BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label national debt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national debt. Show all posts
04 December 2017
21 November 2017
15 July 2011
Pawlenty Draws Attention With Debt Ceiling Rhetoric, But Sends Mixed Signals On Action [UPDATED] 15JUL11
tim pawlenty believes the prc should be paid before members of the US Military and Social Security recipients if an agreement isn't reached on raising the federal budget cap. Since pawlenty is so concerned about the financial interest of the prc, who holds approximately 9% of our national debt, maybe he should run for office there. From HuffPost.....
WASHINGTON -- Tim Pawlenty on Friday joined the Jim DeMint wing of the Republican Party in the debt ceiling debate. Sort of.
Pawlenty argued in multiple TV interviews against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's plan to hand over primary responsibility of raising the debt ceiling to the president in exchange for no tax increases, saying there has to be structural change to change the federal government's spending patterns.
"It's a Band-Aid on a broken bone," Pawlenty said of McConnell's plan in an interview with Bloomberg TV. "It doesn't solve the problem ... I don't like it."
The former Minnesota governor's charged rhetoric appeared at first blush to align him with Sen. DeMint (R-S.C.) and other Tea Party lawmakers in the Senate and House, who have staunchly refused to consider voting for a debt ceiling increase unless there is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, among other things.
“It’s balance or bust,” DeMint wrote in an April fundraising email. “Agreeing on the right policy is not enough to save our country. Republicans also have to be willing to fight to enact that policy, even if it means sacrificing their political careers."
Pawlenty mentioned the balanced budget amendment as a "long term" goal that should be sought, but did not mention what kind of reforms should be sought in the short term. Many Republicans are still pushing for a cut, cap and balance plan that includes immediate spending cuts, spending caps for the future and the balanced budget amendment in the long term.
"This is uncomfortable. It's awkward. I know it's concerning to the markets for understandable reasons," Pawlenty said on CNBC Friday morning. "But if we don't get people in Washington D.C. to take this seriously and actually make the tough decisions -- they always say 'Oh, we're going to make the tough decisions. We'll do it. We'll do it,' and then they never do ... Now is the time. The hour is late, and these problems are big, and the only way you're going to get people to do something tough is to put their backs up against the wall."
Pawlenty aides highlighted that portion of the interview on Twitter. It came amid rising tensions about the consequences of a potential default by the U.S. government on its debts. It appears as though a substantial portion of the Republican base and some of the party's most vocal leaders in Washington are prepared to accept a default if they cannot convince President Obama and congressional Democrats to accept deep cuts to spending levels and sweeping changes to future commitments.
But in a portion of the same CNBC interview that was not promoted by the Pawlenty campaign, the candidate admitted that the debt ceiling will be raised.
"They're going to have to raise the debt ceiling," he said. "But they should get some structural reform."
In the Bloomberg TV interview released later in the day, Pawlenty said, "I don't think there should be a default. We shouldn't default. No, I don't think there will be."
That didn't stop the Democratic National Committee from sending out a press release with the subject header: "Pawlenty Calls For Default."
“Governor Pawlenty is hardly the only Republican who would prefer that the United States default on its debt, but as a presidential candidate, his words cannot be dismissed lightly," said DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The two sides define default differently. Republicans generally use it in a narrow sense, meaning a failure to pay creditors and bondholders, and believe this is the key issue to maintaining current interest rates and a stable stock market. Democrats often use it more broadly as referring to failure to pay any obligations, such as federal compensation, payments to vendors doing business with the government, or payments to those receiving government assistance, such as Social Security beneficiaries.
The DNC and others attacked Pawlenty for saying that creditors such as the Chinese should be paid before those in the military or Social Security recipients.
"Pawlenty has shown himself to have a truly sick and twisted set of values by advocating that it’s ok to keep paying foreign countries while cutting off senior citizens from their Social Security and Medicare that literally could make the difference between their life and death," said Eddie Vale, spokesman for Protect Your Care, a liberal organization founded to defend Obama's health care overhaul.
Republicans argue that prioritizing payments would maintain the AAA bond rating that keeps borrowing costs low, but financial analysts have said that there would be substantial negative financial consequences for such an action. Defaulting on Social Security obligations could also conceivably trigger a downgrade.
"Even in a scenario in which Treasury interest payments are 'prioritized,' halving other payments like Social Security or military salaries would drop the U.S. income level by 8-9 percent of GDP in a short period," wrote Steven Wieting, Managing Director in the Economic and Market Analysis team of Citigroup, in a July 11, 2011 report.
Wieting also wrote in his analysis: "The financial implications of an actual Treasury default, even briefly, could represent the largest financial shock in history, potentially creating a domino of defaults."
