By Mark Esposito, Weekend Blogger
In the red corner, wearing angelic white trunks trimmed in gold that darling of the Right, that Gipper of trickle-down economics, the Great Communicator himself, Ron–ald “The California Killer” Rea–gan.
And in the blue corner with black trunks trimmed in red, the “change” President, the foil of all things conservative, the first of firsts in American History, Bar–ack “Betcha Can’t Believe Where I’m From” O–Bam–a.
And today’s contest is a three-round fight for the World Super Heavyweight Economics Guru Belt. The format is a 10 point “must” system and you are the judges. I, your humble ring announcer, get a scorecard but it’s only advisory.
But first some background, both fighters weigh in after tangling with some decidedly tough contenders before this big bout. Reagan came into office with a much more serious recession than most on the Left give him credit for. In addition, he followed hot on the heels of what his predecessor called the great American “malaise.” Plus he had an adversarial relationship with the nation’s biggest rival, the Soviet Union.
Obama came into office with a war on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, a massive recession, and a world-wide financial industry on the brink of collapse. Pretty tough contenders. Plus, he had and has a Congressional opposition party whose expressed goal was to make sure nothing he proposed made it into law. And law, as you know, is the political boxer’s stock-in-trade.
Ding— ding — ding.
Round 1: Jobs
Barack jabs with the fact that unemployment in the US in August stood at 6.1% that’s a full year faster than it took Reagan to reach the same level. And it’s now down to 5.9% a figure Reagan never achieved. Obama also uppercuts with the fact that the economy he presides over has created, on average, 200,000 new jobs every month for the past six. That puts Obama at a projected 2.5 million jobs created for FY 2014. Reagan counters that in first year in office, unemployment stood at around 10.5% or about a half to three-quarters of a point higher than Obama’s highest figure. Obama counters that initial claims for unemployment are at the lowest point since 2000. 2000!
Reagan dances. “But overall, jobs created while I was in office for the entire term totalled a net figure of 16.1 million. That’s about three times yours, so far, Barack.”
Here’s a graphic depiction of the two fighters comparing the unemployment rate during their first 67 months in office:
Announcer’s Scorecard: Reagan 10 – Obama 9
Round 2: Investor ROI
Reagan comes out strong in Round 2, hooking with the undeniable stat that a dollar invested in the Standard & Poors 500 Index of stocks in year one of his Presidency would have yielded a staggering 190% return on investment after 5.5 years — a record in American history. Reagan bores in saying he did it with tax cuts and government spending in defense and manufacturing sectors. Obama covers up, but is it rope-a-dope? Out of the corner, Obama right crosses that a dollar invested in that same S&P 500 Index during year 1 of his Presidency would yield a return of 220% in the same time frame and that the Dow stands at its highest level ever. And that translates into real dollars for non-passive investors (i.e., working everyday Americans) as 2/3 of Americans are invested in the market through their pensions or 401K plans.
Here’s the chart of ROI:
Your announcer scores it: Obama 10-Reagan 9
Round 3: Government Spending
Staggered but not out of it, Reagan thinks this round is his. He is after-all the supply side economics guy who cut government spending to boost an ailing economy and made all Republican economists sing with delight every time a tax is eliminated. Sort of like that tinkling bell in a Wonderful Life when an angel got it’s wings. Reagan hits hard with the fact that in “the first year of the Obama presidency … the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9%—going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.” And the ringside Reagan chanters keep up the mantra from ringside that it was due to the stimulus package.
Except … that every President’s first year budget is proposed and passed, not by his administration but by his predecessor in office and the Congress from the year before. In Obama’s case, George W. Bush passed the Obama’s first year budget and it is his deficit and spending priorities in that document. Thus, Obama’s 2009 budget belongs squarely to President George W. Bush and the 2008 Congress. “Well,” the Gipper says from his coverup crouch, “Obama must have continued the rate of spending to astronomical levels.”
Not exactly. Here is a bar Graph showing the rate of federal government spending under the past 5 US Presidents:
And add these punches to your ring scorecard:
Courtesy of Marketwatch–
- In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
- In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
- In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
- Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.
