ATS Members Guide to Modern Presidents

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


This is great for wahat it shows - well done. I haven't read through any of the replies, so maybe it's been mentioned, but there's am error somewhere between Clinton & W- Bush with the gold price. Clinton ends at $975, that should be W's starting point. Or Clinton's end point is wrong. Either way, they should match up as the others do.

Well done on the chart / graphic presentation!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I have done similar exercises (charts & graphs) myself. Yes, it is a lot of work.

But then one has to ask: What does it mean?

There are two things that people need to take into consideration when looking at some numbers, especially GDP.

First is the fractional reserve banking system increases GDP, but one has to ask: Is there really an increase in value? Anyone that understands how it works, knows that real value is not created. And the CPI does not show the costs of some basics; like food costs. Why is it that growth is sitting at less that 2 percent, when the Federal Reserve has; through "quantitative easing", printed money of the value of more than 10 percent of GDP?

Second, and perhaps more importantly is: What inventions and technological advances occurred during each Presidency? Many would like to give Reagan credit for the 1980s economic boom, and those that claim this will point to a reduction of income tax levels as their proof. However, is this really why there was a 1980s economic boom? I don't think so. IBM released its first personal computer in 1980. The first Apple was released a few months earlier. The booming economy was the result of introduction of the personal computer. As more businesses gave up their Wangs for the new personal computers, thousands of companies started and millions of jobs were created to support this industry with peripherals, add-on boards, and software. Many of those companies are no longer in business (anybody remember WordStar?)
The early 1960s saw the introduction of relatively cheap modern conveniences, such that the average middle income family could afford. Electric washers and dryers, colored television sets, advances in Hi-Fi electronics, electric skillets, tupperware, cheap sports cars (the Barracuda, Camaro, & Mustang) and hundreds of other products.
The 1990s saw the introduction of the Microsoft Office suite, Windows 3.11, and then Windows 95, and finally Windows XP. It also the introduction of the Pentium processor, mobile phones, and the first generation of the cell phone. Again, jobs were created to support these new innovations, as well as support to upgrade businesses with this technology. Bill Gates may be a jerk, but the Microsoft Office Suite was pure business genius. Companies were spending $500 for a word processor (Word Perfect), $500 for a spreadsheet (Lotus 123), $250 for a presentation program...and Office charged $500 for all three...they weren't as good as the others, BUT they did do the job and with Object Linking and Embedding, they worked together.

These are the real reasons for the economic booms. Thankfully, they occurred DESPITE what the government did or did not do...or what political party was in charge of the executive branch. Let us not forget, that the House of Representatives holds the purse strings of the Federal Government, not the President.

reply to post by dirkpotters


Excellent points dirkpotters, and that's a great compilation of data, wrabbit2000! I do agree with dirkpotters though, the data looks to be well researched and factual, but does not correlate external factors outside of the president's control.

One issue that sticks out to me on a personal note: how has my quality of life been affected by each president? Again, this is probably outside of the control of presidents, but something like.. "how many liberties have been removed" by each president is something that could have a metric. There are many other metrics that could be applied as well, relating to water fluoridation, fracking, oil drilling, chemtrails etc. Many potentially life (planet) threatening business practices are allowed to continue or are introduced under the watch of these presidents as well.

Woot, science. Thank you for this work.

If I get bored later, I might format your data in illustrator to look more modern and clean. Though I want to say this is pretty good if you're claiming to be beginning at it. I'll be sure to keep your name on all slides.

Don't be surprised if you end up on reddit




Also, if you've listed the sources, that would be great!

Bush & Clinton Are Interesting…

Clinton: Taxes were increased by about 4.3%, yet the stock market nearly trebled in value (3301 to 10646) (better growth than under any president) and debt went up barely a quarter.
Under Bush debt doubled, taxes went down, and the stock market fell a 5th!

Bush started on Clintons federal spending of 1862, and left with 3517. Under Obama it has only risen slightly –yet both Obama & Bush make Clinton look decisively right wing (even though he raised taxes).

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Bush & Clinton Are Interesting…

Clinton: Taxes were increased by about 4.3%, yet the stock market nearly trebled in value (3301 to 10646) (better growth than under any president) and debt went up barely a quarter.
Under Bush debt doubled, taxes went down, and the stock market fell a 5th!

Bush started on Clintons federal spending of 1862, and left with 3517. Under Obama it has only risen slightly –yet both Obama & Bush make Clinton look decisively right wing (even though he raised taxes).

Bush also started with 9/11... bit of a qualifier there that should be taken into account I'd think.

Its safe to say that after reagan it went tits up for america !

once bush senior got his slimey hands on the reigns

Wrabbit, this is really quite something. I've researched this type of data, and I cringe to think of the number of man-hours invested to properly source, vet and cite this material.



You should go into web design.

But seriously, nice job. Your son will be proud!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


S & F

Something I noticed is the debt seems to almost closely parallel the GDP.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Funny on that, isn't it? It's almost like a household watching the gross income and spending as close to it as decency would allow. Then we see the numbers all change after 9/11 where appearances and decency don't seem to matter? Now we're over GDP for debt and 2017 will see 20 Trillion in hard debt numbers, going by their overly optimistic estimates in the 2013 Budget numbers.