[UPDATE: 5:31 p.m.] - In another interview Friday afternoon on CNBC's "Kudlow Report," Pawlenty said that Republicans should pass the "Cut, Cap and Balance" plan through the House and Senate so that Obama has to veto it.
"If he vetoes it, then send him the installment plan, you know meter it out to him every couple of months so he has to come back and walk the plank every few months," Pawlenty said.
It appeared to be an admission by Pawlenty that the McConnell plan that he rejected earlier in the day would be the best option at the end of the day. Pawlenty's scenario was overly optimistic as well in projecting the passage of the "Cut, Cap and Balance" plan through the Senate, where Democrats hold a 51-to-47 advantage, with two Independents who caucus with the Democrats.
Kudlow pointed out that the Senate will not pass such a plan, but Pawlenty essentially ignored him, continuing to insist that Republicans force Obama to veto the idea.
"They should send him a bill and challenge him to veto it or sign it," Pawlenty said. "I'd send it to him relatively soon."
Pawlenty did have one suggestion to alter McConnell's plan, which would force Obama to request a debt ceiling increase three times between now and the 2012 election.
"I would make him come back every month, not just give him some six month window," he said.
WASHINGTON -- Tim Pawlenty on Friday joined the Jim DeMint wing of the Republican Party in the debt ceiling debate. Sort of.
Pawlenty argued in multiple TV interviews against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's plan to hand over primary responsibility of raising the debt ceiling to the president in exchange for no tax increases, saying there has to be structural change to change the federal government's spending patterns.
"It's a Band-Aid on a broken bone," Pawlenty said of McConnell's plan in an interview with Bloomberg TV. "It doesn't solve the problem ... I don't like it."
The former Minnesota governor's charged rhetoric appeared at first blush to align him with Sen. DeMint (R-S.C.) and other Tea Party lawmakers in the Senate and House, who have staunchly refused to consider voting for a debt ceiling increase unless there is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, among other things.
“It’s balance or bust,” DeMint wrote in an April fundraising email. “Agreeing on the right policy is not enough to save our country. Republicans also have to be willing to fight to enact that policy, even if it means sacrificing their political careers."
Pawlenty mentioned the balanced budget amendment as a "long term" goal that should be sought, but did not mention what kind of reforms should be sought in the short term. Many Republicans are still pushing for a cut, cap and balance plan that includes immediate spending cuts, spending caps for the future and the balanced budget amendment in the long term.
"This is uncomfortable. It's awkward. I know it's concerning to the markets for understandable reasons," Pawlenty said on CNBC Friday morning. "But if we don't get people in Washington D.C. to take this seriously and actually make the tough decisions -- they always say 'Oh, we're going to make the tough decisions. We'll do it. We'll do it,' and then they never do ... Now is the time. The hour is late, and these problems are big, and the only way you're going to get people to do something tough is to put their backs up against the wall."
Pawlenty aides highlighted that portion of the interview on Twitter. It came amid rising tensions about the consequences of a potential default by the U.S. government on its debts. It appears as though a substantial portion of the Republican base and some of the party's most vocal leaders in Washington are prepared to accept a default if they cannot convince President Obama and congressional Democrats to accept deep cuts to spending levels and sweeping changes to future commitments.
But in a portion of the same CNBC interview that was not promoted by the Pawlenty campaign, the candidate admitted that the debt ceiling will be raised.
"They're going to have to raise the debt ceiling," he said. "But they should get some structural reform."
In the Bloomberg TV interview released later in the day, Pawlenty said, "I don't think there should be a default. We shouldn't default. No, I don't think there will be."
That didn't stop the Democratic National Committee from sending out a press release with the subject header: "Pawlenty Calls For Default."
“Governor Pawlenty is hardly the only Republican who would prefer that the United States default on its debt, but as a presidential candidate, his words cannot be dismissed lightly," said DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The two sides define default differently. Republicans generally use it in a narrow sense, meaning a failure to pay creditors and bondholders, and believe this is the key issue to maintaining current interest rates and a stable stock market. Democrats often use it more broadly as referring to failure to pay any obligations, such as federal compensation, payments to vendors doing business with the government, or payments to those receiving government assistance, such as Social Security beneficiaries.
The DNC and others attacked Pawlenty for saying that creditors such as the Chinese should be paid before those in the military or Social Security recipients.
"Pawlenty has shown himself to have a truly sick and twisted set of values by advocating that it’s ok to keep paying foreign countries while cutting off senior citizens from their Social Security and Medicare that literally could make the difference between their life and death," said Eddie Vale, spokesman for Protect Your Care, a liberal organization founded to defend Obama's health care overhaul.
