Evan C. Hackney

Huda S. Al-Sammarraie

Hsin-Ta Tsai

Brenda E. Wamala

Professor Manamperi

Economics 332

3 December 2013

A Policy Analysis on the Macroeconomic Performances in the United States under Three

Presidents: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is by far the most embraced indicator of a nation’s level

of wealth. The changes in GDP over time often give people an idea of how well developed a

nation is, given it is often implied that with greater wealth comes better living standards. GDP as

an economic indicator offers a picture that is aggregate; therefore, in this paper, we compare and

contrast the differences in the GDP change during the terms of President Bill Clinton, George W.

Bush, and Barack Obama. More specifically, we will investigate and analyze governmental

policies and macroeconomic performance under these presidents using selected economic

indicators that demonstrate major changes in the economy. These indicators include total public

debt (government deficit) measured in billions, real gross private domestic investment measured

in billions, real personal consumption expenditure measured in billions, consumer price index for

all urban consumers (CPI), and the effective Federal funds rate (interest rates). Furthermore, we

will also analyze how strongly these indicators are correlated with GDP and also with each other.

First of all, retrieving data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis under the U.S.

Department of Commerce (fig 1.), we obtain the quarterly GDP percent change based on current

U.S. dollars from the year of 1993, when President Bill Clinton was in office, to present. Bearing

the graph in mind, we begin our analyses chronologically and began with President Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton

The first President this paper will discuss is Bill Clinton, who assumed office from the

year of 1993 to 2001. Clinton campaigned on

the economic platform of balancing the

budget, lowering inflation, lowering

unemployment, and continuing the

traditionally conservative policies of free trade

(Pear).

Monetary policies-wide, Clinton had

economist Alan Greenspan as the Chair of the

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

19

93

q1

19

93

q4

19

94

q3

19

95

q2

19

96

q1

19

96

q4

19

97

q3

19

98

q2

19

99

q1

19

99

q4

20

00

q3

20

01

q2

20

02

q1

20

02

q4

20

03

q3

20

04

q2

20

05

q1

20

05

q4

20

06

q3

20

07

q2

20

08

q1

20

08

q4

20

09

q3

20

10

q2

20

11

q1

20

11

q4

20

12

q3

20

13

q2

fig 1. Quarterly GDP percent change based on current dollars

Figure 3: United States Balance of Trade

Figure 2: CPI Trend

Federal Reserve’s board of governors throughout his presidency; he also appointed two widely

considered “moderate advocates of tight money", Alice Rivlin and Laurence Meyer (Burns and

Taylor). The effect of this policy of appointing tight money proponents to the Fed was that the

CPI never went above 5 percent during the Clinton presidency (1993-2001) (Figure 2). This

strategy also lead to a huge growth in the Dow Jones Industrial Average from 3255.99 in January

1993 to 11500 in early 2000 (Burns and Taylor). However it may also have contributed to the

expanding of our trade deficit. From 1996 to 2000, there was a steady growth of the trade deficit

from -$100 billion to an all-time low at the time of nearly -$400 billion (See Figure 3).

For macroeconomic policies during Bill Clinton’s presidency, they can best be looked at

through three main categories: gross domestic product (GDP), inflation rates, and unemployment

rates. The first factor we will examine will be the GDP.

Bill Clinton inherited from his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, a deficit of 4.7% of GDP

(Bartlett). Although the deficit was not a large priority in Clinton’s initial macroeconomic policy,

he made its reduction a higher priority later in his term (Burns and Taylor). Among many parts of

Clinton’s policy to lower the deficit, he allowed for the passing of laws that raised the money in

the US Treasury (Burns and Taylor). Clinton also cut federal spending and also raised taxes on

the wealthy to lower the deficit (Bartlett).

The pursuit of low inflation rates was another large aspect to Bill Clinton’s

macroeconomic policies. He, unlike most other post-war Democrats, worked to keep the inflation

rates low, and succeeded (Burns and Taylor). The mean inflation rates of Bill Clinton were at

2.3% (Burns and Taylor).

