Ranking the presidents

[....lybob]

from Bloomberg 2004

 

 

"Reaganomics vs. Rubinomics

Two decades of economic results favor neither approach -- it's a draw

 

The heavyweight economy policy debate over the past two decades has been Reaganomics vs. Rubinomics. Reaganomics -- as practiced by Reagan and by President George W. Bush -- emphasized that in order to spur growth and jobs, tax rates need to be lowered to encourage people to save, invest, and take risks. Rubinomics -- named after Robert E. Rubin, President Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary -- focuses instead on cutting the budget deficit. Its proponents argue that reducing long-term interest rates is the best way to foster growth and the creation of new jobs, since that frees up resources for private investment. Clinton and, to a lesser degree, George H.W. Bush followed this policy.

 

 

 

After two decades of back and forth, with partisans on both sides hurling invective at one another, the best that can be said is that the two philosophies seem to have fought each other to a draw. Measured by growth and jobs, both have worked much better than their opponents predicted -- but not the way their supporters expected.

 

Consider, for example, the public debate over the short-run effects of Reagan's first set of tax cuts. Supply-siders predicted that tax cuts would generate enough additional growth that they would quickly pay for themselves with new tax revenues -- the so-called Laffer curve. Conversely, opponents -- a group that included most mainstream economists -- argued that big tax cuts would create an inflationary surge, boost interest rates, and squeeze out private investment, leading to sluggish growth.

 

Neither the Pollyanna nor the Doomsday short-run scenarios turned out to be true. Soon after taking office, economists in the Reagan Administration abandoned the idea that the immediate growth dividend from tax cuts would be big enough to hold down the budget deficit. Indeed, as the economy went into a deep recession from July, 1981, through the end of 1982, the deficit skyrocketed, hitting 6% of gross domestic product in 1983.

 

Still, Reagan's growth record looks pretty good in retrospect, averaging 3.4% annually from the time he took office to the time he left. That's just below the 3.6% average growth rate during Clinton's term, and right around the post-war average. And while unemployment stayed high, private-sector jobs grew at a 2.3% annual rate, again just below Clinton's 2.6% rate.

 

What's more, many of the negative consequences predicted from big deficits didn't happen. Inflation, rather than soaring, fell sharply. The interest rate on 10-year government bonds plummeted, from over 12% in 1984 to less than 8% in 1986, despite deficits that still exceeded 5% of GDP. And business investment during the Reagan years averaged 12% of GDP, higher than during Clinton's term, as foreign money flowed in to help fund the deficit. "Most of us were surprised at how open the U.S. economy turned out to be," said Benjamin M. Friedman, a Harvard University economist who wrote a skeptical book in 1988 about Reaganomics called Day of Reckoning.

 

Similarly, when the debate over taxes vs. the budget deficit was replayed in the early 1990s, all the short-term forecasts, both positive and negative, were once again off the mark. When Clinton raised taxes in 1993 to stem the yawning deficit, Newt Gingrich, then a leading Republican member of the House of Representatives, famously argued: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit."

 

That didn't happen, of course. The economy went on to experience the longest expansion on record, unemployment eventually fell below 4%, and the deficit not only fell, by 1998 it had turned into a surplus. The stock market, adjusted for inflation, went up at an 11.2% average yearly rate during the Clinton years, compared with an average gain of 6% for Reagan.

 

The economy did not follow the course predicted by the deficit-cutters, however. Although the deficit did fall sharply, long-term interest rates rose, going from under 6% in 1993 to almost 8% by the end of 1994. It wasn't until 1998 that rates fell conclusively below their 1993 levels. And even during the so-called investment boom from 1995 to 2000, business capital spending averaged only 11.8% of GDP, below the Reagan average. Rubin acknowledges the problem in his 2003 book, In an Uncertain World: "In retrospect, the effect of the Clinton economic plan on business and consumer confidence may have been even more important than the effect on interest rates."

 

In fact, the real story of the Clinton years is something the supporters of Rubinomics never expected -- the technology boom of the late 1990s. Although average business investment during the boom years was not exceptional, the Information Revolution helped trigger big gains in productivity and growth as early as 1996. That's not something Clinton's economists saw coming or even expected to continue: the 1997 Economic Report of the President, released in February of that year, predicted that growth would average a meager 2.2% over the next four years. The actual growth rate turned out to be 3.9%.

