Income inequality: Dem vs GOP admins compared

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Since Obama has been so keen on discussing income inequality lately, figured this was a good time to have a reality check. Of course, Obama has already been called out by numerous and sundry sources lately, but I figured it might be worthwhile to look at the numbers from official government sources.

As you can see from Table A-2 (starting on page 38 of the document linked above), the rate at which income inequality has increased under the last 2 Democratic Presidents (Clinton and Obama to date) is ten times the rate of the last 2 Republican Presidents (the two Bushes) as shown by the increase of GINI coefficients during their terms of +0.21 vs. +0.02. If you compare instead the last 3 Presidents of each party by adding in Reagan and Carter to the mix, the rates are identical (+0.22). So when you hear a Democrat speaking about how rising income inequality is a bad thing™, you can start asking perceptive questions. Like why the rate has gone up increasinly under each recent new Democratic President while it's gone down increasingly under each recent new Republican President.

For your convenience I have cut-n-pasted the relevant numbers below and totalled each set. For simplicity sake, I used the following assumptions:

(a) Each President's term is considered to begin in the year he was inaugurated and end in the year when his replacement was elected (e.g. Bush II would be shown as 2001-2008)

(b) Obama's end value is shown as most recently available figure (2011)

(c) Nixon/Ford are considered a single Presidency.

President name / Gini index of income inequality for first and final year of admin / Difference
Obama (2009-present): 0.468 / 0.477 / +0.09
G.W. Bush (2001-2008): 0.466 / 0.466 / unchanged
Clinton (1993-2000): 0.454 / 0.462 / +0.12
G.H.W. Bush (1989-1992): 0.431 / 0.433 / +0.02
Reagan (1981-1988): 0.406 / 0.426 / +0.20
Carter (1977-1980): 0.402 / 0.403 / +0.01
Nixon/Ford (1969-1976): 0.391 / 0.398 / +0.07
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,278
32,853
136
Wouldn't you need to look at policies passed and who passed them? I only ask because if I said the economy did well under Clinton I'm sure you would be all too happy to tell me why that should be attributed to the Republican Congress he enjoyed. Also, if I am reading your table right, it looks like it went up the most under Reagan
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Wouldn't you need to look at policies passed and who passed them? I only ask because if I said the economy did well under Clinton I'm sure you would be all too happy to tell me why that should be attributed to the Republican Congress he enjoyed. Also, if I am reading your table right, it looks like it went up the most under Reagan

Agreed, my post did not examine the things you mentioned and my post let the numbers speak for themselves. If someone else wants to address those other factors that may be in play (Republican vs. Democrat Congress, economic cycles, etc) hat's fine and may lead to some good discussions.

No argument on Reagan being highest - I wasn't surprised by that although I did not realize that it didn't increase at all under Dubya and would have never guessed that in a million years.
 

dawheat

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
3,132
93
91
Agreed, my post did not examine the things you mentioned and my post let the numbers speak for themselves. If someone else wants to address those other factors that may be in play (Republican vs. Democrat Congress, economic cycles, etc) hat's fine and may lead to some good discussions.

No argument on Reagan being highest - I wasn't surprised by that although I did not realize that it didn't increase at all under Dubya and would have never guessed that in a million years.

So basically this seems to point that when the economy gets better, the wealthy fare better.

GHB left as a recession was winding down, impacting Clinton's value. GWB left during one of the greatest losses of equity in history, impacting Obama's value.

It's certainly not dishonest to try to track beginning and end, but tiny sample sizes without context is useless. The US economy is far too complex to try to boil it down to two dates in time.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
What did Clinton actually do? He did nothing and changed almost nothing during his entire time as president. It was the Republicans that forced him to sign welfare reform, while he did nothing. Maybe that is the key, just stick with status quo and do nothing and you will be a success. The world is better without change. Clinton did pass one of the largest tax increases and then cut all the money out of the military budget.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
12,031
1,131
126
What did Clinton actually do? He did nothing and changed almost nothing during his entire time as president. It was the Republicans that forced him to sign welfare reform, while he did nothing. Maybe that is the key, just stick with status quo and do nothing and you will be a success. The world is better without change. Clinton did pass one of the largest tax increases and then cut all the money out of the military budget.

Really? And at what point of in history would you have liked to freeze the world?
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
What did Clinton actually do? He did nothing and changed almost nothing during his entire time as president. It was the Republicans that forced him to sign welfare reform, while he did nothing. Maybe that is the key, just stick with status quo and do nothing and you will be a success. The world is better without change. Clinton did pass one of the largest tax increases and then cut all the money out of the military budget.

He was president during the dot com BOOM. Which automatically makes him an excellent president because all he had to do was twiddle his thumbs as the economy boomed. Plus he got a BJ too - hard worker... very hard worker...
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,278
32,853
136
What did Clinton actually do? He did nothing and changed almost nothing during his entire time as president. It was the Republicans that forced him to sign welfare reform, while he did nothing. Maybe that is the key, just stick with status quo and do nothing and you will be a success. The world is better without change. Clinton did pass one of the largest tax increases and then cut all the money out of the military budget.
It's nice to see you refute your own points so we don't have to do it for you. :thumbsup:
 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,305
0
76
He was president during the dot com BOOM. Which automatically makes him an excellent president because all he had to do was twiddle his thumbs as the economy boomed. Plus he got a BJ too - hard worker... very hard worker...

and when the dot com bubble burst. i was fresh in IT when that happened. 1999 was a tough year.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Economy good when Bush takes office, crashes at end. Net neutral. Economy bad when Obama takes office, starts to get better four years later, net positive. Seems to make sense - is this supposed to be a bad thing? Seems like a reflection on the economy and we know the rich and their investments swing more up and down than the poor and their nothing.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Doesn't make a difference to me. It's silly to attribute something so complex as income inequality to the occupant of the oval office.