Republicans argue that prioritizing payments would maintain the AAA bond rating that keeps borrowing costs low, but financial analysts have said that there would be substantial negative financial consequences for such an action. Defaulting on Social Security obligations could also conceivably trigger a downgrade.
"Even in a scenario in which Treasury interest payments are 'prioritized,' halving other payments like Social Security or military salaries would drop the U.S. income level by 8-9 percent of GDP in a short period," wrote Steven Wieting, Managing Director in the Economic and Market Analysis team of Citigroup, in a July 11, 2011 report.
Wieting also wrote in his analysis: "The financial implications of an actual Treasury default, even briefly, could represent the largest financial shock in history, potentially creating a domino of defaults."
[UPDATE: 5:31 p.m.] - In another interview Friday afternoon on CNBC's "Kudlow Report," Pawlenty said that Republicans should pass the "Cut, Cap and Balance" plan through the House and Senate so that Obama has to veto it.
"If he vetoes it, then send him the installment plan, you know meter it out to him every couple of months so he has to come back and walk the plank every few months," Pawlenty said.
It appeared to be an admission by Pawlenty that the McConnell plan that he rejected earlier in the day would be the best option at the end of the day. Pawlenty's scenario was overly optimistic as well in projecting the passage of the "Cut, Cap and Balance" plan through the Senate, where Democrats hold a 51-to-47 advantage, with two Independents who caucus with the Democrats.
Kudlow pointed out that the Senate will not pass such a plan, but Pawlenty essentially ignored him, continuing to insist that Republicans force Obama to veto the idea.
"They should send him a bill and challenge him to veto it or sign it," Pawlenty said. "I'd send it to him relatively soon."
Pawlenty did have one suggestion to alter McConnell's plan, which would force Obama to request a debt ceiling increase three times between now and the 2012 election.
"I would make him come back every month, not just give him some six month window," he said.
09 July 2011
National debt by U.S. presidential terms 9JUL11 & Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms 6JUL11
DURING these contentious budget negotiations in Washington D.C. it might be helpful to know who has contributed most the national debt....who has increased federal spending the most and who has created the most jobs during their term(s) as President. You might be very interested in my recent post on the national debt and taxes 15 Things the GOP Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes and the Debt 2SEP12
...
Economist Mike Kimel notes that the last five Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness. (Interestingly Mr. Kimel was able to calculate GHW Bush's debt in December, 2007--the date of the referenced article.) Many commenters to Mr. Kimel's article noted the possible risks in calculating only "public" debt, which ignores any borrowing from Social Security revenues which have run surpluses for many years.[1] Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt), and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt).[2] Similarly, David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, as op-ed contributor to the New York Times, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s because of their failure to rein in spending.[3] For the past 30 years, federal debt reductions have only occurred during Republican majorities in Congress (see Federal Spending, Federal Debt, and GDP table below).
These figures do not include unfunded obligations. The U.S. government is committed under current law to mandatory payments for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The 2009 present value of these deficits or unfunded obligations is an estimated $45.8 trillion. This is the amount that would have to be set aside such that the principal and interest would pay for the unfunded commitments through 2084. Approximately $7.7 trillion relates to Social Security, while $38.2 trillion relates to Medicare and Medicaid. Adding this to the national debt and other federal commitments brings the total obligations to nearly $62 trillion.[6] However, these amounts are excluded from the national debt computation.
The President proposes the budget for the government to the congress, which can amend it before passing. The U. S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 7 grants exclusive right to originate revenue related bills to the House of Representatives; the President's proposals are an indication of spending desired, but it is the House which defines the spending through the final wording of the bills. Since the budget resolution is a “concurrent” congressional resolution, not an ordinary bill, it does not go to the President for his signature or veto.[7] While this leaves substantial room for the legislature to change the deficit, congressional historian Louis Fisher observes that, "Congress rarely appropriates more than what the President requests." In the case of Nixon, who fought fiercely with Congress over the budget, he writes, "Congress was able to adhere to the President's totals while significantly altering his priorities." [8]
(Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)
Notes:
The figure below shows the trend in public debt with the background colored by the party controlling the executive. The color of the trend line does not represent party affiliation; only the background does.
Time series of U.S. public debt overlaid with partisan affiliation of the White House. The upper graph shows the U.S. public debt in trillions of USD while the lower graph shows the U.S. public debt as a percentage of GDP. (Data are from the 2009 U.S. Budget.)
Formula notes
Politicians and pundits frequently refer to the ability of the President of the United States to "create jobs" in the U.S. during his or her term in office. The numbers are most often seen during the election season or in regard to a President's economic legacy. The numbers typically used and most frequently cited by economists are total nonfarm payroll employment numbers as collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on a monthly and annual basis.
