravy train just like all the rest.
What is the point? The man in the Oval Office is just a figurehead for the kleptocratic machine.
Wow. 3 down votes already. That was quick. Remember, people, the Reagan admin was the one who kicked off the immoral and unconstitutional war on drugs. He was also the one whose admin put forth the now timeless phrase 'deficits don't matter' and look where that has gotten us. He might have spouted a lot of libertarian sounding rhetoric, but that's not how he governed, not even close. His budget deficits might seem small by today's standards, but he doubled the debt while he was in office and massively enlarged the MIC. He also campaigned on getting rid of the department of education(unconstitutional), yet while he was in office, it's budget grew every year. The Republican Party does not represent libertarian or constitutional ideas, and Reagan was no exception. Get over it.
And gave us Easy Al to boot.
But the flock will hear no ill of the preacher
Two peas in a pod. Both talked a pretty sound game before they got in... both did a 180 once annointed. Sociopaths carrying water for sociopaths.
Reagan is the best president in my lifetime...by far. But let's be honest. Obama stepped into office neck deep in shit. Getting America back on track might take another decade. It's gonna be a tough slog.
Politically I am a fiscal conservative. One day, I decided to find the last president who actually spent *LESS* than his predecessor or *LESS* than himself the previous year.
So ZH, who was that president? It goes waaaaay back and it won't surprise when you find out the fact!
Regards,
Cooter
Off the top of my head, I would pick Andrew Jackson.
He was the only President to get our national debt to zero as well.
But but but trail of tears!
Had to have been James Garfield...he wasn't around long enough to spend much...
It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
"Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it."
Lou Holtz
Leo "Lou" Holtz (born January 6, 1937) is a retired American football coach, and active sportscaster, author, and motivational speaker.
Calvin Coolidge
Few know about the depression of the 1920's......he was that good.
My vote, too.
Reagan opened the deficit spending boondogle. Later presidents took that as justification to go into deficit overdrive....
Best thing about Reagan was giving Stockman an education to help us nowadays....
Would ZeroHedge remove the GOP cock from it's mouth and return to Fight Club. All the adults that frequent your BLOG are keenley aware of the Team Red/Team Blue false choice. It's getting kinda irritating...
By the Way... Fuck Ayn Rand, Barack Obama, Ronald Wison Regan, FDR, Nixon and every other servant of the state. The state exists solely to protect and enable the oligarchy.
What's your preference, abolition of property? Just run around with guns and take shit from each other?
...Just run around with guns and take shit from each other?
It'd be a fairer and more honest system than we have now...
Carl, you need a history lesson badly. The War on Drugs was started by the Nixon Administration in 1971. Sorry, but you have no clue what you're talking about.
It's been the same monolithic presidency since JFK, at least... and likely longer. They all represent a uniquely American form of finance fascism. Splitting hairs over who's worse is retarded. And by retarded, I mean it completely retards ones ability to understand reality. Choosing a side forces you to believe there are sides. Retarded.
No, its easy to select the most destructive president ever (Woodrow Wilson-creation of the FED and the income tax and the FAKE WWI) and the second worst one, either FDR or LBJ (creation of the modern welfare state and the FAKE WWII or Vietname debacle). The damage was completed by 1968 and everything after that has been incremental by comparison. Freedom is incompatible with a centralized welfare state. Remove the FED and the income tax and everything (wars, great society programs, obamacare) is impossible since you can't fund it! Its really that simple.
At least when Reagan spent money he bought something of some value with it. Effectively ending the cold war? Yeah that was worth a trillion or two. That money should have been easily paid back with the prosperity that followed but it wasn't. You can't blame him for that, he was out of office.
You can't blame Reagan for what the men who followed him into office did to screw the peace dividend. Everyone should know that there was a concerted effort between the neocons, the banks, and the party insiders of both parties to rape Russia after the Comblock brokedown. Once they were done with Russia they decided it was our turn and here we sit.