 

Given today's intensely partisan political atmosphere, it's ironic that the economic record of the past two decades favors neither Reaganomics nor Rubinomics. History shows that it's possible to have a sustainable boom with high deficits, as Reagan did, just as it's possible to have a sustainable boom with higher taxes, as Clinton did. Taxes and deficits do matter -- they just don't matter as much as the ideologues would have us believe."

[keepthefaith]

I sure hope you aren't serious about that statement. Disagreeing with policy is one thing, but comparing Social Security to the Holocaust is completely another.

 

 

FWIW, it was before my time, but a lot of conservatives I know consider Richard Nixon the best conservative president in recent history. I have heard good things about him from people on the left.

 

I was fairly young when Reagan was president, but most of the people on the left that I talk to consider him a good man and an ok president. I will never forget the celebration in school when the hostages were freed from Iran.

 

 

On a separate issue, I think these rankings are more a reflection of the federal government as a whole during a president's term, than a reflection of the man who held the Oval Office.

 

Nixon had a very good presidency before he decided to coverup the Watergate break-in. Compared to what politicians do today, Nixon looks like a Boy Scout.

[Adam]

Nixon had a very good presidency before he decided to coverup the Watergate break-in. Compared to what politicians do today, Nixon looks like a Boy Scout.

In all fairness, the politicians are a refection of society. We are no better than them

[OCinBuffalo]

Why is scholars in quotes? What have you ever accomplished?

Honestly, if I were you, I wouldn't go calling people on this board out in terms of accomplishment.

 

You will most certainly end up adding to your already sizable inferiority complex, and, if people drop their modesty and actually answer your question, you're going to feel pretty foolish....if that's possible.

 

I highly doubt you want to be comparing this board to college professors when it comes to, you know, actually doing things....in the real world.

 

And I can guarantee you don't want us asking you that question, and comparing your accomplishments to anyone's.

 

Anybody who rates Obama higher than Reagan, especially given the amount of data we have, is f'ing retarded, and they deserve to have quotes around their title as "scholar". At this point, Obama shouldn't even be in that poll, since history requires proper perspective, and there's no way in hell they have that at this point in his Presidency.

 

"Scholars" should know better.

[KD in CA]

from Bloomberg 2004

 

 

"Reaganomics vs. Rubinomics

Two decades of economic results favor neither approach -- it's a draw

 

The heavyweight economy policy debate over the past two decades has been Reaganomics vs. Rubinomics. Reaganomics -- as practiced by Reagan and by President George W. Bush -- emphasized that in order to spur growth and jobs, tax rates need to be lowered to encourage people to save, invest, and take risks. Rubinomics -- named after Robert E. Rubin, President Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary -- focuses instead on cutting the budget deficit. Its proponents argue that reducing long-term interest rates is the best way to foster growth and the creation of new jobs, since that frees up resources for private investment. Clinton and, to a lesser degree, George H.W. Bush followed this policy.

 

 

And then there is Obamanomics, which favors raising taxes AND budget deficits!! By yeah, he's a better POTUS than either Reagan or Clinton.

[OCinBuffalo]

FWIW, it was before my time, but a lot of conservatives I know consider Richard Nixon the best conservative president in recent history. I have heard good things about him from people on the left.

 

I was fairly young when Reagan was president, but most of the people on the left that I talk to consider him a good man and an ok president. I will never forget the celebration in school when the hostages were freed from Iran.

The fact that Nixon was as good as he was, as a politician, campaigner, AND governing executive(something Barry needs to learn, quick), is what makes Watergate so mind numbing. He didn't need it. He won in a blowout. Watergate info had no bearing on that. It is perhaps the biggest unnecessary f up of all time.

 

Yes, that was a great day. I very young, but all the kids on my block were going nuts when they were released.

[Adam]

The fact that Nixon was as good as he was, as a politician, campaigner, AND governing executive(something Barry needs to learn, quick), is what makes Watergate so mind numbing. He didn't need it. He won in a blowout. Watergate info had no bearing on that. It is perhaps the biggest unnecessary f up of all time.

