# It's official: President Obama Is The Best Economic President In Modern Times **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 7, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794 "2014-09-07T19:23:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/21 "2014-09-08T16:02:12Z")
> [@](#): > > The hypothesis holds up: more federal spending, other than during massive economic emergencies= stagnation. Spending control= prosperity. No, that would suggest that Democratic congresses would be better for the economy. Republicans spend like drunken sailors when they’re in power. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/22 "2014-09-08T17:14:54Z")
They did in two of those administrations, the bottom two. When a Democrat was President, Republicans did not increase spending much, which gave Democrats a good economic record. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/23 "2014-09-08T18:00:07Z")
Hurray for Obama! One more for the good guys! ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/24 "2014-09-08T19:05:42Z")
It is not at all clear how much credit Obama can take for the improving economy, since it is entirely possible that it would have recovered no matter who was in charge. However I think these results do demonstrate that Republican claims that an Obama presidency would doom the economy was nothing but partisan scare mongering. As far as the Republican congress’s effect, it seems like the economy recovered because of rather than in spite of their efforts. Their main accomplishments seem to be, the sequester, the government shut down, and playing chicken with the debt limit, all of which are pretty much uniformly viewed by economists as having been unhelpful to the economy. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/25 "2014-09-08T19:35:53Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Their main accomplishments seem to be, the sequester, the government shut down, and playing chicken with the debt limit, all of which are pretty much uniformly viewed by economists as having been unhelpful to the economy. You don’t read economists much do you? There is nothing uniform in their analyses. Those that warned of doomsday were wrong, but never admit it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/26 "2014-09-08T19:58:52Z")
The result of their efforts was lower spending. Milton Friedman, an economist who incidentally won a Nobel, said that the true level of taxation is spending. Thus keeping spending low means keeping taxation low, which almost all economists agree promotes economic growth. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/27 "2014-09-08T20:51:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Make an argument. Has the President’s agenda been implemented for the most part, or blocked? If it’s been implemented, then you can plausibly argue that he deserves credit for the improving economy. If it has been blocked, then you can’t. I think a comparison between the economic growth in countries that pursued fiscal austerity and the economic growth of courtries that pursued more keynesian policies is instructive. The fact that Obama didn’t get everything he wanted doesn’t mean that he isn’t responsible for stopping the conservatives from engaging in “leave it alone liquidationism” (see Milton Friedman’s criticism of Austrian economists). How many conservatives were saying that we should just “leave it alone” let the bottom fall out that this would leech the bad stuff out of the economy. Obama pushed Keynesian policies down their throat and even if he didn’t get a public option for Obamacare; or immigration reform; or an assault weapons ban; or all sorts of presidential appointments and nominations. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/28 "2014-09-08T20:54:09Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The result of their efforts was lower spending. Milton Friedman, an economist who incidentally won a Nobel, said that the true level of taxation is spending. Thus keeping spending low means keeping taxation low, which almost all economists agree promotes economic growth. “who incidentally won a Nobel”? Is this an appeal to authority? Do you give all Nobel Prize winners the same level of deference? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/29 "2014-09-08T20:56:02Z")
No, just pointing out that economists are not necessarily united on whether Republican actions have harmed the economy. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/30 "2014-09-08T20:59:14Z")
Then why bring up the fact that he won a Nobel, if that wasn’t an appeal to authority? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/31 "2014-09-08T21:06:08Z")
The original argument that economists agreed on something was the original appeal to authority. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/32 "2014-09-08T21:11:07Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Three of the bottom five featured total control of Congress by Democrats. 4 out of the bottom 5 were Republican presidents. If you’re saying that split governments are good then I would suggest that split governments with a Democratic president do better than split governments with a republican president. And when we look at one party governments, democrats seem to outperform republicans there as well. > [@](#): > > This makes a lot of sense. Congress taxes and spends, which has a big effect on the economy. And Congress taxes and spends less when control is divided or the GOP is in charge. With two notable exceptions being the bottom two: Hoover’s Presidency saw massive increases in taxes and spending, and GWB’s in spending. You are taking the entire universe of Republican controlled government since the great depression and turning them into exceptions, aren’t you. > [@](#): > > The hypothesis holds up: more federal spending, other than during massive economic emergencies= stagnation. Spending control= prosperity. So all that federal spending (mostly deficit spending because he cut taxes too)that reagan presided over? ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/33 "2014-09-08T21:11:17Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > So what is it? Obama is a victim of Republican obstructionists and can’t get his economic agenda through (American Jobs Act- remember this? Lol it was like a bad late night infomercial) or Obama has saved us all by delivering us from economic devastation? > > For example, when the president and media were warning that not extending unemployment benefits would be the end of the world. The mean old Republican obstructionists did not budge. Unemployment went down. Therefore Obama is the “economic president” of our time. Hilarious the lengths propagandists will go. > > Reagan was terrible as well, but that’s because he instituted policies that could be described as military Keynesian or more accurately, supply side Keynesian. He had great laissez faire rhetoric, but was actually terrible from a “good government” and even free market perspective. Just because it’s gone pretty well doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been better. And it would have been if not for the obstructionists. ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/34 "2014-09-08T21:13:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The original argument that economists agreed on something was the original appeal to authority. You’re just trying to squirm out of the fact that you’ve held aloft the prize as something to respect while forgetting that Obama has one as well. Backpedal away! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/35 "2014-09-08T21:17:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 4 out of the bottom 5 were Republican presidents. If you’re saying that split governments are good then I would suggest that split governments with a Democratic president do better than split governments with a republican president. And when we look at one party governments, democrats seem to outperform republicans there as well. I would agree completely. I don’t think you can predict with confidence that it will hold up given the small sample size. Depends on how the parties change, if they realize what worked for them and what didn’t. I believe that Obama goes unwillingly where Clinton went willingly. The result is the same, but Obama wanted to govern much differently. He wanted to spend a shitload more money. He’s consistently asked for $200 billion more each year since the Republicans took over Congress than what they’ve been willing to give him. > [@](#): > > You are taking the entire universe of Republican controlled government since the great depression and turning them into exceptions, aren’t you. Isn’t one of the arguments Democrats gleefully use against Republicans is that they don’t really support small government, that they spend even more than Democrats when they get total control? Well, the evidence for that is solid, as are the economic results. > [@](#): > > So all that federal spending (mostly deficit spending because he cut taxes too)that reagan presided over? Reagan, like Obama, inherited a moribund economy. So if you prefer, he’s also an exception in that he gets too much credit. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/36 "2014-09-08T21:19:01Z")
> [@GrandWino](#): > > You’re just trying to squirm out of the fact that you’ve held aloft the prize as something to respect while forgetting that Obama has one as well. Backpedal away! Oh lord, not even in the same universe. Obama’s Nobel was “aspirational”. However, I will acknowledge that by killing Osama bin Laden he has more than earned his Peace Prize. The world is a much more peaceful place with Osama not in it. I’ll give him bonus points for helping take out Qaddafi too. Reagan was probably cheering from the beyond. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/37 "2014-09-08T21:42:53Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Great. Now try to convince _anyone_ on the right that any part of that is actually true. Come to that, try convincing anybody on the left that the economy is in good shape or even significantly moving in the right direction. Or, come to that, that Reagan was good for the economy (in the longer term), which at least the right will believe (which is why, of course, _Forbes_ says it). ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/38 "2014-09-08T21:44:07Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Oh lord, not even in the same universe. Obama’s Nobel was “aspirational”. However, I will acknowledge that by killing Osama bin Laden he has more than earned his Peace Prize. The world is a much more peaceful place with Osama not in it. I’ll give him bonus points for helping take out Qaddafi too. Reagan was probably cheering from the beyond. Killing people is so pacifist! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/39 "2014-09-08T21:46:56Z")
Peace is only furthered by pacifism if everyone is pacifist. If this is not the case, then as a famous writer said, “pacifism is objectively pro-fascist”. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/40 "2014-09-08T23:42:48Z")
The Nobel Peace Prize is not nearly the same as the Nobel Prize in Economics. That being said, there’s nothing wrong with an appeal to authority if the reference is to an actual authority. Friedman’s claims on economics are stronger than yours. Paul Krugman’s claims on economics are stronger than yours. They are actual authorities in their fields of economics. That doesn’t mean they are always correct, but they are actual authorities. Conversely, Matt Damon is not an authority on fracking. Here is Friedman’s actual quote: > [@](#): > > Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending, because that’s the true tax … If you’re not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes, you’re paying for it indirectly in the form of inflation or in the form of borrowing. It’s paraphrased, _‘the true burden of taxation is whatever government spends.’_ The idea is true in and of itself, and was popularized by his quote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794.md?page=3)