Lower unemployment rates were another large part of Clinton’s macroeconomic policies.

Many argue that Clinton cost many Americans jobs because he supported free trade, which some

argue caused the U.S. to lose jobs to countries like China (Burns and Taylor). Even if Clinton did

cost Americans some jobs because of free trade support, he allowed for more jobs than were lost

because the unemployment rate of his presidency, and especially his second term, were the lowest

they had been in thirty years (Burns and Taylor).

Finally, we should discuss the macroeconomic effects. Clinton took the deficit of 4.7% of

GDP in 1992 and turned it into a surplus of 2.4% of GDP in 2000 (Bootle). Federal spending fell

to 18.4 percent of GDP. In 2000 from 22.2 percent in 1992 (Cline). Although Clinton raised taxes

in 1993, he cut them in 1997 (Bartlett). Clinton also lowered inflation rates down to 2.3%

(Bartlett). His lowering of interest rates contributed greatly to the good economic health exhibited

during Clinton’s presidency (Bartlett). Furthermore, Bill Clinton’s policies achieved a thirty year

low in April 2000 with an unemployment rate of 3.9% (Burns and Taylor). However, Clinton did

receive notable criticism.

Clinton has been heavily criticized for overseeing the creation of the North American

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which made it more affordable for manufacturing companies to

outsource jobs to foreign countries and then import their product back to the United States

(Teslik). This policy caused a significant decrease in the amount of unskilled jobs in the United

States (Teslik). Some liberals and progressives believe that Clinton did not do enough to reverse

the trends toward widening income and wealth inequality that began in the late 1970s and 1980s.

The top marginal income tax rate for high-income individuals (the top 1.2% of earners) was 70

percent in 1980, then lowered to 28 percent in 1986 by Reagan; Clinton raised it back to 39.6

percent, but it remained far below pre-Reagan levels (Piketty and Saez).

George W. Bush

Later from the year of 2001 to 2009, the incumbent president was George W. Bush. In

this portion of the essay we will be examining President George W. Bush based upon the

governmental policies that were enacted during his presidency, and also the effects these policies

had on the economy as a whole. The economic indicators that will be analyzed during the Bush

Administration Era are Gross Domestic Product (GDP), governmental spending, investment

(factories, equipment, inventories and housing), consumption of goods and services, tax rate,

Consumer Price Index (CPI), interest rate and unemployment rate.

To get a better understanding of the health of the economy during the presidency of

George W. Bush, we need to better explain the government policy that was used by his

administration. When George W. Bush took office in January of 2001, the United States was in a

recession caused by the Y2K economic scare. To battle this, President Bush enacted his first set

of tax cuts that were designed to try and create an economic boom by providing U. S. citizens

with lower tax debt. “To address the 2001 recession, President Bush launched tax cuts. The first

tax rebate, EGTRRA, was designed to jumpstart consumer spending. Checks were mailed to

households in August 2001” (Amadeo). This tax cut saved citizens an estimated $1.35 trillion

over the ten year span that the tax cut was in effect. (Amadeo) This governmental policy might

have been more effective if not for the September 11th terrorist attacks on that United States.

After the September 11th attacks the United States economy took an initial hit due to the closing

of the stock market for a short period of time. This created a major overall drop in the stock

market which could have been recovered from if not for the decision of President George W.

Bush to start the War on Terror Campaign. This war cost the U.S., “By the end of Bush's term in

office, the War on Terror cost $864.82 billion” (Amadeo). The final governmental policy that the

Bush administration used to try and boost the economy out of the impending recession fueled by

both the Y2K scare, and the September 11th attacks was the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief

Reconciliation Act of 2003. The idea behind this act was in order to create more jobs to boost the

economy, business’s needed a relief from investment taxes to free up money for increased

employment. Both major government policies that were enacted under George W. Bush were

designed to help bring the United States economy out of recession by the use of tax relief. Neither

policy seemed to boost the economy during his presidency, and can be seen in the further

investigation of the economic indicators throughout the rest of this portion. (Amadeo).