 

Yes, that was a great day. I very young, but all the kids on my block were going nuts when they were released.

Obama won in a landslide without all that. In today's America, you don't have to be good, you just have to convince the sheep you are- they are the majority party 24/7.

[OCinBuffalo]

"Reaganomics vs. Rubinomics

Two decades of economic results favor neither approach -- it's a draw

The problem with this is neither happened in a vacuum, and, Rubinomics simply would not have been possible had Reaganomics not come before it.

 

The simple fact was that most of Reagan's Presidency was spent un-Cartering, and laying the groundwork for un-LBJing, which is to say, un-!@#$ing, this country. When he took over, interest rates were at 20+%, and so was inflation. By the time Bush 1 left office, they were down to their lowest point in the preceding 20 years.

 

You can't hold down long term interest rates....if they are at 20+%. You need to do something else, immediately, to get them down to a manageable level. That opens the door to a lot of other options....and along comes Clinton....

 

Clinton took over at a great time. There was new tech all over ready to launch, and Clinton did the smart thing: got out of the way, cut capital gains taxes, invest in beating structural unemployment with training....ALL supply side policies. Hence the famous Dick Morris "triangulation" political strategy = take Republican ideas, call them yours, and then implement, support, call for legislation on them before they do.

 

I love it when people call the Clinton's "progressives". It may be what they WANTED to be, but it flies in the face how they acted. Especially when one considers their triangulation strategy. Clinton was a far better Republican President, economically, then either of the Bush boys.

[....lybob]

Nixon had a very good presidency before he decided to coverup the Watergate break-in. Compared to what politicians do today, Nixon looks like a Boy Scout.

 

Totally agree, Nixon had some personality flaws but was a very good president. A question I have about Nixon is could he pass the Republican litmus test today.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Totally agree, Nixon had some personality flaws but was a very good president. A question I have about Nixon is could he pass the Republican litmus test today.

The savage bombing of Cambodia with its massive loss of civilian life for no good reason excludes him from the top of the list , IMO. The overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile was pretty evil, also

 

He was also our last drunk president

 

Kissenger had more to do with our foreign policy than Nixon did

 

It can be argued that Nixon/Kissenger won the Cold War because after his trip to China, we had more Communists on our side of the Cold War than the Russians did. Still, that was mostly Kissenger

 

As to Nixon being a Republican today? Wage and Price controls, created EPA amd Dentente all would have excluded him and made him a RINO in Conservative eyes

[OCinBuffalo]

Obama won in a landslide without all that. In today's America, you don't have to be good, you just have to convince the sheep you are- they are the majority party 24/7.

Perhaps....but you only win the first time.

 

Not everybody is addicted to dopey network television and celebrity-addled. All it usually takes is for us to call them idiots enough times and that's the end of the stupid trend/fad/annoyance....

 

....so Barry better get long on substance, and quick, or the idiot calling will begin.

[....lybob]

"I love it when people call the Clinton's "progressives". It may be what they WANTED to be, but it flies in the face how they acted. Especially when one considers their triangulation strategy. Clinton was a far better Republican President, economically, then either of the Bush boys."

 

Clinton was a far better fiscally conservative President. Republicans are only fiscally conservative when Democrats are in power or they don't like where the money is being spent.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

from Bloomberg 2004

 

 

"Reaganomics vs. Rubinomics

Two decades of economic results favor neither approach -- it's a draw

 

The heavyweight economy policy debate over the past two decades has been Reaganomics vs. Rubinomics. Reaganomics -- as practiced by Reagan and by President George W. Bush -- emphasized that in order to spur growth and jobs, tax rates need to be lowered to encourage people to save, invest, and take risks. Rubinomics -- named after Robert E. Rubin, President Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary -- focuses instead on cutting the budget deficit. Its proponents argue that reducing long-term interest rates is the best way to foster growth and the creation of new jobs, since that frees up resources for private investment. Clinton and, to a lesser degree, George H.W. Bush followed this policy.

 

 

 

After two decades of back and forth, with partisans on both sides hurling invective at one another, the best that can be said is that the two philosophies seem to have fought each other to a draw. Measured by growth and jobs, both have worked much better than their opponents predicted -- but not the way their supporters expected.

