Exploding the Great Republican economic myth

[Glen Contrarian]

The last three presidents who gave us a budget surplus were Truman, LBJ, and Clinton. Obama sliced the federal deficit in half. Even Kennedy (by the time he was assassinated) had cut the deficit. Would you like to see what Republican presidents since the Depression who gave us budget surpluses, or even cut the deficit from when they first took office?

*crickets*

Bear in mind that the budget for the first year of any president was submitted and passed by the outgoing president e.g. our 2009 budget was passed by George W. Bush.

Wanna see how big the difference is? Read this chart of federal deficits...and you'll see that for the past ninety years, not only has there has not been even ONE Republican president who gave us a budget surplus, but there hasn't even been a single Republican president who left office with a lower deficit than when he first took office. EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT SINCE THE DEPRESSION HAS LEFT OFFICE WITH A BIGGER DEFICIT THAN THERE WAS WHEN HE FIRST TOOK OFFICE.

Whereas Truman, LBJ, Clinton, and Obama ALL left office with either a surplus or a much lower deficit than when they first took office. Even Kennedy had achieved a lower deficit by the time he was assassinated. Only Carter and FDR had higher deficits...and considering what was going on when he died, I'd personally give FDR a pass on that one.

Okay? NOW, which party has been more responsible with our economy, with our taxpayer dollars? Regardless of what the Republicans want to claim about "tax-and-spend" Democrats, the hard numbers show that it's Democrats who have been trying to get our federal spending under control...whereas the Republicans haven't even been trying to do so. What's going on right now, with Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress blowing up the deficit (again) is but the latest example of what's been going on for the past ninety years - they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, even though the hard number show the exact opposite.

*drops mic*

 

[MrPeanut]

The last three presidents who gave us a budget surplus were Truman, LBJ, and Clinton. Obama sliced the federal deficit in half. Even Kennedy (by the time he was assassinated) had cut the deficit. Would you like to see what Republican presidents since the Depression who gave us budget surpluses, or even cut the deficit from when they first took office?

*crickets*

Bear in mind that the budget for the first year of any president was submitted and passed by the outgoing president e.g. our 2009 budget was passed by George W. Bush.

Wanna see how big the difference is? Read this chart of federal deficits...and you'll see that for the past ninety years, not only has there has not been even ONE Republican president who gave us a budget surplus, but there hasn't even been a single Republican president who left office with a lower deficit than when he first took office. EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT SINCE THE DEPRESSION HAS LEFT OFFICE WITH A BIGGER DEFICIT THAN THERE WAS WHEN HE FIRST TOOK OFFICE.

Whereas Truman, LBJ, Clinton, and Obama ALL left office with either a surplus or a much lower deficit than when they first took office. Even Kennedy had achieved a lower deficit by the time he was assassinated. Only Carter and FDR had higher deficits...and considering what was going on when he died, I'd personally give FDR a pass on that one.

Okay? NOW, which party has been more responsible with our economy, with our taxpayer dollars? Regardless of what the Republicans want to claim about "tax-and-spend" Democrats, the hard numbers show that it's Democrats who have been trying to get our federal spending under control...whereas the Republicans haven't even been trying to do so. What's going on right now, with Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress blowing up the deficit (again) is but the latest example of what's been going on for the past ninety years - they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, even though the hard number show the exact opposite.

*drops mic*

Good post, but as long as the talking point is politically useful the reality behind it doesn't matter. That's the real problem we have to think about. This past year in particular has been all about pointing out hypocrisy. Has it done anything yet?

 

[Neomalthusian]

The last three presidents who gave us a budget surplus were Truman, LBJ, and Clinton. Obama sliced the federal deficit in half.

More ignorant President-worship.

Newsflash: Presidents don't "give us surpluses," or have any powers to decide to slice deficits in half or not. This is one of the dumbest ways to think about world events, second perhaps only to religion, interpreting everything relative to who the sitting President was at the time it occurred.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

More ignorant President-worship.

Newsflash: Presidents don't "give us surpluses," or have any powers to decide to slice deficits in half or not. This is one of the dumbest ways to think about world events, second perhaps only to religion, interpreting everything relative to who the sitting President was at the time it occurred.