The first economic indicator that will be analyzed based upon economic data from the

Bush Era is Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. GDP is very important when analyzing a country’s

economic performance because it is viewed as the single most important factor that looks at a

country’s economic health. When President Bush took office on January 20, 2001 the United

States GDP was $36,930.76 million. Barring the economic recession that the country was in at the

time, as previously mentioned George W. Bush used personal tax cut government policy to try

and boost the economy. By the end of 2001, the United States GDP was at $37,258.35 million.

This was a very low increase based upon the growth rate of previous years, and did not show an

economic boost. By the end of President Bush’s presidency the United States GDP had increased

from the initial level previously mentioned to $47,612.92 in the final quarter to be analyzed

(bls.gov).

The next economic indicator to be considered in the performance of the United States

economy is governmental spending during this time frame. When George W. Bush took office the

United States budget was in the positive with a balance of $128.2 billion. Considering the 2001

recession, which led to the initial tax cuts approved by President Bush the budget was pushed into

a deficit of negative $157.8 billion by the end of 2002. Also affecting this ever increasing budget

balance was the increased defense spending on the new War on Terror that the United States

entered under President Bush. Directly relating to this deficit was also the previously mentioned

second set of tax cuts enacted by Bush to relief financial pressure from businesses. Both sets of

tax cuts, and the increase in government spending eventually led to the staggering budget deficit

of negative $458.6 billion by the end of President Bush’s presidency (bea.gov).

The next economic indicator to be analyzed during the Bush Era is the level of

investments that were being made in the United States at this time. During the first quarter of

Bush’s Presidency government investment spending was $163,500 million. By the end of his

presidency the government spending related directly to investments was at $285,652 million. This

shows in positive increase in the government’s efforts to produce capital. Directly relating to this

economic factor is the factor of consumption of goods and services by the United States. This

economic factor is looked at to show the amount spent in the economy on the available goods and

services. During the first quarter of the Bush’s presidency the total spent on goods and services

was $8332 billion. Throughout the duration of his presidency this number fluctuated regularly

due to the economic uncertainty of the country. Only during the first quarter of his presidency did

the number drop below the previous total, showing that even during such uncertain times the

United States was still spending. The ending total of President Bush’s presidency was $9834.3

billion. An increase of $1502.3 billion in consumption (bea.gov).

The tax rate, or Federal Funds Rate during Bush’s presidency was an indication of the

economic turmoil of this time period. When Bush took office the Federal Funds rate was at

4.33%. This shows that the Federal government was not purchasing securities to promote lending.

With the event that’s occurred in the early portion of Bush’s presidency, by April of 2004 the rate

had dropped to its lowest level of the presidency of 1.00%. This showed that the banks were not

lending, and the economy was struggling. There was an increase in the rate back up to 5.26% in

January of 2007, but it then dropped off dramatically to 0.51% by the end of his presidency

showing economic weakness (bls.gov).

The next indicator to be analyzed is the Consumer Price Index. The CPI, or the inflation

rate during this presidency shows an ever increasing inflation rate in the economy barring the

recession during 2001-2002. At the beginning of his presidency the CPI was 177.133, this

number fell marginally during the initial portion of the recession, but then continued to climb to

213.849 by the end of the Bush Era.

The last economic indicator to be analyzed in this portion is the unemployment rate

during this era. At the beginning of Bush’s presidency the rate was 4.2%. This is close to the ideal

level of unemployment. By the end of his presidency the unemployment rate had reached 7.3%. A

number that left millions unemployed, and showed financial and economic trouble for the United

States (bls.gov).

Barack Obama

Our last President who assumed office since 2009 was Barack Obama. Under the Obama

administration, the United States economy was slowly recovering from the 2008 financial crisis.