Sure he wasn't perfect. I don't think he was a neocon type. I do think the neocons got hold of the power earlier than history records because of his mental state, at least the last couple of years. See, vanity.
Bush Sr's first term was really Reagan's second term.
There's a difference between his first and second term.
Total US Debt
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TCMDO ($59.398 T Exponential Growth, All Sectors; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level)
Foreign Owned Assets
Here is a look at Exponential Growth (2004-2008) of Foreign Owned Assets in the USA from the Department of Commerce.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/iip_glance.htm ($26 Trillion foreign compared to $22 for US) (This is very interesting as Big Banks are growing strongly, but the number of total us banks is dramatically decreasing, like someone is gaming the system, Commercial Banks in the U.S. - FRED - St. Louis Fed)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ROWFDN... ($3.16 Foreign Investment USA)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GPDI ($2.69 Private Domestic Investment)
Consumer Credit
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HCCSDODNS $3.148 Trillion Households and Nonprofit Organizations; Consumer Credit; Liability, Level
Total Federal Debt
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEBTN (Total Federal Debt $17.6 TN)
Transfer Payments
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TRP6001A027NBEA (SNAP Payments, data no longer updated 1-1-2012)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W014RU1Q027NBEA (Federal government current expenditures: Current transfer payments
$554.0 Billions of Dollars, data no longer updated 2012:Q4)
Student Loans
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FGCCSAQ027S $770 B Federal government; consumer credit, student loans; asset, Level
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M1
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MZM
Looks like 1981 was the Money Velocity high, note manufacturing plunged 1979.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M1V (Top was 2007 Q4 at 10.7, now down to 6.3)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2V (Top was 1997 Q3 at 2.2, now down to 1.5)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MZMV (Top was 1981 Q1 at 3.5, now down to 1.4)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/Mult (Top was January 1987 at 3.1, now down to .7)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MANEMP (Employees: Manufacturing 12.1 M Persons)
---
data back to 1984 decline in number of us banks:
Commercial Banks in the U.S.
2014:Q1: 5,743 Number (down from 14,400 in 1984)
Quarterly, End of Period, Not Seasonally Adjusted, USNUM, Updated: 2014-05-21
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USNUM
data back to decline in us businesses:
Employment Level - All industries Self-employed, unincorporated
2014-06: 9,104 Thousands of Persons (down from 10,713 in 1994)
Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted, LNS12027714, Updated: 2014-07-03
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12027714
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12027714 (self employed unincorporated)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNU02048984 (self employed incorporated)
Damn, that was hard.
Obama is more like Nixon than Reagan
Obama is pretty much one of a kind. Nixon was an ignorant and stupid boy scout comparatively. Reagan, I don't think, would have you killed or kneecapped like the other two.
If Nixon and Carter had a son it would be like Obama.
Reagan was a flavor to make it go down easy-just like Obama. "Homeland Security" is for after Obama when We the People are projected to stop taking our medicine nicely.
That horseshit article has been rolling around Facefuck from Forbes. 2 words: labor participation. Nice hit piece Adam Heart-Dung.
Ronnie would probably whip the Indonesian Typhoid Mary in golf, as well.
Reagan was just another crooked pres like the rest of them.
Iran Contra ring any bells?
Witch Hunt. Part of the CIA/NSA dismantling of the Executive Branch.
Little did CONgress realize that they were next.
Supine Court follow-on after that.
RR would have never done anything like this.....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/09/breitbart-news-says-irs-targe...
he probably did but I CAN"T RECCOLECT where my memory files were that stored that info.
Witch hunt my ass -- he rippedoff the Saudis for 250 mil for himself and his friends.
See Darryl Robert Schoon for details.
Too bad they never prosecuted any of the actual witches.
When did Oliver North get out of jail?
That was more Bush than Reagan.
Besides it is peanuts compared to what has gone on since GBII and Bama. Fast and Furious was worse considering everyone knows about it and absolutely nothing has been done about it.