When a Navy ship runs aground, or when it hits another ship, the captain will normally face a court martial...and even though he or she might have been in bed grabbing a couple precious hours of sleep, the captain will testify, "I had the conn"...meaning the captain was on the bridge when the mishap occurred, even though that's obviously false testimony. Even if it was due to the helmsman falling asleep, or because there was a major hydraulic leak of the After Steering rudder control system or because of some other reason where the captain was not present and had no physical involvement, that's what the captain will testify. Why do you suppose Navy captains do that?

Because it's the captain's fault. It's always the captain's fault...because if the helmsman fell asleep, it's because the captain didn't maintain proper discipline, and if there was a hydraulic leak, it's because the captain either didn't provide his engineering with the proper logistics support, or because the captain didn't hold his engineering officers to a high-enough standard or didn't ensure his crew was properly trained.

It's always the captain's fault.

The president is the captain of the ship of state, a term that has been in use since the Greek philosopher Plato first coined the term. That term has stood the test of time because it is so very appropriate, for it's not just the fact that there's a leader who is responsible for whatever happens, the nation itself is very much like a ship. The bigger the ship, the harder and sloppier the steering (yeah, I once steered an aircraft carrier)...just like with nations - the bigger they are, the harder it is for them to change, to adjust, to adapt to changing social and political conditions. Ships face storms and sometimes must fight for their lives upon the sea...and so do nations, and it's during those times of crisis that the nation (like the ship) depends the most upon its leader, and finds out whether that leader has done what's necessary to prepare the nation for the fight.

The president is the captain of the ship of state, and so gets all the credit, and all the blame...and that's precisely why historians remember the leaders very well indeed, but remember the rest of the bureaucrats underneath them to a much lesser extent.

So do presidents "give" us surpluses? The word "give" is shorthand for "presidents do - or fail to do - what is necessary to lead the government in wise fiscal policy to either improve or worsen the balance between our federal revenue and our federal spending". Ours is a big nation with a freaking huge economy, and so its steering is incredibly sloppy...but it can still be steered, and the one who matters most of all is the one who's steering it - the captain of the ship of state.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Good post, but as long as the talking point is politically useful the reality behind it doesn't matter. That's the real problem we have to think about. This past year in particular has been all about pointing out hypocrisy. Has it done anything yet?

For the politicians, no...but if the special elections that have taken place since then (particularly for statewide offices) are any indication, when it comes to the voters, the answer seems to be a resounding "yes". That's why a Democratic wave is increasingly possible for the midterm elections later this year.

 

[vash1012]

When a Navy ship runs aground, or when it hits another ship, the captain will normally face a court martial...and even though he or she might have been in bed grabbing a couple precious hours of sleep, the captain will testify, "I had the conn"...meaning the captain was on the bridge when the mishap occurred, even though that's obviously false testimony. Even if it was due to the helmsman falling asleep, or because there was a major hydraulic leak of the After Steering rudder control system or because of some other reason where the captain was not present and had no physical involvement, that's what the captain will testify. Why do you suppose Navy captains do that?

Because it's the captain's fault. It's always the captain's fault...because if the helmsman fell asleep, it's because the captain didn't maintain proper discipline, and if there was a hydraulic leak, it's because the captain either didn't provide his engineering with the proper logistics support, or because the captain didn't hold his engineering officers to a high-enough standard or didn't ensure his crew was properly trained.

It's always the captain's fault.

The president is the captain of the ship of state, a term that has been in use since the Greek philosopher Plato first coined the term. That term has stood the test of time because it is so very appropriate, for it's not just the fact that there's a leader who is responsible for whatever happens, the nation itself is very much like a ship. The bigger the ship, the harder and sloppier the steering (yeah, I once steered an aircraft carrier)...just like with nations - the bigger they are, the harder it is for them to change, to adjust, to adapt to changing social and political conditions. Ships face storms and sometimes must fight for their lives upon the sea...and so do nations, and it's during those times of crisis that the nation (like the ship) depends the most upon its leader, and finds out whether that leader has done what's necessary to prepare the nation for the fight.

The president is the captain of the ship of state, and so gets all the credit, and all the blame...and that's precisely why historians remember the leaders very well indeed, but remember the rest of the bureaucrats underneath them to a much lesser extent.

So do presidents "give" us surpluses? The word "give" is shorthand for "presidents do - or fail to do - what is necessary to lead the government in wise fiscal policy to either improve or worsen the balance between our federal revenue and our federal spending". Ours is a big nation with a freaking huge economy, and so its steering is incredibly sloppy...but it can still be steered, and the one who matters most of all is the one who's steering it - the captain of the ship of state.