In 2009, the U.S. Congress and Obama passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

(ARRA), which was a $787 billion package that included a $286 billion tax cut and a $501 billion

spending rise that increased the U.S. real GDP in the following years (Elwell).

In terms of investment spending, on average, investment spending represents the third

largest component of aggregate spending. It is also very sensitive to economic conditions and is

considered more volatile than consumer spending. This is due to its being postponeable, i.e.

people can always delay investment projects to when the economic conditions are better (Elwell).

Investment represented an economic growth when it has risen during the economic recovery in

years 2010, 2011, and 2012 when real GDP increased to 12.7%, 13.5%, and 14% consecutively

(Elwell). Investment has increased under Obama’s administration from approximately $2000,000

billion in January 2009 to almost $2600,000 billion in July 2013.

CPI increased Under Obama’s administration by 10% as a result of an increase in oil

prices, as well as other commodity prices. This rise, however, is not permanent and it does not

generate any inflationary pressure on the economy because it only involves food and energy

prices (Elwell). On the other hand, other indicators that affect inflation immensely remained

fairly stable, such as wages, productions costs, and yields on long-term securities which influence

the longer term inflationary expectations.

Government deficit went down to its smallest annual budget due to the reduction in

government spending and increasing the tax revenue. The national deficit increased by $750

billion in 2013, which is comparatively small compared to the increased in the previous year,

which reached $1.16 trillion. This shows an improvement in the fiscal policy under Obama’s

administration (Hicks).

Since 2009, interest rate has remained fairly stable yet had slight fluctuations. From 2009

to early 2010, interest rate fell to 11% while it increased drastically to 20% in April 2010. It then

fell down gradually until it reached 7% in October 2011 and was followed by slight fluctuations

between 8% and 16%. These fluctuations are caused by three main economic indicators: Gross

Domestic Product, Inflation (CPI), and the Unemployment Rate.

As for consumer spending, the rise in oil prices from October 2011 through April 2012

by 30% had a major impact on household budgets and led to a reduction in consumer spending in

that period. This is due to the fact that the demand for energy is inelastic, and hence, when

consumers spend more on energy, they are likely to spend less on other commodity, which

consequently slows down the economy (Elwell). As soon as the oil prices went down in April

2012, the economic growth started recovering as the consumer spending increased from around

$9,863 billion in July 2009 to $10,732 billion in July 2013.

Correlation Analysis

This part of the paper includes a simple correlation analysis between real GDP and the

five economic indicators and among the indicators themselves. Made possible by the data tool

provided in Excel, the correlation results show how strongly correlated each indicators are with

one another, with 1 being perfectly correlated and 0 being perfectly uncorrelated. The level of

correlation also reveals growth trends, negatively or positively, of all variables compared.

First, we look at the correlation result during Clinton Administration:

GDP Consumption CPI Investment Deficit Interest

Rate

GDP 1 Consumption 0.997342 1

CPI 0.988595 0.985297915 1 Investment 0.995135 0.987355891 0.977126 1

Deficit 0.94301 0.925169348 0.960943 0.9439488 1 Interest Rate 0.642066 0.630206745 0.708911 0.6328619 0.732569 1

Table 1: Correlation Result during Clinton Administration

As the table shows, total public debt (government deficit), real gross private domestic investment,

real personal consumption expenditure, and consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI)

are all highly (almost perfectly) and positively correlated with GDP. Only the effective Federal

funds rate (interest rates) shows moderate level of correlation with GDP. These relationships are

shown in figure 4, 5, and 6, where the growth trend lines of total public debt (government deficit),

real gross private domestic investment, real personal consumption expenditure, and consumer

price index for all urban consumers (CPI) (placed in a separate graph because of different units of

measurement) move consistently with the GDP growth trend line. In a separate graph, figure 6