As of 2005, the sample includes about 160,000 businesses and government agencies covering approximately 400,000 individual worksites. These job counts are monthly estimates based on data provided by employers (adjusted annually to a near census of total jobs provided by mandatory unemployment insurance filings) and also reflect those with multiple employers who are counted with each employer.
Additionally, for at least the first eight months of a President's term, he inherits a budget proposed and implemented by his predecessor (as well as an overall economy which may be in decline or recovery).
Moreover, according to the United States Constitution, the United States Congress is responsible for government spending and thus, regardless of Presidential advocacy, bears constitutional responsibility for such things as spending and tax policy that have enormous effects upon the economy. Furthermore, it is debatable how much effect any President realistically could have on a system as large, diverse, and complex as the U.S. economy. Nevertheless, the nonfarm payrolls number is the one most frequently used in the media and by economists, largely because the alternative (household survey numbers) is thought to drastically overestimate employment.
Another factor to consider is population growth, which provides opportunities for the creation of jobs, rendering these figures less impressive, or in the case of the already subpar, clearly insufficient.
The Heritage Foundation has pointed to Alan Greenspan's general economic optimism (in 2004) as support for household survey numbers over payroll numbers. However, the subsequent downturn, and Greenspan's admission of having been wrong, may have discredited that view.
*In Thousands **Approximate
For information on the United States public debt divided by Gross Domestic Product by Presidential term, see National Debt by U.S. presidential terms
...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economic and political commentators have noted a pattern between changes in US national debt and US presidential terms over the last few decades. These commentators observe that US national debt (as a percentage of GDP) have increased under Republican Presidents, but have decreased under Democratic Presidents.Contents[hide] |
Gross federal debt
This table lists the gross U.S. federal debt[4] as a percentage of GDP by Presidential term since World War II.[5] The current gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP (83.4% at the end of 2009) is currently the highest it has been since the late 1940s. The debt briefly reached over 100% of GDP in the aftermath of World War II.These figures do not include unfunded obligations. The U.S. government is committed under current law to mandatory payments for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The 2009 present value of these deficits or unfunded obligations is an estimated $45.8 trillion. This is the amount that would have to be set aside such that the principal and interest would pay for the unfunded commitments through 2084. Approximately $7.7 trillion relates to Social Security, while $38.2 trillion relates to Medicare and Medicaid. Adding this to the national debt and other federal commitments brings the total obligations to nearly $62 trillion.[6] However, these amounts are excluded from the national debt computation.
The President proposes the budget for the government to the congress, which can amend it before passing. The U. S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 7 grants exclusive right to originate revenue related bills to the House of Representatives; the President's proposals are an indication of spending desired, but it is the House which defines the spending through the final wording of the bills. Since the budget resolution is a “concurrent” congressional resolution, not an ordinary bill, it does not go to the President for his signature or veto.[7] While this leaves substantial room for the legislature to change the deficit, congressional historian Louis Fisher observes that, "Congress rarely appropriates more than what the President requests." In the case of Nixon, who fought fiercely with Congress over the budget, he writes, "Congress was able to adhere to the President's totals while significantly altering his priorities." [8]
U.S. president | Party | Term years | Start debt/GDP | End debt/GDP | Increase debt ($T) | Increase debt/GDP (in percentage points) | House Control (with # if split during term) | Senate Control (with # if split during term) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roosevelt/Truman | D | 1945–1949 | 117.5% | 93.1% | -0.01 | -24.4% | 79th D, 80th R | 79th D, 80th R |
| Harry Truman | D | 1949–1953 | 93.1% | 71.4% | 0.01 | -21.7% | D | D |
| Dwight Eisenhower | R | 1953–1957 | 71.4% | 60.4% | 0.01 | -11.0% | 83rd R, 84th D | 83rd R, 84th D |
| Dwight Eisenhower | R | 1957–1961 | 60.4% | 55.2% | 0.02 | -5.2% | D | D |
| Kennedy/Johnson | D | 1961–1965 | 55.2% | 46.9% | 0.03 | -8.3% | D | D |
| Lyndon Johnson | D | 1965–1969 | 46.9% | 38.6% | 0.04 | -8.3% | D | D |
| Richard Nixon | R | 1969–1973 | 38.6% | 35.6% | 0.10 | -3.0% | D | D |
| Nixon/Ford | R | 1973–1977 | 35.6% | 35.8% | 0.24 | +0.2% | D | D |
| Jimmy Carter | D | 1977–1981 | 35.8% | 32.5% | 0.22 | -3.3% | D | D |
| Ronald Reagan | R | 1981–1985 | 32.5% | 43.8% | 0.68 | +11.3% | D | R |
| Ronald Reagan | R | 1985–1989 | 43.8% | 53.1% | 0.75 | +9.3% | D | 99th R, 100th D |
| George H. W. Bush | R | 1989–1993 | 53.1% | 66.1% | 1.14 | +13.0% | D | D |
| Bill Clinton | D | 1993–1997 | 66.1% | 65.4% | 0.73 | -0.7% | 103rd D, 104th R | 103rd D, 104th R |
| Bill Clinton | D | 1997–2001 | 65.4% | 56.4% | 0.29 | -9.0% | R | R |
| George W. Bush | R | 2001–2005 | 56.4% | 63.5% | 1.71 | +7.1% | R | 107th Split, 108 R |
| George W. Bush | R | 2005–2009 | 63.5% | 84.2% | 3.97 | +20.7% | 109th R, 110th D | 109th R, 110th D |
| Barack Obama | D | 2009– | 84.2% | 93.2% (2010) | 1.65 (2010) | +9.0% (2010) | 111th D, 112th R | D |
Notes:
- For net jobs changes over the corresponding periods, see: Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms.
