Pop Quiz: Name That Spendthrift!

[djAdvocate]

It's a quiz! I present to you the first three years in spending for three recent presidents: Barack Obama, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan. To make it a game, I've removed their names and indexed the spending increases to their first month of office. And I've replaced the dates with integers from 1-10 so you can't guess by looking at the years.

Can you guess which president is which?

President #1


President #2


President #3

[Opti]

I like Dem's reasoning and I forgot when the cost of TARP was realized in Bush's Presidency so I'll guess slightly different.

#1 Bush II
#2 Reagan
#3 Obama

[rockon]

(1) The dates in the bottom right hand corner are a bit of a give away.
(2) If you want to identify a "spendthrift" you will need a none of the above box.
(3) Not sure what the (index) represents but it obviously not (dollars).
(4) Is it the Tea Parties fault that Obama couldn't spend more?

[Waffle]

1. Reagan
2. Bush II
3. Obama

. . . just because.

DJ, when will you be coming back with the answer?



(edited because I spelled Reagan wrong. duh)

[rockon]

At any rate it looks like these charts rank in the following order for the three years shown.
(1) Chart#2 with a 108 (index) average
(2) Chart#3 with a 112
(3) Chart#1 with a 114
Do I win a prize?

[djAdvocate]

Mar 20, 2012 6:26:58 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I will guess that the first one is Reagan, because he presided over a steady build up of the armed forces over his first few years.
The third one should be Obama, because he presided over massive stimulus spending at the outset of his term.
That leaves the second one to be Bush II by default.

you people are too damned smart.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 20, 2012 7:54:43 GMT -5 rockon said:

(1) The dates in the bottom right hand corner are a bit of a give away.

indeed.

(2) If you want to identify a "spendthrift" you will need a none of the above box.

spendthrift means "liberal spender", rockon. you know that, right?

(3) Not sure what the (index) represents but it obviously not (dollars).

yes they are. but they are indexed to the first month in office.

(4) Is it the Tea Parties fault that Obama couldn't spend more?

sure. was it the Democrats fault that Bush couldn't spend more?

[fairlycrazy23]

Consistently shows the federal government can't control its appetite for spending.

[rockon]

I was actually thinking in terms of "thrifty" but you are correct (again) spendthrift refers to reckless spending. So according to this chart based on an index that seems hard to qualify to dollars the worst spender was Bush senior, Obama second and Reagan wins?

[djAdvocate]

Mar 20, 2012 10:05:29 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Consistently shows the federal government can't control its appetite for spending.

ding ding ding! we have a winner!

Obama is a continuation of Bush in terms of spending. McCain would have been a continuation as well. Romney will also be a continuation.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 20, 2012 10:07:14 GMT -5 rockon said:

I was actually thinking in terms of "thrifty" but you are correct (again) spendthrift refers to reckless spending. So according to this chart based on an index that seems hard to qualify to dollars the worst spender was Bush senior, Obama second and Reagan wins?

correct, on a RELATIVE BASIS. in other words "given a baseline of what they inherited, Obama did better than Reagan in terms of spending". the problem, of course, is that his baseline was far higher than either of the men he is being compared to.

the question then becomes: who's fault is that?

[rockon]

Just curious why they left the other two out on the comparison (Bush&Clinton) and why they didn't just show it in real dollars?

[rockon]

"the question then becomes: who's fault is that? "

I'm sticking with my story. It's the voters fault. We continue to allow our government to operate in a manner that will eventually bankrupt our country and will most likely vote in another "bad" president this year while we spend our time squabbling over social issues and justifying their actions by pointing out that they weren't any worse then someone else. We are in a vicious cycle of defending bad actions to protect a party.

[floridayankee]

Mar 20, 2012 10:09:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ding ding ding! we have a winner!

Obama is a continuation of Bush in terms of spending. McCain would have been a continuation as well. Romney will also be a continuation.

It's amazing that hard core D and R voters are completely unable, or unwilling, to see that simple truth. Our current spending levels are completely unsustainable.

[Deleted]

FYI, if you put it in real dollars, it changes who comes in second place. It also makes the increases during the Reagan years not much higher than the other two.

[Deleted]

"It's amazing that hard core D and R voters are completely unable, or unwilling, to see that simple truth. Our current spending levels are completely unsustainable."

We've come a long way from "Ask not, what your country can do for you...." And on the (R) side, the insistence on tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts is not much better.

[Opti]

Mar 20, 2012 10:24:13 GMT -5 rockon said:

"the question then becomes: who's fault is that? "

I'm sticking with my story. It's the voters fault. We continue to allow our government to operate in a manner that will eventually bankrupt our country and will most likely vote in another "bad" president this year while we spend our time squabbling over social issues and justifying their actions by pointing out that they weren't any worse then someone else. We are in a vicious cycle of defending bad actions to protect a party.