0.0

2000.0

4000.0

6000.0

8000.0

10000.0

12000.0

14000.0

19

93

-01

-01

19

93

-08

-01

19

94

-03

-01

19

94

-10

-01

19

95

-05

-01

19

95

-12

-01

19

96

-07

-01

19

97

-02

-01

19

97

-09

-01

19

98

-04

-01

19

98

-11

-01

19

99

-06

-01

20

00

-01

-01

20

00

-08

-01

DO

LLA

RS

IN B

ILLI

ON

TIME (QUARTERLY)

Figure 4: Growth Trend of GDP, Consumption, Investment, and Deficit

GDP

Real Personal ConsumptionExpenditures in billions

Investment in billions

Total Public Debt in billions

Linear (GDP)

shows how the Effective Fed Funds Rate (Interest Rates) exhibits a correlation with GDP that is

only moderate.

0.000

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

180.000

200.0001

99

3-0

1-0

1

19

93

-05

-01

19

93

-09

-01

19

94

-01

-01

19

94

-05

-01

19

94

-09

-01

19

95

-01

-01

19

95

-05

-01

19

95

-09

-01

19

96

-01

-01

19

96

-05

-01

19

96

-09

-01

19

97

-01

-01

19

97

-05

-01

19

97

-09

-01

19

98

-01

-01

19

98

-05

-01

19

98

-09

-01

19

99

-01

-01

19

99

-05

-01

19

99

-09

-01

20

00

-01

-01

20

00

-05

-01

20

00

-09

-01

20

01

-01

-01

CP

I

TIME (QUARTERLY)

fig.5 Growth Trend of CPI

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

19

93

-01

-01

19

93

-05

-01

19

93

-09

-01

19

94

-01

-01

19

94

-05

-01

19

94

-09

-01

19

95

-01

-01

19

95

-05

-01

19

95

-09

-01

19

96

-01

-01

19

96

-05

-01

19

96

-09

-01

19

97

-01

-01

19

97

-05

-01

19

97

-09

-01

19

98

-01

-01

19

98

-05

-01

19

98

-09

-01

19

99

-01

-01

19

99

-05

-01

19

99

-09

-01

20

00

-01

-01

20

00

-05

-01

20

00

-09

-01

20

01

-01

-01

PER

CEN

TAG

E

TIME (QUARTERLY)

fig. 6 Growth Trend of Effective Federal Funds Rate

Secondly, we have the correlation result during Bush administration:

GDP Consumption CPI Investment Deficit Interest

Rate

GDP 1 Consumption 0.994311 1

CPI 0.949861 0.964255649 1 Investment 0.66051 0.59684497 0.413468 1

Deficit 0.904111 0.931875605 0.972482 0.304946 1 Interest Rate 0.35199 0.309229251 0.213048 0.634348 0.093318 1

Table 2: Correlation Result during Bush Administration

According to the

table, total public

debt (government

deficit), real

personal

consumption

expenditure, and

consumer price

index for all urban

consumers (CPI) are

all highly and almost

perfectly correlated with GDP. However, real gross private domestic investment went from

highly-correlated during Clinton time to moderately-correlated during Bush time. The effective

Federal funds rate (interest rates) demonstrates a weak correlation with GDP this time. These

correlations are shown in figure 7, 8, and 9, where the growth trend lines of total public debt

(government deficit), real personal consumption expenditure, and consumer price index for all

urban consumers (CPI) (placed in a separate graph because of different units of measurement)

move consistently with the GDP growth trend line. However, the graph also shows that real gross

private domestic investment exhibits less consistency. In a separate graph, figure 9 shows how the

0.0

2000.0

4000.0

6000.0

8000.0

10000.0

12000.0

14000.0

16000.0

20

01

-01

-01

20

01

-10

-01

20

02

-07

-01

20

03

-04

-01

20

04

-01

-01

20

04

-10

-01

20

05

-07

-01

20

06

-04

-01

20

07

-01

-01

20

07

-10

-01

20

08

-07

-01

BIL

LIO

NS

OF

DO

LLA

RS

TIME (QUARTERLY)

fig. 7 Growth Trend of GDP, Consumption, investment, and deficit

GDP

Real PersonalConsumptionExpenditures in billions

Investment in billions

Total Public Debt inbillions

Linear (GDP)

Effective Fed Funds Rate (Interest Rates) demonstrates a correlation with GDP that is only

moderate.