- Calculations are for Fiscal Years -- each President's term begins in the October after inauguration.
Public debt
Gross debt and public debt are different. Public debt is the gross debt minus intra-governmental obligations (such as the money that the government owes to the two Social Security Trust Funds, the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program, and the Social Security Disability Insurance program).[9]The figure below shows the trend in public debt with the background colored by the party controlling the executive. The color of the trend line does not represent party affiliation; only the background does.
Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP
The table below shows the annual federal spending, gross federal debt, and gross domestic product for average presidential parties, specific presidential terms, and specific fiscal years.[10]| Fiscal Year | President | Party of President | Federal Spending | Federal Debt | Gross Domestic Product | Inflation Adjustor[11] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Billions[12] | Adjusted[13] | Increase | Billions[14] | Adjusted[15] | Increase | Billions[16] | Adjusted[17] | Increase | ||||
| 1978-2005 | Democratic | 9.9% | 4.2% | 12.6% | ||||||||
| 1978-2005 | Republican | 12.1% | 36.4% | 10.7% | ||||||||
| 1978–1981 | Carter | Democratic | $678 | $1,219 | 17.2% | $994 | $1,787 | -0.4% | $3,055 | $5,492 | 9.4% | |
| 1982–1985 | Reagan | Republican | $946 | $1,396 | 14.5% | $1,817 | $2,680 | 49.0% | $4,142 | $6,108 | 11.2% | |
| 1986–1989 | Reagan | Republican | $1,144 | $1,499 | 7.4% | $2,867 | $3,757 | 40.2% | $5,401 | $7,077 | 15.9% | |
| 1990–1993 | Bush | Republican | $1,410 | $1,615 | 7.8% | $4,351 | $4,987 | 32.7% | $6,576 | $7,536 | 6.5% | |
| 1994–1997 | Clinton | Democratic | $1,601 | $1,684 | 4.3% | $5,369 | $5,647 | 13.2% | $8,182 | $8,606 | 14.2% | |
| 1998–2001 | Clinton | Democratic | $1,863 | $1,821 | 8.1% | $5,769 | $5,638 | -0.2% | $10,058 | $9,829 | 14.2% | |
| 2002–2005 | Bush | Republican | $2,472 | $2,165 | 18.9% | $7,905 | $6,923 | 22.8% | $12,238 | $10,717 | 9.0% | |
| 2006-2009* | Bush | Republican | $3,107 | $2,452 | 13.3% | $10,413 | $8,218 | 18.7% | $15,027 | $11,859 | 10.7% | |
| 1977 | Ford | Republican | $409 | $1,040 | $706 | $1,795 | $1,974 | $5,019 | 0.39 | |||
| 1978 | Carter | Democratic | $459 | $1,093 | 5.1% | $776 | $1,850 | 3.1% | $2,217 | $5,285 | 5.3% | 0.42 |
| 1979 | Carter | Democratic | $504 | $1,107 | 1.3% | $829 | $1,821 | -1.5% | $2,501 | $5,494 | 4.0% | 0.46 |
| 1980 | Carter | Democratic | $591 | $1,175 | 6.1% | $909 | $1,808 | -0.8% | $2,727 | $5,422 | -1.3% | 0.50 |
| 1981 | Carter | Democratic | $678 | $1,219 | 3.8% | $994 | $1,787 | -1.1% | $3,055 | $5,492 | 1.3% | 0.56 |
| 1982 | Reagan | Republican | $746 | $1,252 | 2.6% | $1,137 | $1,908 | 6.8% | $3,228 | $5,417 | -1.4% | 0.60 |
| 1983 | Reagan | Republican | $808 | $1,294 | 3.4% | $1,371 | $2,195 | 15.0% | $3,441 | $5,510 | 1.7% | 0.62 |
| 1984 | Reagan | Republican | $852 | $1,300 | 0.4% | $1,564 | $2,386 | 8.7% | $3,840 | $5,858 | 6.3% | 0.66 |