 

Consider, for example, the public debate over the short-run effects of Reagan's first set of tax cuts. Supply-siders predicted that tax cuts would generate enough additional growth that they would quickly pay for themselves with new tax revenues -- the so-called Laffer curve. Conversely, opponents -- a group that included most mainstream economists -- argued that big tax cuts would create an inflationary surge, boost interest rates, and squeeze out private investment, leading to sluggish growth.

 

Neither the Pollyanna nor the Doomsday short-run scenarios turned out to be true. Soon after taking office, economists in the Reagan Administration abandoned the idea that the immediate growth dividend from tax cuts would be big enough to hold down the budget deficit. Indeed, as the economy went into a deep recession from July, 1981, through the end of 1982, the deficit skyrocketed, hitting 6% of gross domestic product in 1983.

 

Still, Reagan's growth record looks pretty good in retrospect, averaging 3.4% annually from the time he took office to the time he left. That's just below the 3.6% average growth rate during Clinton's term, and right around the post-war average. And while unemployment stayed high, private-sector jobs grew at a 2.3% annual rate, again just below Clinton's 2.6% rate.

 

What's more, many of the negative consequences predicted from big deficits didn't happen. Inflation, rather than soaring, fell sharply. The interest rate on 10-year government bonds plummeted, from over 12% in 1984 to less than 8% in 1986, despite deficits that still exceeded 5% of GDP. And business investment during the Reagan years averaged 12% of GDP, higher than during Clinton's term, as foreign money flowed in to help fund the deficit. "Most of us were surprised at how open the U.S. economy turned out to be," said Benjamin M. Friedman, a Harvard University economist who wrote a skeptical book in 1988 about Reaganomics called Day of Reckoning.

 

Similarly, when the debate over taxes vs. the budget deficit was replayed in the early 1990s, all the short-term forecasts, both positive and negative, were once again off the mark. When Clinton raised taxes in 1993 to stem the yawning deficit, Newt Gingrich, then a leading Republican member of the House of Representatives, famously argued: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit."

 

That didn't happen, of course. The economy went on to experience the longest expansion on record, unemployment eventually fell below 4%, and the deficit not only fell, by 1998 it had turned into a surplus. The stock market, adjusted for inflation, went up at an 11.2% average yearly rate during the Clinton years, compared with an average gain of 6% for Reagan.

 

The economy did not follow the course predicted by the deficit-cutters, however. Although the deficit did fall sharply, long-term interest rates rose, going from under 6% in 1993 to almost 8% by the end of 1994. It wasn't until 1998 that rates fell conclusively below their 1993 levels. And even during the so-called investment boom from 1995 to 2000, business capital spending averaged only 11.8% of GDP, below the Reagan average. Rubin acknowledges the problem in his 2003 book, In an Uncertain World: "In retrospect, the effect of the Clinton economic plan on business and consumer confidence may have been even more important than the effect on interest rates."

 

In fact, the real story of the Clinton years is something the supporters of Rubinomics never expected -- the technology boom of the late 1990s. Although average business investment during the boom years was not exceptional, the Information Revolution helped trigger big gains in productivity and growth as early as 1996. That's not something Clinton's economists saw coming or even expected to continue: the 1997 Economic Report of the President, released in February of that year, predicted that growth would average a meager 2.2% over the next four years. The actual growth rate turned out to be 3.9%.

 

Given today's intensely partisan political atmosphere, it's ironic that the economic record of the past two decades favors neither Reaganomics nor Rubinomics. History shows that it's possible to have a sustainable boom with high deficits, as Reagan did, just as it's possible to have a sustainable boom with higher taxes, as Clinton did. Taxes and deficits do matter -- they just don't matter as much as the ideologues would have us believe."