I would push back slightly on this idea a little considering both Clinton and Obama cut the deficit in large part due to the efforts of a Republican Congress, especially for Obama. He would not have pursued spending cuts (nor should he have because that was stupid) if not for the Tea party. I would agree that the idea that Republicans are more fiscally conservative when they have control of the government is a complete and total myth. They only bluster when they can blame someone else for what happens with spending cuts.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I would push back slightly on this idea a little considering both Clinton and Obama cut the deficit in large part due to the efforts of a Republican Congress, especially for Obama. He would not have pursued spending cuts (nor should he have because that was stupid) if not for the Tea party. I would agree that the idea that Republicans are more fiscally conservative when they have control of the government is a complete and total myth. They only bluster when they can blame someone else for what happens with spending cuts.

That's part of the "sloppy steering" I referred to in #4 above - there's always going to be other factors involved, whether Congress or wars or Arab oil embargoes or whatever - the equation is always changing. But the biggest factor - the one controlling factor - in that ever-changing equation is always the one in charge, the captain of the ship of state.

 

[Mycroft]

To me, the issue of who increased or lowered deficit spending is minor compared to the question of who actually legislated and signed a budget. Fact is, we haven't had one since Bush signed the Dem controlled Congress budget in 2008. I don't blame Obama. I blame Congress and both Parties in Congress. I blame both Parties in this current Congress, too.

If Congress decides to pass a budget that increases deficit spending...or pass a budget that cuts spending...then they should do it. And own it. Constantly kicking the can down the road with CR's is dishonest and a cop-out.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Too many problems with this debate.

It is Presidents *and* associated Congresses that end up with the credit or blame for our fiscal status in relation to our economic condition. More often than not the fiscal wants of one party have no real compatibility with the other, at least until they all get together and pass something for the sake of it being last minute. Regardless we have seen with Obama what happens when spending 6 of his 8 years not facing a favorable Congress, similar story with Clinton. The parties will throttle each other until they both want something.

Budget fiscal responsibility is not always inline with economic policy. Example, Obama and Congressional Democrats had to spend as a means to influence aggregate demand. He walked into an economic free-fall and deficits went up. But by the end of Obama's time he was facing enough Republican strength that no one really got what they wanted and deficits went down.

It is way too argumentative to give us the "captain of the ship of state" bit, no President gets to tell Congress exactly what to do. Budgets originate in Congress, and if anything those jerk-offs tend to spend based on political wants and promises far more than economic condition and/or tax revenue reality.

 

[vash1012]

That's part of the "sloppy steering" I referred to in #4 above - there's always going to be other factors involved, whether Congress or wars or Arab oil embargoes or whatever - the equation is always changing. But the biggest factor - the one controlling factor - in that ever-changing equation is always the one in charge, the captain of the ship of state.

The only real power the President has in this particular scenario is veto power. So he or she can only really dictate what doesn't get passed, but he can't veto a non-passed budget like has been the case for a decade. The Presidency experiences less volatility than congress really given the strength of incumbency so I'm not sure why he'd much of all of the blame here.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The only real power the President has in this particular scenario is veto power. So he or she can only really dictate what doesn't get passed, but he can't veto a non-passed budget like has been the case for a decade. The Presidency experiences less volatility than congress really given the strength of incumbency so I'm not sure why he'd much of all of the blame here.

Teddy Roosevelt called it the "Bully Pulpit", which means "a terrific position from which to advocate an agenda". The president - by virtue of the position itself - has by far the loudest voice, by far the most visibility...and a president who knows how to lead, knows how to use that bully pulpit to pull the country along behind him. Reagan was a great example - as terrible as he was for our economy (and the "trickle-down" mindset that still infests the Right), he was wonderful for leading the nation (and the military) out of its post-Vietnam funk, for combining pride and patriotism once more.

Here's another way to look at it: a boss or supervisor can make you do what he tells you to do, because he's got the authority to do so - do it or else. A leader, on the other hand, is able to get you to really want to do what he wants you to do. When a leader - as opposed to a boss - has possession of the bully pulpit, he or she can make great things happen. A boss, however - like the guy who has the pulpit right now - really doesn't understand that one doesn't lead by just telling them what to do.