It's taking me a lot longer because I'm making no typos or mistakes with my budget thread and of course, the amount of materialy is vasty higher...so I don't know when that will be presentable at this point but it'll be a breathtaker and heart breaker to see the real numbers as they have them. It's something we damn sure don't see in any Media charts outside the cherry picked numbers taken off a spreadsheet they'd never want to show as a whole and in full context.

@Chasingbraham

I appreciate your note and comment. I was really unsure how it would be received. I think my biggest fear would be that the time and effort would slip past and get lost in the threads, or worse...It'd slip on past with a few comments about how it all all info anyone could get anyway. lol... We see how bad it can be at times. Given the warm and strong reaction, I'm definitely going to put the work into making more on other topics. It's outstanding practice for my graphics courses and I love that it's useful and interesting for everyone, despite the couple errors from a lack of final proof'ing before thread launch.

Excellent work, sir.

I haven't taken the time to check the numbers, but I trust with all the hours you've obviously put into these that you got your info from some reliable sources.

I agree with dirkpotter on some controversy over GDP estimates in general. Quite a few measurements incorporate some outlandish factors, but that's not a knock against your work by any means.

On a side note about GDP, it's funny how the CBO projects GDP to rise at an average of 2.2% annually from 2012-17(and that's potential GDP/unadjusted for inflation, which I assume would make it less) while the 2013 budget has the gross federal debt rising about $1 trillion each year (well above a 2% increase), yet it's projected to only fluctuate between 77 and 78% of GDP ETA: Hell, even the budget itself projects GDP to grow at a lower annual percentage than the debt, even while they project debt/GDP percentage dropping What a failed attempt at whitewashing the numbers

Anyways, S&F&Applause!

Wrabbit I greatly appreciate you taking the time to make this and the time to post it. You are a huge asset to this site. I'm pretty quite about my membership here, but I know a few folks who would really appreciate this. Handy and well laid out tool!

reply to post by Domo1

Well, I'll tell you, I am not possessive of these graphics. Of course there are the natural legal rights by having created them, but that is what I'm referring to. Drop me a note letting me know you're saving them to pass on and I'm fine. Of course, you might want the versions with the couple factual errors corrected and I'll send them along on request. (I wish there was a way to update the images in the graphics storage...err.)

I'm not free on everything I make, but to be totally honest...aside from the benefit I draw by adding it to my portfolio, what I make for ATS threads isn't about getting something out of it. It's just about presenting facts as best I can confirm them on something and putting it up to share.

S&F for you Wrabbit!! Excellent thread and I know how much work you put into it.

It's a lot of information to take in and I thank you for taking the time to write this up for all of us. I wish I could "Applause" you... (Mods...wink, wink).

I can't possibly think of anything to add that will make your OP any better. Keep up the good work!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Good Morning, fellow members. I am starting this thread as a place to gather and display the basic facts of the modern Presidents.

Why have you used an initial for the middle name of every president except Obama? Seems you want to make a big deal about the fact that his middle name is 'Hussein.' I'm no fan of the guy, but this is very poor form.

I am genuinely shocked at the figures for George Bush Jr. He caused more damage to the USA than any other president in the last 30 years. Debt and unemployment more than doubled under his administration. Simply unreal.

reply to post by Rastafari


It is nearly impossible to compare gas prices during Bush and during Obama.

1) The price is naturally rising due to higher need every year.
2) During Bush era, in June 2008 the prices were over 4$ a gallon national average, in California 4,6$/gallon. These plummeted only because of the market crash in 2008.
3) Obama´s era gas price was lower at the start only because of the economics crisis. It is not his fault that prices are rising, it just shows economy has started to do better, and it is natural that the gas prices are on the rise currently, as these were low only because of the market crash, not Bush´s "good job".

gasbuddy.com...
Look last 10 years gas prices.

reply to post by Cabin


Well, I appreciate your added perspective. As you can see by the layout and how I put the data together, I wasn't looking to delve deep into the context and meaning of each change of number, for every President I profiled. Given that most of the data came from entirely different sources to be put together, which took a great deal of time as it was, there were limits to how in-depth a presentation like this can or even should be. You can go profile, as I had done or full chapters to a book on each, as countless others have done.

I hope the general overview I was able to give for the course and trends over the many years and Presidents was helpful. A thing like this is always a starting, not an end point if someone is more than casually curious though, of course.

reply to post by Sankari

Read a bit closer. Lyndon Baines Johnson got his middle name, too. So Obama wasn't the only one to have a middle name spelled out.

I spelled his out for two reasons. One, it fit, barely...but it fit. John Fitzgerald Kennedy may not have fit quite as nicely. Richard Milhous Nixon may or may not have ..I didn't bother to try. Some didn't even get middle initials, and may have had them to give if I'd delved a little deeper. For the most part, I was on the pages for their Presidential Libraries or similar background when typing that part, so what their official listing was, they got.

The second reason for Obama? It was respect. He is the sitting President, which made him top of the list and worthy of a hair more for something like his name....since it did fit anyway. Little details...and thanks for noticing, anyway.

Facinating.

Going on just the figures Bush jr seems to be the worse president you have had he seems to have caused massive finacial damage