| 1985 | Reagan | Republican | $946 | $1,396 | 7.4% | $1,817 | $2,680 | 12.3% | $4,142 | $6,108 | 4.3% | 0.68 |
| 1986 | Reagan | Republican | $990 | $1,426 | 2.1% | $2,120 | $3,052 | 13.9% | $4,412 | $6,352 | 4.0% | 0.69 |
| 1987 | Reagan | Republican | $1,004 | $1,406 | -1.4% | $2,345 | $3,283 | 7.6% | $4,647 | $6,506 | 2.4% | 0.71 |
| 1988 | Reagan | Republican | $1,065 | $1,447 | 2.9% | $2,601 | $3,534 | 7.7% | $5,009 | $6,806 | 4.6% | 0.74 |
| 1989 | Reagan | Republican | $1,144 | $1,499 | 3.6% | $2,867 | $3,757 | 6.3% | $5,401 | $7,077 | 4.0% | 0.76 |
| 1990 | Bush | Republican | $1,253 | $1,590 | 6.1% | $3,206 | $4,067 | 8.3% | $5,735 | $7,277 | 2.8% | 0.79 |
| 1991 | Bush | Republican | $1,324 | $1,610 | 1.3% | $3,598 | $4,374 | 7.5% | $5,935 | $7,215 | -0.8% | 0.82 |
| 1992 | Bush | Republican | $1,382 | $1,624 | 0.9% | $4,001 | $4,703 | 7.5% | $6,240 | $7,334 | 1.7% | 0.85 |
| 1993 | Bush | Republican | $1,410 | $1,615 | -0.5% | $4,351 | $4,987 | 6.0% | $6,576 | $7,536 | 2.8% | 0.87 |
| 1994 | Clinton | Democratic | $1,462 | $1,642 | 1.7% | $4,643 | $5,216 | 4.6% | $6,961 | $7,820 | 3.8% | 0.89 |
| 1995 | Clinton | Democratic | $1,516 | $1,662 | 1.2% | $4,920 | $5,395 | 3.4% | $7,326 | $8,033 | 2.7% | 0.91 |
| 1996 | Clinton | Democratic | $1,561 | $1,673 | 0.7% | $5,181 | $5,554 | 3.0% | $7,694 | $8,248 | 2.7% | 0.93 |
| 1997 | Clinton | Democratic | $1,601 | $1,684 | 0.7% | $5,369 | $5,647 | 1.7% | $8,182 | $8,606 | 4.3% | 0.95 |
| 1998 | Clinton | Democratic | $1,653 | $1,721 | 2.2% | $5,478 | $5,704 | 1.0% | $8,628 | $8,985 | 4.4% | 0.96 |
| 1999 | Clinton | Democratic | $1,702 | $1,746 | 1.5% | $5,605 | $5,750 | 0.8% | $9,125 | $9,361 | 4.2% | 0.97 |
| 2000 | Clinton | Democratic | $1,789 | $1,789 | 2.5% | $5,628 | $5,628 | -2.1% | $9,710 | $9,710 | 3.7% | 1.00 |
| 2001 | Clinton | Democratic | $1,863 | $1,821 | 1.8% | $5,769 | $5,638 | 0.2% | $10,058 | $9,829 | 1.2% | 1.02 |
| 2002 | Bush | Republican | $2,011 | $1,929 | 6.0% | $6,198 | $5,945 | 5.5% | $10,377 | $9,954 | 1.3% | 1.04 |
| 2003 | Bush | Republican | $2,160 | $2,018 | 4.6% | $6,760 | $6,316 | 6.2% | $10,809 | $10,099 | 1.4% | 1.07 |
| 2004 | Bush | Republican | $2,293 | $2,082 | 3.2% | $7,354 | $6,677 | 5.7% | $11,500 | $10,441 | 3.4% | 1.10 |
| 2005 | Bush | Republican | $2,472 | $2,165 | 4.0% | $7,905 | $6,923 | 3.7% | $12,238 | $10,717 | 2.6% | 1.14 |
| 2006 | Bush | Republican | $2,655 | $2,249 | 3.9% | $8,451 | $7,158 | 3.4% | $13,016 | $11,024 | 2.9% | 1.18 |
| 2007 | Bush | Republican | $2,730 | $2,263 | 0.6% | $8,951 | $7,419 | 3.6% | $13,668 | $11,329 | 2.8% | 1.21 |
| 2008* | Bush | Republican | $2,931 | $2,366 | 4.6% | $9,654 | $7,793 | 5.0% | $14,312 | $11,553 | 2.0% | 1.24 |
| 2009 | Bush | Republican | $3,107 | $2,452 | 3.6% | $10,413 | $8,218 | 5.5% | $15,027 | $11,859 | 2.6% | 1.27 |
| 2010* | Obama | Democratic | $3,991 | $2,392 | 1.4% | $13,954 | $10,817 | 6.2% | $15,792 | $12,221 | 3.0% | 1.29 |
- The dollar amounts for each presidential term are taken from the last fiscal year in that term.