Reagan's economic record was heavily influenced by Jimmy Carter's decision to appoint Paul Volker to the Federal Reserve. Carter paid for that decision at first, because he is a principled person,and Reagan gained all the long term benefits. So goes the world

[OCinBuffalo]

The savage bombing of Cambodia with its massive loss of civilian life for no good reason excludes him from the top of the list , IMO. The overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile was pretty evil, also

 

He was also our last drunk president

 

Kissenger had more to do with our foreign policy than Nixon did

 

It can be argued that Nixon/Kissenger won the Cold War because after his trip to China, we had more Communists on our side of the Cold War than the Russians did. Still, that was mostly Kissenger

 

As to Nixon being a Republican today? Wage and Price controls, created EPA amd Dentente all would have excluded him and made him a RINO in Conservative eyes

It was a war, spare us your spinning of war. Everybody just ate lunch, and nobody wants to hear your personal, sure to be addled, point of view on any war. Things happen in war that don't happen otherwise. Spinning them as though they are the direct results of party affiliation is retarded. It's war. And in every war, cold or hot, we are going to find things we wish didn't happen. Was FDR a bad President because he approved internment camps? No spinning war please.

 

How do we know that?

 

Not even close. I saw Nixon open China, not Kissenger. Please, this is a foolish point.

 

Everything you are talking about is either: a moderate Republican response, and more importantly to Republicans, a RATIONAL response, or, again, spinning a war. Exactly none of it would get Nixon in hot water with Republicans. Especially since he got results.

[OCinBuffalo]

Reagan's economic record was heavily influenced by Jimmy Carter's decision to appoint Paul Volker to the Federal Reserve. Carter paid for that decision at first, because he is a principled person,and Reagan gained all the long term benefits. So goes the world

Ha! Hey boys and girls...this is what rewriting history is all about.

 

So, I suppose it was Volcker's face on those inflatable "supply side economics" punching toys, and not Reagan's?

 

I suppose it was Volcker who took his case directly to the American people and bypassed a intransigent, 40-year Democratically controlled Congress, who would not support any of his reforms and policies?

 

And of course, it was Volcker who was constantly made fun of in the press as being a complete idiot for rejecting assinine Keynesian Economic principles.

 

This is the height of absurdity. I am sure if we listen to you long enough, you will tell us Charlie Wilson won the Cold War too.

[OCinBuffalo]

Oh and for the board idiot, and any others who might be so inclined, let's play a little game:

 

1. Which ideologies believe in the good of many/the state over the rights of the individual?

Answer: Communism and Fascism, or, the left. The right(EDIT: in this country) believes the exact opposite.

 

2. Which ideologies believe it is the responsibility of the state to provide work for it's people?

Answer: Communism and Fascism, or, the left. The right believes the exact opposite.

 

3. Which ideologies believe that it is ok to take someone's, life, property, freedoms if they don't submit to the will of the party leadership?

Answer: Communism and Fascism, or, the left. The right believes the exact opposite.

 

4. Which ideologies only believe in one party?

Answer: Communism and Fascism, or, the left. The right believes the exact opposite.

 

5. Which ideologies believe in strict central planning of a nation's economy?

Answer: Communism and Fascism, or, the left. The right believes the exact opposite.

 

Need I go on? Enough of the stupidity.

 

Perhaps a Fascist is slightly "to the right" of a Communist, but they are both way, way, WAY left of the average American.

[keepthefaith]

In all fairness, the politicians are a refection of society. We are no better than them

 

Speak for yourself.

[Barack Obama]

Let me be clear

 

15th?

How many Presidents have won the Nobel Prize? That alone puts me in the top 4.

[....lybob]

Fascism

 

Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems.

 

Sounds like about 99.9 of republicans and about 80% of Democrats.

[joey greco]

Fascism

 

Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems.

 

Sounds like about 99.9 of republicans and about 80% of Democrats.

 

That's about the worst explanation of the rise of fascism that I've ever seen. Fascism was a movement of the working classes for crissakes, not a reaction to their growing power. That passage in your definition is wholly(and probably willfully) ignorant of history.

 

That's not to mention the sly use of the word "liberal" values. Fascism did not disparage what we would think of today as liberal policies (universal health care, welfare, nanny-statism, etc.), but rather classical liberal values such as individual and natural rights, separation of powers, and the rule of law.

 

Fascism and communism have very few differences. They're basically conjoined twins separated at adolescence who became bitter enemies fighting over the same territory. The idea that they inhabit opposite ends of any ideological or philosophical spectrum is farcical and has no grounding in reality. That scale is simply a propaganda tool created by Stalin and is the rhetorical equivalent of Bush-bad, as in fascist=bad, therefore anything we do is anti-fascist.