Your Announcer scores it Obama 10 – Reagan 8
And The Winner is:
Ok, now it’s up to you. Who is the best President you’ve seen on the economy out of the last five:
Sources: Forbes (Hartung article); Forbes (Ungar article)
~Mark Esposito, Weekend Blogger
By the way and for better or worse, the views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays of art are solely the author’s decision and responsibility. No infringement of intellectual property rights is intended and will be remedied upon notice from the owner. Fair use is however asserted for such inclusions of quotes, excerpts, photos, art, and the like.
Interesting. This just came into my inbox. I generally don’t read these as I just don’t have to cash to scarf up some gold on a whim. Seems like Mr. Greenspan has gone to the other side of the fence. I skimmed it, but I would have to read it again. Seemed pertinent to the discussion though.
http://www.usagold.com/publications/Nov2014R&O.html
I might have to look up Schiff. He is the guy who called 2008, and everyone thought he was nuts. Good youtube video somewhere of the Fox panel of scholars (that just sounds funny…) were letting him have it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-deflation-a-growing-possibility-bill-gross-2014-11 Yes, that is right, bfm.
BFM–feels a lot more than that every time I go to the grocery store. I think we have enough reason not to consider anything that comes out of Wall Street.
Slohrs29 That’s why I made my smart aleck comment about the hyperinflation. Who knows what’s going on anymore? The food prices are just out of sight
Well, that’s me, and I don’t think there has been any one here (small business or other) more vocal about the power of big business–AND–government to allow tax loopholes for the prime businesses of the country. It was a crime to bail out GM, and then allowed to default on that last $10 billion?? People complain about the big businesses, but it is the government that is the enabler. We have laws, but I can’t make them follow those laws. Just like the laws made to protect us from bad banks. Those laws were chosen not to be followed. Wasn’t my choice. With our supersized gov, they should be nailing these people to the walls. Raffy just had a post on that this weekend.
DBQ, I would ignore anyone who calls you and I “Dummies.”
I have nothing against small business owners. What I have an issue with is when those small business owners see themselves unrealistically. Why don’t we hear more outrage from small business owners against those large business owners who essentially pay NO taxes due to loopholes and tax havens?
Annie – why don’t we see more outrage by taxpayers against people who live in this country and pay no taxes?
DBQ, Wow! I talked to many linotype operators during my investigation and none were women. I see you’re a chip off the old block. A tough, proud, blue collar woman. Linotype folks were a very proud bunch, as you know better than I. A demanding and exacting profession.
SWM,
The Plutocrats have done an excellent job of dividing and conquering the ‘unwashed masses’. I bet they were laughing their a$$es off during the WI protests when non unionized workers were coveting unionized workers wages and calling them “pigs at the trough”. How stupid must one be to not recognize there is strength in numbers and if they were smart they too could organize a union for themselves. Instead they buy the pure rot that they too can be millionaires ‘if only they work hard enough’! They haven’t yet understood that the game is rigged against them. Dummies.
Evidently reading comprehension is not Annie’s long suit. Misquoting and twisting words is though.
What I said was, no billionaires are going to invite their plumber over for dinner. That was in response to you comparing yourself with and putting yourself in the same ‘camp’ as billionaires, as small business people that is ludicrous.
Please quote where I put myself or other small businesses into the same camp as billionaires. Your continual denigration and condescending remarks about small business owners is proving the point.
Annie, The logic is twisted but they try to dress it up to make it believable. Guess they do get some converts as they appear to be winning this election round.
‘Unions were just great for my parents, they allowed me to have a great childhood. However unions are the devil for today’s workers!’
The cognitive dissonance it must take to demonize unions who protect the rights of the worker and then hold up the blue collar worker in esteem must be mind blowing. The rights of the tradesmen and blue collar workers were trampeled upon in years past, yet these ‘lovers’ of blue collar workers side with the plutocrats and see visions of themselves as belonging to that top %. Laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.