I blame the politicians more than the voters. Politics has become a career that's based on knowing how to get financial backing from various companies and donors while satisfying the voters just enough to get re-elected. The only choice that would reign in federal spending is Ron Paul and infortunately he will not win the nomination and therefore will not be elected. All other candidates will hew to the rising spending shown in the graphs. Some more than others, some less, but the split is really not about party lines. Its more about what company/donor dollars are in play and what whoever wins has promised their backers.

[rockon]

"I blame the politicians more than the voters."

The politicians are doing the evil deed but the voters put them there and enable them and defend them time and time again.

[rockon]

Still not sure about the purpose of this thread. Is it supposed to illustrate the three worst spending presidents during their first three years in office of all time?

[djAdvocate]

Mar 20, 2012 11:07:18 GMT -5 rockon said:

Still not sure about the purpose of this thread. Is it supposed to illustrate the three worst spending presidents during their first three years in office of all time?

it illustrates that spending has not "dramatically increased" under Obama, as is often claimed. it also shows that spending "dramatically increased" under Reagan, which is often forgotten. if neither of those facts seem important to you, there are hundreds of other threads to post on.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 20, 2012 10:24:50 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Mar 20, 2012 10:09:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ding ding ding! we have a winner!

Obama is a continuation of Bush in terms of spending. McCain would have been a continuation as well. Romney will also be a continuation.

It's amazing that hard core D and R voters are completely unable, or unwilling, to see that simple truth. Our current spending levels are completely unsustainable.

they are not only unsustainable, but none of the candidates are going to do anything about it. that means trouble, imo.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 20, 2012 10:19:21 GMT -5 rockon said:

Just curious why they left the other two out on the comparison (Bush&Clinton) and why they didn't just show it in real dollars?

the comparison would not be much different in terms of real dollars, except perhaps with Reagan, who was fighting inflation in the early part of his term.

they left the other two out because they are not often discussed when it comes to issues of spending.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 20, 2012 10:40:05 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

FYI, if you put it in real dollars, it changes who comes in second place. It also makes the increases during the Reagan years not much higher than the other two.

true, but he still "wins".

[rockon]

"it illustrates that spending has not "dramatically increased" under Obama, as is often claimed. it also shows that spending "dramatically increased" under Reagan, which is often forgotten. if neither of those facts seem important to you, there are hundreds of other threads to post on."

As usual I seem to have more questions then answers.
This shows that Bush II was the winner, followed by Obama and then Reagan who had the least spending increases of them all?

[djAdvocate]

Mar 20, 2012 11:31:21 GMT -5 rockon said:

"it illustrates that spending has not "dramatically increased" under Obama, as is often claimed. it also shows that spending "dramatically increased" under Reagan, which is often forgotten. if neither of those facts seem important to you, there are hundreds of other threads to post on."

As usual I seem to have more questions then answers.
This shows that Bush II was the winner, followed by Obama and then Reagan who had the least spending increases of them all?

huh? Reagan had the most increases of all, not the least.

[rockon]

So Reagan was the winner, Obama was second worst and Bush was our best president in this analysis??

[djAdvocate]

if you want real terms of spending between day one and day 1000, here they are:

Reagan = 1.28/1.14 = 1.13
BushII = 1.175/1.07 = 1.10
Obama = 1.16/1.06 = 1.09

[djAdvocate]

Mar 20, 2012 11:39:32 GMT -5 rockon said:

So Reagan was the winner, Obama was second worst and Bush was our best president in this analysis??

Reagan was about 1.4 x what Obama and Bush were.
it appears that Obama is slightly "better" (the least worst, if you prefer), but i would rather just say they are "basically the same".

[rockon]

You've completely lost me this time. If I take the average of the 11 points on each chart during this period it shows chart#2 the lowest, chart#3 second and chart#1 the highest. Is chart#3 Obama?

[djAdvocate]

Mar 20, 2012 11:47:17 GMT -5 rockon said:

You've completely lost me this time. If I take the average of the 11 points on each chart during this period it shows chart#2 the lowest, chart#3 second and chart#1 the highest. Is chart#3 Obama?

yes. however, you are measuring the total spending, and i was talking about the increase in spending. in other words, i am looking at the derivative, and you are looking at the integral.

i think there is something else that is important in the graphs, and that is the time rate of change of spending (second derivative). the slope of the graphs is constant under Reagan, accelerating under Bush, and decelerating under Obama. the latter is reason for hope, if you are inclined to such sentiments.