0.000

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

20

01

-01

-01

20

01

-06

-01

20

01

-11

-01

20

02

-04

-01

20

02

-09

-01

20

03

-02

-01

20

03

-07

-01

20

03

-12

-01

20

04

-05

-01

20

04

-10

-01

20

05

-03

-01

20

05

-08

-01

20

06

-01

-01

20

06

-06

-01

20

06

-11

-01

20

07

-04

-01

20

07

-09

-01

20

08

-02

-01

20

08

-07

-01

20

08

-12

-01

CP

I

TIME (QUARTERLY)

fig.8 growth trend of CPI

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

20

01

-01

-01

20

01

-06

-01

20

01

-11

-01

20

02

-04

-01

20

02

-09

-01

20

03

-02

-01

20

03

-07

-01

20

03

-12

-01

20

04

-05

-01

20

04

-10

-01

20

05

-03

-01

20

05

-08

-01

20

06

-01

-01

20

06

-06

-01

20

06

-11

-01

20

07

-04

-01

20

07

-09

-01

20

08

-02

-01

20

08

-07

-01

20

08

-12

-01

EFFE

CTI

VE

FED

ERA

L FU

ND

S R

ATE

TIME (QUARTERLY)

fig. 9 growth trend of Effective Federal Funds Rate

The last correlation result we have is during the on-going Obama administration:

GDP Consumption CPI Investment Deficit Interest

Rate

GDP 1 Consumption 0.991938 1

CPI 0.980581 0.985458044 1 Investment 0.984197 0.965635613 0.945743 1

Deficit 0.991806 0.98864962 0.984669 0.96900854 1

Interest Rate -0.37636 -

0.389908137 -0.50036 -

0.36502204 -

0.39538 1

According to the

table, total public

debt (government

deficit), real

personal

consumption

expenditure, real

gross private

domestic

investment, and

consumer price

index for all urban consumers (CPI) are all highly and, again, almost perfectly correlated with

GDP. The result also shows that the effective Federal funds rate (interest rates) has a weak and

negative correlation with GDP during Obama’s time. These correlations are shown in figure 10,

11, and 12, where the growth trend lines of total public debt (government deficit), real personal

consumption expenditure, real gross private domestic investment, and consumer price index for

all urban consumers (CPI) (placed in a separate graph because of different units of measurement)

move consistently with the GDP growth trend line. In a separate graph, figure 12 shows how the

0.0

2000.0

4000.0

6000.0

8000.0

10000.0

12000.0

14000.0

16000.0

18000.0

20

09

-01

-01

20

09

-05

-01

20

09

-09

-01

20

10

-01

-01

20

10

-05

-01

20

10

-09

-01

20

11

-01

-01

20

11

-05

-01

20

11

-09

-01

20

12

-01

-01

20

12

-05

-01

20

12

-09

-01

20

13

-01

-01

fig.10 Growth Trend of GDP, Consumption, Investment, and

Deficit

GDP

Real Personal ConsumptionExpenditures in billions

Investment in billions

Total Public Debt in billions

Effective Fed Funds Rate (Interest Rates) demonstrates a correlation with GDP that is weak and

negative.

Conclusion

With all the policy analyses and data analyses, we see clear differences of

macroeconomic performance across these three presidents. However, this paper is not presented

in an attempt to judge a particular president or to show favoritism towards one over the other two.