But regardless of whether the president at the time is a leader or just a boss, the very fact that the bully pulpit can be used to such great effect reinforces the tradition that all the credit for what goes right - and all the blame for what goes wrong - goes to the one in possession of the bully pulpit.

I think the Merriam-Webster's description of "bully pulpit" bears reading:

Bully pulpit comes from the 26th U.S. President, Theodore Roosevelt, who observed that the White House was a bully pulpit. For Roosevelt, bully was an adjective meaning "excellent" or "first-rate"—not the noun bully ("a blustering, browbeating person") that's so common today. Roosevelt understood the modern presidency's power of persuasion and recognized that it gave the incumbent the opportunity to exhort, instruct, or inspire. He took full advantage of his bully pulpit, speaking out about the danger of monopolies, the nation's growing role as a world power, and other issues important to him. Since the 1970s, bully pulpit has been used as a term for an office—especially a political office—that provides one with the opportunity to share one's views.

Teddy Roosevelt was certainly a leader, not a boss.

 

[vash1012]

Teddy Roosevelt called it the "Bully Pulpit", which means "a terrific position from which to advocate an agenda". The president - by virtue of the position itself - has by far the loudest voice, by far the most visibility...and a president who knows how to lead, knows how to use that bully pulpit to pull the country along behind him. Reagan was a great example - as terrible as he was for our economy (and the "trickle-down" mindset that still infests the Right), he was wonderful for leading the nation (and the military) out of its post-Vietnam funk, for combining pride and patriotism once more.

Here's another way to look at it: a boss or supervisor can make you do what he tells you to do, because he's got the authority to do so - do it or else. A leader, on the other hand, is able to get you to really want to do what he wants you to do. When a leader - as opposed to a boss - has possession of the bully pulpit, he or she can make great things happen. A boss, however - like the guy who has the pulpit right now - really doesn't understand that one doesn't lead by just telling them what to do.

But regardless of whether the president at the time is a leader or just a boss, the very fact that the bully pulpit can be used to such great effect reinforces the tradition that all the credit for what goes right - and all the blame for what goes wrong - goes to the one in possession of the bully pulpit.

I think the Merriam-Webster's description of "bully pulpit" bears reading:

Bully pulpit comes from the 26th U.S. President, Theodore Roosevelt, who observed that the White House was a bully pulpit. For Roosevelt, bully was an adjective meaning "excellent" or "first-rate"—not the noun bully ("a blustering, browbeating person") that's so common today. Roosevelt understood the modern presidency's power of persuasion and recognized that it gave the incumbent the opportunity to exhort, instruct, or inspire. He took full advantage of his bully pulpit, speaking out about the danger of monopolies, the nation's growing role as a world power, and other issues important to him. Since the 1970s, bully pulpit has been used as a term for an office—especially a political office—that provides one with the opportunity to share one's views.

Teddy Roosevelt was certainly a leader, not a boss.

But at the same time, you listed as examples of people who have achieved success with decreasing the deficit Clinton who was nearly impeached and Obama who had one of the most obstructionist Congresses in history maybe only second to John Q. Adam's. I'm not sure I see a correlation with great leadership in the Presidency and being able to get a balanced budget passed by Congress.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

But at the same time, you listed as examples of people who have achieved success with decreasing the deficit Clinton who was nearly impeached and Obama who had one of the most obstructionist Congresses in history maybe only second to John Q. Adam's. I'm not sure I see a correlation with great leadership in the Presidency and being able to get a balanced budget passed by Congress.

Clinton did work with the Republicans on the budget to some extent, and when it came to Obama, he not only got quite a bit of help from Janet Yellen in the long run, but most economists agree that his stimulus was what helped the American economy recover more quickly (anemically, but more quickly) than those of the European nations that adopted austerity measures. I'm sure I could dig up quite a bit more, but those were the two big factors IMO for Obama.

 

[RealityShow]

The last three presidents who gave us a budget surplus were Truman, LBJ, and Clinton. Obama sliced the federal deficit in half. Even Kennedy (by the time he was assassinated) had cut the deficit. Would you like to see what Republican presidents since the Depression who gave us budget surpluses, or even cut the deficit from when they first took office?

*crickets*

Bear in mind that the budget for the first year of any president was submitted and passed by the outgoing president e.g. our 2009 budget was passed by George W. Bush.