- The increase in each presidential term is the increase in the adjusted amount from the last fiscal year of the previous term to the last fiscal year of the current term.
- The value for each presidential party is the average of the values for all the presidents in that party.
- The values for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 represent estimates from the source material.
See also
Notes
- ^ Kimel, Mike (2007-12-04). "The Republican Party and the National Debt". angrybearblog.com. Retrieved 15 April 2011.
- ^ "contrast between the Democrats and the old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon) on the one hand and the new-style Republicans on the other is quite striking." Brad DeLong (2009-11-20). "Comparing Debt-to-GDP Ratios with Presidential Terms". Seeking Alpha. Retrieved 2010-08-09.
- Brad DeLong (2008-05-01). "Short-Term Costs of Long-Run Fiscal Stupidity - Grasping Reality with Both Hands". Delong.typepad.com. Retrieved 2010-08-09.
- ^ Stockman, David (2010-07-31). "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse". New York Times (nytimes.com). Retrieved 2010-08-09.
- ^ The gross federal debt includes intra-government debt, i.e. money owed by one branch of the federal government to another. When this amount is subtracted the remaining quantity is known as the public debt.
- ^ Budget FY2007
- ^ Peter G. Peterson Foundation (April 2010). "Citizen's guide 2010: Figure 10", p. 30. Peter G. Peterson Foundation [website]. Retrieved February 5, 2011.
- ^ http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155
- ^ Fisher, Louis (Nov. - Dec. 1990). "Federal Budget Doldrums: The Vacuum in Presidential Leadership". Public Administration Review 50 (6): 693–700. doi:10.2307/976984. JSTOR 976984.
- ^ Frontline - Ten Trillion and Counting: Defining the Debt
- ^ Budget FY 2009
- ^ Budget FY2009. Addendum: Composite Deflator, page 26. Divide current dollars by this number to produce value in (constant) FY2000 dollars.
- ^ Budget FY2009. Outlays in current dollars, page 26.
- ^ Budget FY2009. Outlays in current dollars, page 26, divided by Inflation Adjustor.
- ^ Budget FY 2009. Gross Federal Debt in current dollars, page 127.
- ^ Budget FY 2009. Gross Federal Debt in current dollars, page 127, divided by Inflation Adjustor.
- ^ Budget FY2009. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in current dollars, page 194.
- ^ Budget FY2009. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in current dollars, page 194, divided by Inflation Adjustor.
References
- Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007.
- Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009.
External links
- Another tabulation of Federal deficits (not debt) by Presidential term
- Another tabulation of Federal debt (not deficit) by Presidential term since 1976: per capita, per capita income, and as percentage of GDP
- Mike Kimel (2007-02-13). "God Punishes Us When We (Collectively) Vote Republican | Angry Bear". Angrybearblog.com. Retrieved 2010-08-09.
- Stephen Bloch. "U.S. Federal Deficits and Presidents". home.adelphi.edu. Retrieved 9 August 2010.
- Brad DeLong (2009-11-20). "Comparing Debt-to-GDP Ratios with Presidential Terms". Seeking Alpha. Retrieved 2010-08-09.
- Brad DeLong (2008-05-01). "Short-Term Costs of Long-Run Fiscal Stupidity - Grasping Reality with Both Hands". Delong.typepad.com. Retrieved 2010-08-09.
- Scott Willeke (2010-03-02). "United States Deficit & Debt During Presidents from 1969-2019". Blog.scott.willeke.com. Retrieved 2010-08-09.
- Steve Stoft. "U.S. National Debt Graph: What the Press Won't Tell You". Zfacts.com. Retrieved 2010-08-09.</ref>
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010) |
Contents |
Methodology
The job numbers are collected via a survey of thousands of businesses. The sample establishments are drawn from private nonfarm businesses such as factories, offices, and stores, as well as federal, state, and local government entities. Employees on nonfarm payrolls are those who received pay for any part of the reference pay period (which includes the 12th of the month), including persons on paid leave.As of 2005, the sample includes about 160,000 businesses and government agencies covering approximately 400,000 individual worksites. These job counts are monthly estimates based on data provided by employers (adjusted annually to a near census of total jobs provided by mandatory unemployment insurance filings) and also reflect those with multiple employers who are counted with each employer.