My mother and father BOTH were Linotype operators. My mother was probably one of a handful of women nationwide that worked in that capacity (from the mid 1950’s through early 80’s when she passed away) and was one of the best….very accurate. Highly asked for when they pulled a traveling card. A REAL feminist before her time! I remember them both working the linotype machine in a small town newspaper as well when they ran that for a few years. That’s where I learned to read upside down and backwards as it was my job (2nd grade) to pick out the large metal letters for the headlines….and put them into the trays for the press. Also set the advertising plates. Very fun. When teletype came into play in the 60’s my mom learned that and became one of the lead operators. I think I mentioned that my Grandmother owned and operated a newspaper in Ferguson in the 30’s and 40’s. Two of my uncles were also in the printing trades.
No mesothelioma here. My dad is still kicking at 84. Maybe they didn’t clean the melting pots daily. LOL.
The union was what enable us to have a great life and to have the freedom to travel from town to town and be assured that a good job would be available. However, the union (Typographical) ultimately killed itself when it refused to acknowledge that technology had changed the industry and that highly skilled printers were no longer needed, when anyone who could type or use a computer could get the same results. Why pay union wages and benefits and listen to the bellyaching of a bunch of rowdy highly skilled old men union workers when anyone can do the job. The ITU went belly up in 1986.
Those who agitate for $15.00 an hour minimum wage for marginal clerking jobs, should take a lesson. You CAN be replaced by technology.
“If the union leadership didn’t enrich themselves at the expense of the worker I would have no issue. Top union officials in some trades make make the wage gap between CEOs and the workers look like small potatoes.” dust bunny …… I know a few union officials. They live an upper middle class lifestyle. Not unusual these days for a CEO to be taking home in excess of 50 million plus a year.
DBQ,
Of course you misquote me in order to twist my meaning into what fits your narrative. What I said was, no billionaires are going to invite their plumber over for dinner. That was in response to you comparing yourself with and putting yourself in the same ‘camp’ as billionaires, as small business people that is ludicrous. My own son is a Millwright, belongs to a union and makes a very good living. I suspect that the “sewer cleaner” comment is being misunderstood. Perhaps Mespo sees himself as a sewer cleaner, cleaning out this blog’s comments section which on occasion resembles a sewer filled with refuse like comments.
DBQ, Was your old man a typesetter? One of the many things I love about being a PI is learning about different stuff. It’s kind of like being Mr. Rogers visiting different businesses and learning about what they do. I did mostly tort defense work. But, I also did plaintiff’s work as well. I worked for an attorney who represented the widow of a deceased linotype operator who died of mesothelioma. The man worked for a small town newspaper in Wi. for 40 years. We learned, those melting pots were lined w/ asbestos. Every day @ the end of the shift, linotype operators would scrub that pot clean w/ a wire brush. As the pots got older, the asbestos would be exposed. I searched the Midwest buying these pots as evidence.
We blue collar folk can smell the derision here and in our culture. I ALWAYS consider myself blue collar.
.”We see elitists here denigrating blue collar jobs.” nick Never have seen that here ”
Just the other day on a thread about the self employed and small business owners, the poster known as Annie made a disparaging remark (I’m paraphrasing from memory so don’t get all bent about not having the exact wording) to the effect that no one invites their plumber to dinner. Knowing that the plumbing trade is my husband’s business it was a not so subtle dig and condescending. The denigration of the working class if not explicit is implicit in many of these comment threads.
As to unions. My parents were BOTH union members for many many years. International Typographical Union. (doesn’t exist anymore due to technology) The unions had a place and still do have a place in protecting the workers from exploitation and improving workplace conditions. If they would remain in that capacity I would have no beef with them.
If the union leadership didn’t enrich themselves at the expense of the worker I would have no issue. Top union officials in some trades make make the wage gap between CEOs and the workers look like small potatoes.
The use of union funds to support only ONE political party, when many of the dues payers (who often don’t have a choice in submitting their dues) do not, is unethical.
Not really. There are “fat cats” everywhere if you haven’t noticed. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater as they say.
Here is not everywhere, and I have seen ads recently for electrician apprenticeships. Earn a lot of money as an electrician and read a lot of books……certainly sounds good to me. Having an electrician out today to install two out door lights and the cost is $400. He will be here an hour or two.
SWM, My old man was a union member of the IAM as a jet mechanic for Pratt & Whitney.. I have gone over this many times. Short term memory problems?? My started problem is w/ union fat cat executives who crap on their blue collar members. Step up your game. I know I hit a nerve.