All of the shit blamed on Reagan has a distinctively Bushy odor to it.
ronnie talked a good game until they put a bullet in him
they had to have been disappointed at the miss
Revisionist history, Orwellian propagandizing, spitting in the wind.
Welcome to the New Rome, the New Reality.
Adam Hartung - you are a gigantic turd.
OK.
It was Reagan who began the the path to globalization ( although it was Nixon who "normalized" relations with China). Every president of the last 40- 50 yrs. has done the bidding of the global elite. This red/blue paradigm shit has become prevalent on ZH. I miss the early days of intelligent discusssion on ZH and especially Marla!
Before I call it a night, You guys should learn about Reagan from someone other than that dumb fuck professor of yours. Good Night.
I wish tomorrow could be "Morning In America" just one more time. (sigh)
every one is, but then EVERYone gets up to try their luck, once again, on the hamster wheel.
vicious, vicious cycle that damm wheel.
and WHERE'S MY FUCKING CHEESE!
mista we could use a man like ronald raygun agaaaaaaaaain.
sweet dreams, get up and get off the wheel
I Know 2 things, everyone was a fuck ton happier under Reagan and if he was president now, everyone would be saying ISIS who? (regardless if we created the monster or not)
My working career began in 1969 and ended in 2011. Of the four complete decades, the 1980s was by far the best for me, both for finances and general contentment. Every other decade left me wondering about the future.
How many of those bashing Reagan here today were sentient adults while Reagan was president? Many ZH comments lately have held Putin, the bare-chested horse rider, in high esteem. How many are here bashing Reagan? Is it because he wore a shirt while riding horses?
There are definitely a lot of kids on these comments, plus you have to account for the trolls located in the Internet Research Agency, Wangluo Shuijun, Cass Sunstein, ACORN alumni, etc
Reagan was the country's best president in a long long time.
Was he perfect? No, but I'd rather have Reagan on a shitty day than Obama/HClinton/Romney/McCain/Christie/JBush/YMomma on their best day ever.
+1. Exactly right, and thanks for the Marla memory
For old times sake.
http://i58.tinypic.com/ohviv6.jpg
At least Reagan could take a fucking bullet. This pussy has to wear a tard helmet when he rides his girly bike. Now imagine doofus getting shot by some wing nut and fuck there would be house to house boot stomping by DOJ storm troopers by presidential directive. Fuck, Reagan shit turds bigger then this little twerp.
Well when you are right you are right!
Reagan's got chunks of guys like Obama in his stool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2ewx9vIw68
He gave the funniest press conferences ever-he just didn't take politics or politicians, including himself very seriously for good reason. And his favorite founding father: Thomas Paine (you know the "give me liberty or give me death Paine in the British ass). That's A #1 understanding of liberty and history. And that great joke when testing the mike about "bombing the soviets begins in 3-2-1" etc.)
God I miss him. Remember when he warned the air traffic controllers they would be fired if they walked off the job and then kept his word! How about the quip after being shot that "honey I forgot to duck". That's real class and grace under fire. A class act all around. By comparison to Reagan the rest of the presidents of this century except Kennedy were a bunch of worthless shits.
It's a minor point, but the attribution of the quote "Give me liberty or give me death" may need a little adjustment. I thought it was Patrick Henry. Can you privide a link for Paine saying it?
Senior Scientist: Fukushima reactors like Swiss cheese; No one knows how far melted nuclear fuel has spread http://t.co/LIGeCHqPmE
Raygun is CLEARLY our favourite puppet.
no one acted the part with such, pResidential quality and refinement.
Happy Hunger Games
I am surprised Lance didn't mention this or make reference to it, but in addition to 'inflation' being higher when Reagan was in office, it was also measured entirely different than how inflation is measured today. Correct if I'm wrong, but there were no 'hedonic adjustments', 'geometric weightings', or 'substitutions' during Reagan's office. What would the real inflation number be today if it were measured the way it was during the early/mid 80's...?