It is imperative to notice that “[normal] economic cycles mean that growth is likely to be less

200.000

205.000

210.000

215.000

220.000

225.000

230.000

235.000

240.0002

00

9-0

1-0

1

20

09

-04

-01

20

09

-07

-01

20

09

-10

-01

20

10

-01

-01

20

10

-04

-01

20

10

-07

-01

20

10

-10

-01

20

11

-01

-01

20

11

-04

-01

20

11

-07

-01

20

11

-10

-01

20

12

-01

-01

20

12

-04

-01

20

12

-07

-01

20

12

-10

-01

20

13

-01

-01

20

13

-04

-01

CP

I

TIME (QUARTERLY)

fig.11 growth trend of CPI

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.180.20

20

09

-01

-01

20

09

-04

-01

20

09

-07

-01

20

09

-10

-01

20

10

-01

-01

20

10

-04

-01

20

10

-07

-01

20

10

-10

-01

20

11

-01

-01

20

11

-04

-01

20

11

-07

-01

20

11

-10

-01

20

12

-01

-01

20

12

-04

-01

20

12

-07

-01

20

12

-10

-01

20

13

-01

-01

20

13

-04

-01

EEFE

CTI

VE

FED

ERA

L FU

ND

S R

ATE

TIME (QUARTERLY)

fg. 12Effective Federal Funds Rate

impressive for a president who enters office at the end of a boom, as George W. Bush did, and

better for one who enters when growth is weak, as Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan did” (Norris).

Overall, we are able to see effects from the implementation of policies to show on GDP changes

and that the selected indicators in this paper almost all exhibit strong correlation with GDP and

mostly with one another.

Reference

Amadeo, Kimberly. "How the 9/11 Attacks Still Affect the Economy Today." About.com US

Economy. N.p., 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.

<http://useconomy.about.com/od/Financial-Crisis/f/911-Attacks-Economic-Impact.htm>.

Amadeo, Kimberly. "How Do Obama and Bush Compare on Their Economic Policies?."

About.com US Economy. N.p., 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.

<http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/a/Obama-Bush-

Economy.htm>.

Bartlett, Bruce. Those Were the Days. The New York Times, 1 July 2004. 28 November 2013.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/01/opinion/those-were-the-days.html>.

Bootle, R. P. The Trouble with Markets: Saving Capitalism from Itself. Nicholas Brealey

Publishing, 2011.

Burns, John W and Andrew J. Taylor. "A New Democrat? The Economic Performance of the

Clinton Presidency." The Independent Review 3 (2001): 387-408.

Cline, William R. The United States as a Debtor Nation. Peterson Institute, 2005.

Elwell, Craig K. Economic Recovery: Sustaining U.S. Economic Growth in a Post-Crisis

Economy (2013): 1-30. Http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu. Web. 24 Nov.

Hicks, Josh. "Federal Deficit on Track for Obama-administration

Low."Http://www.washingtonpost.com. N.p., 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.

"National Economic Accounts." BEA. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.

<http://bea.gov/national/index.htm>.

Norris, Floyd. "Ranking the Presidents by G.D.P.." New York Times [New York] 29 July 2011, n.

pag. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. <http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/ranking-the-

presidents-by-g-d-p/?_r=0>.

Pear, Robert. THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Platform; In a Final Draft, Democrats Reject a Part of

Their Past. The New York Times, 26 June 1992. 28 November 2013.

<http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/26/us/1992-campaign-platform-final-draft-democrats-

reject-part-their-past.html?src=pm>.

Piketty, Thomas and Emmanuel Saez. "How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax System? A

Historical and International Perspective." Journal of Economic Perspectives 21.1 (Winter

2007).

Teslik, Lee Hudson. "NAFTA's Economic Impact." 7 July 2009. Council on Foreign Relations.

29 November 2013. <http://www.cfr.org/world/naftas-economic-impact/p15790>.

"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics, n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. <http://www.bls.gov/home.htm>.

U.S. Census Bureau. United States Balance of Trade. n.d. <www.tradingeconomics.com>.