If a president has only minor effects on the economy, I'd wager his effects on income inequality are less yet.
 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,305
0
76
Economy good when Bush takes office, crashes at end. Net neutral. Economy bad when Obama takes office, starts to get better four years later, net positive. Seems to make sense - is this supposed to be a bad thing? Seems like a reflection on the economy and we know the rich and their investments swing more up and down than the poor and their nothing.

The country was in a recession when Bush took office.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
What did Clinton actually do? He did nothing and changed almost nothing during his entire time as president. It was the Republicans that forced him to sign welfare reform, while he did nothing. Maybe that is the key, just stick with status quo and do nothing and you will be a success. The world is better without change. Clinton did pass one of the largest tax increases and then cut all the money out of the military budget.

Yeah youre right. The largest tax increase. Repeal of Glass-Steagall. The Community Reinvestment Act. Deregulation of derivatives. Pressuring Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to extend loans to those with a higher credit risk.

Yeah he sure did nothing.
 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,305
0
76
No, not really. Just the end of the longest expansion, but there was no recession when Bush took office.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/stock-market

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=224145

http://www.stockpickssystem.com/2000-stock-market-crash/

nasdaq-bubble.gif



The bubble bursts
The technology-heavy NASDAQ Composite index peaked at 5,048 in March 2000, reflecting the high point of the dot-com bubble.

Over 1999 and early 2000, the U.S. Federal Reserve increased interest rates six times,[9] and the economy began to lose speed. The dot-com bubble burst, numerically, on Friday, March 10, 2000, when the technology heavy NASDAQ Composite index, peaked at 5,048.62 (intra-day peak 5,132.52), more than double its value just a year before.[10] The NASDAQ fell slightly after that, but this was attributed to correction by most market analysts; the actual reversal and subsequent bear market may have been triggered by the adverse findings of fact in the United States v. Microsoft case which was being heard in federal court.[citation needed] The findings, which declared Microsoft a monopoly, were widely expected in the weeks before their release on April 3.[citation needed] The following day, April 4, the NASDAQ fell from 4,283 points to 3,649 and rebounded back to 4,223, forming an intraday chart that looked like a stretched V.

On March 20, 2000, after the NASDAQ had lost more than 10 percent from its peak, financial magazine Barron's shocked the market with its cover story "Burning Up". Sean Parker stated: "During the next 12 months, scores of highflying Internet upstarts will have used up all their cash. If they can't scare up any more, they may be in for a savage shakeout. An exclusive survey of the likely losers." The article pointed out: "America's 371 publicly traded Internet companies have grown to the point that they are collectively valued at $1.3 trillion, which amounts to about 8% of the entire U.S. stock market."[11]

By 2001, the bubble was deflating at full speed. A majority of the dot-coms ceased trading after burning through their venture capital, many having never made a ″net″ profit. Investors often referred to these failed dot-coms as "dot-bombs
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
So there was a recession in January 2001? I don't care about the NASDAQ and the bubble, you said we were in a recession.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
The biggest source of income, once you hit a certain wealth level, is investment earnings.

When the economy does well, you earn more on your investments. If you simply consider good economy = higher GINI, bad economy = lower GINI, I think you'll see that result based on the years you're using.

Controlling for the economy is essential if you're going to make any kind of statement about the effect a specific president has on income inequality.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Doesn't make a difference to me. It's silly to attribute something so complex as income inequality to the occupant of the oval office.

If a president has only minor effects on the economy, I'd wager his effects on income inequality are less yet.

This. Income inequality started right around 1970 right when we started running trade deficits.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Wouldn't you need to look at policies passed and who passed them? I only ask because if I said the economy did well under Clinton I'm sure you would be all too happy to tell me why that should be attributed to the Republican Congress he enjoyed. Also, if I am reading your table right, it looks like it went up the most under Reagan

Which was a direct benefit of coming out of major recession. ;)
 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,305
0
76
Yeah it last a whole 8 months with a .3% dip to the GDP. :eek:():)

one bubble to another. we're going to run out of bubbles eventually. maybe one day you will turn off your partisan blinders.
the people saying bush inherited a pristine economy and crashed it in one month sound as stupid as the people saying obama crashed the economy as soon as he entered office.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
one bubble to another. we're going to run out of bubbles eventually. maybe one day you will turn off your partisan blinders.
the people saying bush inherited a pristine economy and crashed it in one month sound as stupid as the people saying obama crashed the economy as soon as he entered office.

I never said Bush fucked over the economy in one month it actually to him around 6 years to do it but he had help from Clinton tho by signing in the Republican sponsored bill to repeal Glass-Steagall.
 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,305
0
76
I never said Bush fucked over the economy in one month it actually to him around 6 years to do it but he had help from Clinton tho by signing in the Republican sponsored bill to repeal Glass-Steagall.

that was directed at someone else in this thread. And I agree with you about bush. You're also a partisan hack. :p
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
I never said Bush fucked over the economy in one month it actually to him around 6 years to do it but he had help from Clinton tho by signing in the Republican sponsored bill to repeal Glass-Steagall.

Yes, it was a Republican who wrote the bill, but at the time it had bipartisan support (it passed the house 343-86), including prodding by Clinton. In fact, Clinton himself doesnt even blame the Republicans on this one and as noted here:
On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans].[/url]

I understand you want to blame the majority of all the bad things on the GOP, but you look foolish doing so.