John Williams can probably answer that question you have. Shadowstats.com
True if you believe in fairy tales.
Or the mainstream media.....
Since it hasn't been said yet.
Hahahahhahahahaha......hahahahahahahahaha (deep breath) Bwahahahahahahahaha (sigh) ahahahahahahahaha
BULLSHIT!
Adam Hartung has been handicapped by his degree from Harvard business school and is a token socialist writer for Forbes Mag.
Reagan; Obama. Is this article suggesting there is a difference(in terms of who may have fucked America harder in the ass)?
I ask because I could not bring myself to read it.
During Reagan's terms, the labor force grew by 15.4 MM against the working age population growth of 16.5 MM (92.9%).
Obama's performance has been 1.7 MM vs. 13.5 MM (13.0%). If the author had focused on foodstamps--up 50% since his master took office--rather than jobs, this article might not be a complete piece of shit.
And the president caused, any of his ... how? Its the Fed, its the monetary policy, its the people pulling the strings, not the puppet, who control things.
Frankly, I find it bizare that Obama would be compared to any other US president.
No president has had the Fed pumping trillions of dollars into the US economy.
This has been the Affirmative Action presidency.
cmon, are you really going to make us dig up the vid of junior telling us how the best way to fix all this was for the government to buy up all those toxic assets, and then its rainbows and unicorns for all?
Obama seems to have a thing about measuring his performance in comparison to previous successful Presidencies. Given that Reagan won a four-decade-long world war with a nuclear armed superpower simply by calling them an "empire of evil" and then spending them into the Potter's Field of History, it is only natural that the Greatest Golfer on Earth would aspire to such world-shaking deeds.
But the truth is that the Obama Administration does bear an eerie resemblance to many past Presidencies.
He has the same ability to bring people together as James Buchanan.
The same incorruptibility as Warren G Harding.
The same respect for American tax law as Richard Nixon.
The same knack for handling foreign crises as James Earl Carter.
The same tender concern for working class Americans as Jefferson Davis.
And the same successful domestic track record as Herbert Hoover.
Stick them all in a blender and what do you get?
Two more years of unemployment and inflation at home, coupled with a cascading series of humiliating catastrophes and ignominious retreats abroad.
The next guy will HAVE TO BE the superhuman combination of Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, and Abraham Lincoln that Obama fondly imagines himself to be in order to clean this mess up.
"The next guy will HAVE TO BE the superhuman combination of Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, and Abraham Lincoln that Obama fondly imagines himself to be in order to clean this mess up."
Which means: IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!
More likely: A tyrant.
The ability of politician leadership to lie to everyone and themselves never fails to astound me.
Only a boot-licking Brown Shirt, or someone held hostage by ISIS could publicly posit that view.
Who gives a FLYING FUCK!!!!
The same fucking guys pulled the same fucking strings for both of them --- you make it sound as if it matters who the president is.
When will you moronic Americans get over this. And why the fuck does anyone even bother to vote? You stupid donkeys seriously believe it makes a difference?
A country full of bloody idiots!!!
Everyone knows that Reagan was an actor and thankfully enough not everything he did was staged.
Actually we got acting presidents whithin a strangely staged plot I'd like to switch off.
Shouldn't it be the Munchhausen-award? I don't feel like I could put Mark Twain to that low level of intellectual strength to justify such an award to the stated person.
Growth measured how? CPI or the Big Mac index?
No president has any real power to affect any of these metrics, so whatever happens is simply a record of events that occurred under their term of office.
I disagree. A president, with help, can completely destroy a country. 17 trillion in debt, ObamaCare, Scandals-plural, raising taxes and uncertainty that crush employers and growth, etc.... aren't his fault? Non sense.
well, it helps to have a completely complicit and emasculated congress...not to mention a bought judiciary....you really think obamacare would have had a snowballs chance in hell were it not for nancy, harry, and the supremes? oh and let's not forget the media slob fest and complete bullshitting on a price tag...