Wanna see how big the difference is? Read this chart of federal deficits...and you'll see that for the past ninety years, not only has there has not been even ONE Republican president who gave us a budget surplus, but there hasn't even been a single Republican president who left office with a lower deficit than when he first took office. EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT SINCE THE DEPRESSION HAS LEFT OFFICE WITH A BIGGER DEFICIT THAN THERE WAS WHEN HE FIRST TOOK OFFICE.

Whereas Truman, LBJ, Clinton, and Obama ALL left office with either a surplus or a much lower deficit than when they first took office. Even Kennedy had achieved a lower deficit by the time he was assassinated. Only Carter and FDR had higher deficits...and considering what was going on when he died, I'd personally give FDR a pass on that one.

Okay? NOW, which party has been more responsible with our economy, with our taxpayer dollars? Regardless of what the Republicans want to claim about "tax-and-spend" Democrats, the hard numbers show that it's Democrats who have been trying to get our federal spending under control...whereas the Republicans haven't even been trying to do so. What's going on right now, with Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress blowing up the deficit (again) is but the latest example of what's been going on for the past ninety years - they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, even though the hard number show the exact opposite.

*drops mic*

Lol, i didnt get past the 1st sentence.....cant believe people think Clinton left a surplus...i guess people think a "projected" surplus is an actual surplus is the same thing.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Lol, i didnt get past the 1st sentence.....cant believe people think Clinton left a surplus...i guess people think a "projected" surplus is an actual surplus is the same thing.

They were only "projected" for four straight years?

Whether or not you agree that there was a surplus, Clinton DID pay down the debt by $452 billion (though he claimed it was $600B). When was the last time a Republican president paid down the debt?

*crickets*

As far as I can tell, not since before the Depression almost ninety years ago has any Republican president either had a surplus or even cut the deficit. They have ALWAYS left office with a bigger deficit than when they entered office. On the other hand, Truman, LBJ, Clinton, and Obama ALL left office with a SMALLER deficit than when they came in.

One side is demonstrably more careful with the taxpayers' dollars than the other. Here's a hint: it ain't the Republicans. You can argue otherwise all day long, but that's what the hard numbers show. It's up to you to decide how long you want to deny the hard numbers.

 

[bluesmoke]

The last three presidents who gave us a budget surplus were Truman, LBJ, and Clinton. Obama sliced the federal deficit in half. Even Kennedy (by the time he was assassinated) had cut the deficit. Would you like to see what Republican presidents since the Depression who gave us budget surpluses, or even cut the deficit from when they first took office?

*crickets*

Bear in mind that the budget for the first year of any president was submitted and passed by the outgoing president e.g. our 2009 budget was passed by George W. Bush.

Wanna see how big the difference is? Read this chart of federal deficits...and you'll see that for the past ninety years, not only has there has not been even ONE Republican president who gave us a budget surplus, but there hasn't even been a single Republican president who left office with a lower deficit than when he first took office. EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT SINCE THE DEPRESSION HAS LEFT OFFICE WITH A BIGGER DEFICIT THAN THERE WAS WHEN HE FIRST TOOK OFFICE.

Whereas Truman, LBJ, Clinton, and Obama ALL left office with either a surplus or a much lower deficit than when they first took office. Even Kennedy had achieved a lower deficit by the time he was assassinated. Only Carter and FDR had higher deficits...and considering what was going on when he died, I'd personally give FDR a pass on that one.

Okay? NOW, which party has been more responsible with our economy, with our taxpayer dollars? Regardless of what the Republicans want to claim about "tax-and-spend" Democrats, the hard numbers show that it's Democrats who have been trying to get our federal spending under control...whereas the Republicans haven't even been trying to do so. What's going on right now, with Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress blowing up the deficit (again) is but the latest example of what's been going on for the past ninety years - they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, even though the hard number show the exact opposite.

*drops mic*

Just a correction, outgoing President Obama agreed to have whoever won the 2016 election submit his or her own budget proposal for 2017, as did Obama, and let Congress sort it out, which they did. Obama’s proposal was slightly lower than Trump’s, and Congress ended up with the highest.

And another thing. Republicans have never been fiscal conservatives. Government historically gets bigger, in terms of percentage increase in outlays (what we spend), more often under Republican presidents than under Dems. It’s a joke to hear people say that Reps are “no longer” the ones that care about the debt. They never did because their actions, when in office, belie that bamboozle of the gullible public.