There are real answers for the economy, but they are anathema to “progressives.”

Remember, “It Could Have Been Worse” isn’t a very good campaign slogan.

I think the primary point of the original article, that more government spending isn’t really the answer to either jobs or debt, stands.

Obama’s numbers at the bottom aren’t all there yet. He hasn’t completed his first term. But the debt/GDP estimates given in his own budget document for 2013 is 106 percent. If we completed that table based on Obama’s own estimates, that’s a plus 22.6 percent.

Source (excel file)

Of course, unlike all those other presidents, Obama is doing this for good and proper reasons.

I should also remind everyone that Obama’s future budget estimates include major tax increases.

It is worth noting that these figures do not include unfunded obligations. The U.S. government is committed under current law to mandatory payments for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The 2009 present value of these deficits or unfunded obligations is an estimated $45.8 trillion. This is the amount that would have to be set aside during 2009 such that the principal and interest would pay for the unfunded commitments through 2084. Approximately $7.7 trillion relates to Social Security, while $38.2 trillion relates to Medicare and Medicaid. Adding this to the national debt and other federal commitments brings the total obligations to nearly $62 trillion.[6] However, these amounts are excluded from the national debt computation. To fully analyze the effect of each presidential term on the real debt, one would need to examine when various unfunded obligations were incurred.

Suddenly LBJ doesn’t look so good, does he? Or anyone else who created or increased the current entitlement system.

“Economist Mike Kimel notes that the last five Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness. Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and “old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)” on one hand (decreasing debt), and “new-style Republicans” on the other (increasing debt). Similarly, Republican David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, as op-ed contributor to the New York Times blamed the “ideological tax-cutters” of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

(Lots of graphs, tables and footnotes on that site).)

The only exception to the trend has been Obama, but he is deliberately using deficit spending to pull us out of a recession, as he promised he would during his campaign. Whether its the way to go about it, or whether he succeeds or not, is a valid matter for debate, and for history to decide. But at least its not because he wants to give his pals a tax break.