Give me a Fed Reserve that is about to spill 4 Trillion dollars into the economy and I can make things look good too.
Obama has done nothing and the Fed has spent our future...
Reagan and Volker were much better at it.....
I’m amazed how many people have/are covering for this worthless piece of shit Obama. Breathtaking.
The only thing the 0baMao regime has going for it is lies and propaganda.
Folks here are so smart here they don't know they are D shills. Comparing Reagan to the Stain, har. Who believes Obunghole is better. The good little shills.
Lies, and damn lies: "Clearly, the right answer was Reagan. Reagan, faced with skyrocketing inflation and interest rates, laid the groundwork that paved the way for a 20-year expansion of economic growth and prosperity." Clearly, Reagan's trickle down economics had little to do with what the Fed's bankers did to the United States. Is this really a Zero Hedge article or some cheap propaganda from a fringe, cheesy front for the Koch Brothers? Reagan was a puppet, just like all of his successors were. Just like Obama is. To say one was a brilliant leader, and the other a fool, well, ... there are the damn lies again.
17 trillion in debt. you don't need to even mention the other stuff.
Actually, I would blame the most on the president that put us in an unrecoverable position, but it's shared among a few. Here's my own list of most damaging actions by presidents and others in the oligharcy: Lyndon Johnson, who removed all of JFK's plans to go to fusion power, and than spent the money on the "Great Society". Welfare has been a sinkhole ever since for all the productiviity of Americans who actually work for a living. Up until the Great Society, black families were intact and working, all that was needed was better education, not handouts. Major Fail #2: Richard Nixon, who defaulted on the entire planet by pulling the gold out from behind our currency. That marked the downfall of the U.S. dollar for sure. After all, gold was $35. an ounce under Bretton Woods. Now look at how many dollars you need for an ounce of the pretty stuff. Major Fail #3: Bill Clinton, who, being fed by BOTH sides of the aisle, willfully signed a bill to repeal Glass-Steagall. That legislation, which was on our books since 1933, was what kept the financial industry from gambling with depositor's money. Once that was repealed, it was open season on your money for anything Wall St. could invent. Major Fail #4: Barack Obama, who upon taking office during the financial crises, threw gasoline on the flames by deficit spending more than any president in history. Up until about 1983, the spending and budget were recoverable and controllable. That's when the graph took off nearly vertically. Major Fail #5: the U.S. voter, who elected you-know-who to a 2nd term after watching the first term destruction. Major Fail #6: All the gutless politicians from both sides of the aisle who stood by and willfully let the Fed and Wall St. turn our finances into a Ponzi scheme, and we are now headed irreversibly to the wall of destruction at mach speed. No stopping it now, thanks to the Great One, who now just goes golfing and is watching with amusement the results of his actions reported on the news nightly.
EVERY President from Clinton forward will be INEFFECTIVE except as Whiner-in-Chief without having both the Senate and House under same party rule...the checks and balances system worked fine in a growing, unindebted country. I posit that when the fight isn't over who gets most, but rather who will take the biggest hit to their budget and therefore who takes a political hit at home, the in-fighting inherent in this 2 party model doesn't work anymore. Only if there is a 9/11 or Great Depression like crisis will we ever see anything resembling strategy and effectiveness from our government again.
REAGAN MAN vs OBAMA ??? lubed and ready
"...qualified for the "Mark Twain Award" if there was such a thing."
Actually, there is such a thing. It's given out by the Kennedy Center. I would know... I used to work there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain_Prize_for_American_Humor
"The Mark Twain Prize for American Humor is America’s foremost award for humor, and has been awarded by the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Artsannually since 1998. It is named after the 19th century novelist, essayist and humorist Mark Twain and is presented to an individual who has made a significant contribution to American humor."
Obama didn't build that.