Controversy
The exact usefulness of these numbers is debated. On the one hand, they include only nonfarm payroll employment, which excludes certain types of jobs, notably the self-employed. However, as a semi-balancing factor, they count one person with two jobs as two employed persons.Additionally, for at least the first eight months of a President's term, he inherits a budget proposed and implemented by his predecessor (as well as an overall economy which may be in decline or recovery).
Moreover, according to the United States Constitution, the United States Congress is responsible for government spending and thus, regardless of Presidential advocacy, bears constitutional responsibility for such things as spending and tax policy that have enormous effects upon the economy. Furthermore, it is debatable how much effect any President realistically could have on a system as large, diverse, and complex as the U.S. economy. Nevertheless, the nonfarm payrolls number is the one most frequently used in the media and by economists, largely because the alternative (household survey numbers) is thought to drastically overestimate employment.
Another factor to consider is population growth, which provides opportunities for the creation of jobs, rendering these figures less impressive, or in the case of the already subpar, clearly insufficient.
The Heritage Foundation has pointed to Alan Greenspan's general economic optimism (in 2004) as support for household survey numbers over payroll numbers. However, the subsequent downturn, and Greenspan's admission of having been wrong, may have discredited that view.
Job creation by term
Numbers listed here are measured from January of the year at the beginning of the term to the January four years later, when the term ends.| U.S. president | Party | Term years | Start jobs* | End jobs* | created (in millions) | Average annual increase |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harding/Coolidge | R | 1921–1925 | 25,000 ** | 29,500 ** | +4.5 ** | +4.2% ** |
| Calvin Coolidge | R | 1925–1929 | 29,500 ** | 32,100 ** | +2.6 ** | +2.2% ** |
| Herbert Hoover | R | 1929–1933 | 32,100 ** | 25,700 ** | -6.4 | -9.0% |
| Franklin Roosevelt | D | 1933–1937 | 25,700 ** | 31,200 ** | +5.5 | +5.3% ** |
| Franklin Roosevelt | D | 1937–1941 | 31,200 ** | 34,480 | +3.3 | +2.6% ** |
| Franklin Roosevelt | D | 1941–1945 | 34,480 | 41,903 | +7.4 | +5.2% |
| Roosevelt/Truman | D | 1945–1949 | 41,903 | 44,675 | +2.8 | +1.8% |
| Harry Truman | D | 1949–1953 | 44,675 | 50,145 | +5.5 | +3.0% |
| Dwight Eisenhower | R | 1953–1957 | 50,145 | 52,888 | +2.7 | +1.4% |
| Dwight Eisenhower | R | 1957–1961 | 52,888 | 53,683 | +0.8 | +0.4% |
| Kennedy/Johnson | D | 1961–1965 | 53,683 | 59,583 | +5.9 | +2.6% |
| Lyndon Johnson | D | 1965–1969 | 59,583 | 69,438 | +9.9 | +3.9% |
| Richard Nixon | R | 1969–1973 | 69,438 | 75,620 | +6.2 | +2.2% |
| Nixon/Ford | R | 1973–1977 | 75,620 | 80,692 | +5.1 | +1.7% |
| Jimmy Carter | D | 1977–1981 | 80,692 | 91,031 | +10.3 | +3.2% |
| Ronald Reagan | R | 1981–1985 | 91,031 | 96,353 | +5.3 | +1.5% |
| Ronald Reagan | R | 1985–1989 | 96,353 | 107,133 | +10.8 | +2.7% |
| George H. W. Bush | R | 1989–1993 | 107,133 | 109,725 | +2.6 | +0.6% |
| Bill Clinton | D | 1993–1997 | 109,725 | 121,231 | +11.5 | +2.6% |
| Bill Clinton | D | 1997–2001 | 121,231 | 132,469 | +11.2 | +2.3% |
| George W. Bush | R | 2001–2005 | 132,469 | 132,453 | +0.0 | -0.0% |
| George W. Bush | R | 2005–2009 | 132,453 | 133,563 | +1.1 | +0.1% |
| Barack Obama | D | 2009–2013 | 133,563 | 131,753 (May 2011) | -1.81 (May 2011) | -.54% (May. 2011/Roughly 2.5 Years) |
For information on the United States public debt divided by Gross Domestic Product by Presidential term, see National Debt by U.S. presidential terms
[edit] External links and references
- Numbers for U.S. total employment and other statistics are available here at the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site.
- BLS Employment Situation Explanatory Note
- Average annual increase by President (out of date)
-
- Refers to job created overseas.
-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)