U.S. Deficits By Party

[Bo]

This only goes until 2002, but the point is clear.

[phk]

Makes me feel bad for Obama.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Makes me feel bad for Obama.

      Heh, true. He's shaping up to be the perfect counter-argument against any idea of the Democrats being a party of relative fiscal responsibility.

[Ameriplan]

Makes me feel bad for Obama.

      Heh, true. He's shaping up to be the perfect counter-argument against any idea of the Democrats being a party of relative fiscal responsibility.

True. Spending more than any other president combined can do that to a guy.

[Bo]

Makes me feel bad for Obama.

      Heh, true. He's shaping up to be the perfect counter-argument against any idea of the Democrats being a party of relative fiscal responsibility.

True. Spending more than any other president combined can do that to a guy.

He had to spend that much to pump the economy back from a recession which he inherited from Bush Jr.

Also, I'm pretty sure this chart is without the social security surplus, as Clinton doesn't have a surplus here for any years of his Presidency.

[Ameriplan]

Makes me feel bad for Obama.

      Heh, true. He's shaping up to be the perfect counter-argument against any idea of the Democrats being a party of relative fiscal responsibility.

True. Spending more than any other president combined can do that to a guy.

He had to spend that much to pump the economy back from a recession which he inherited from Bush Jr.

Also, I'm pretty sure this chart is without the social security surplus, as Clinton doesn't have a surplus here for any years of his Presidency.

LOL, just like FDR, huh? More spending = Cure deficit. Maybe he should start a world war just like FDR had in order to save his legacy.

[Bo]

Makes me feel bad for Obama.

      Heh, true. He's shaping up to be the perfect counter-argument against any idea of the Democrats being a party of relative fiscal responsibility.

True. Spending more than any other president combined can do that to a guy.

He had to spend that much to pump the economy back from a recession which he inherited from Bush Jr.

Also, I'm pretty sure this chart is without the social security surplus, as Clinton doesn't have a surplus here for any years of his Presidency.

LOL, just like FDR, huh? More spending = Cure deficit. Maybe he should start a world war just like FDR had in order to save his legacy.

The economy was recovering under FDR even before WWII.

[Ameriplan]

Makes me feel bad for Obama.

      Heh, true. He's shaping up to be the perfect counter-argument against any idea of the Democrats being a party of relative fiscal responsibility.

True. Spending more than any other president combined can do that to a guy.

He had to spend that much to pump the economy back from a recession which he inherited from Bush Jr.

Also, I'm pretty sure this chart is without the social security surplus, as Clinton doesn't have a surplus here for any years of his Presidency.

LOL, just like FDR, huh? More spending = Cure deficit. Maybe he should start a world war just like FDR had in order to save his legacy.

The economy was recovering under FDR even before WWII.

No it wasn't. Not only was unemployment the same, but the deficit increased. He promised to reduce federal expenditures, but didn't.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Makes me feel bad for Obama.

      Heh, true. He's shaping up to be the perfect counter-argument against any idea of the Democrats being a party of relative fiscal responsibility.

In the past, Democrats had sufficient courage to find ways to balance revenue coming in with the additional spending. Unfortunately we lack that courage now, at least lack as much as we used to. In fairness though, if you look at the HCR bill, while an ugly patchwork solution of a bill, it was some of the most comprehensive efforts to actually pay for something in quite some time, though nowhere near perfect.

No it wasn't. Not only was unemployment the same, but the deficit increased. He promised to reduce federal expenditures, but didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg

Also, notice that little blip around 1937? Yeah, that's when he 'reduced federal expenditures.'

Edit: And that graph doesn't even include workers enrolled in the Works Progress Administration.

[Ameriplan]

Makes me feel bad for Obama.

      Heh, true. He's shaping up to be the perfect counter-argument against any idea of the Democrats being a party of relative fiscal responsibility.

In the past, Democrats had sufficient courage to find ways to balance revenue coming in with the additional spending. Unfortunately we lack that courage now, at least lack as much as we used to. In fairness though, if you look at the HCR bill, while an ugly patchwork solution of a bill, it was some of the most comprehensive efforts to actually pay for something in quite some time, though nowhere near perfect.

No it wasn't. Not only was unemployment the same, but the deficit increased. He promised to reduce federal expenditures, but didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg

Also, notice that little blip around 1937? Yeah, that's when he 'reduced federal expenditures.'

Edit: And that graph doesn't even include workers enrolled in the Works Progress Administration.

LOL war is a glorious thing

[Bo]

Another chart, this time including the Social Security surplus:

[Marokai Backbeat]

No it wasn't. Not only was unemployment the same, but the deficit increased. He promised to reduce federal expenditures, but didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg

Also, notice that little blip around 1937? Yeah, that's when he 'reduced federal expenditures.'

Edit: And that graph doesn't even include workers enrolled in the Works Progress Administration.

LOL war is a glorious thing

World War II did not begin until 1939. The United States didn't formally enter the war until December 1941. Even if we accept that the war boosted the economy before the US entered the War, your comments are still completely off base.

[Bo]

No it wasn't. Not only was unemployment the same, but the deficit increased. He promised to reduce federal expenditures, but didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg

Also, notice that little blip around 1937? Yeah, that's when he 'reduced federal expenditures.'

Edit: And that graph doesn't even include workers enrolled in the Works Progress Administration.

LOL war is a glorious thing

World War II did not begin until 1939. The United States didn't formally enter the war until December 1941. Even if we accept that the war boosted the economy before the US entered the War, your comments are still completely off base.

Marokai is right. Unemployment decreased dramatically (from 25% to 14%) between 1933 and 1937, when the New Deal was in full effect. When FDR decided to listen to the GOP's advice and cut govt. spending in 1938, the economy went back into a recession and unemployment bounced back up.

[Frink]

No it wasn't. Not only was unemployment the same, but the deficit increased. He promised to reduce federal expenditures, but didn't.

He actually did reduce expenditures until saner minds prevailed.

[Frink]

Marokai is right. Unemployment decreased dramatically (from 25% to 14%) between 1933 and 1937, when the New Deal was in full effect. When FDR decided to listen to the GOP's advice and cut govt. spending in 1938, the economy went back into a recession and unemployment bounced back up.

Indeed. In fact there's a line of thought that a larger New Deal, in terms of public works and the like, would have got us out of the crisis completely. WWII, however, provided just as excellent a stimulus.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Marokai is right. Unemployment decreased dramatically (from 25% to 14%) between 1933 and 1937, when the New Deal was in full effect. When FDR decided to listen to the GOP's advice and cut govt. spending in 1938, the economy went back into a recession and unemployment bounced back up.

Indeed. In fact there's a line of thought that a larger New Deal, in terms of public works and the like, would have got us out of the crisis completely. WWII, however, provided just as excellent a stimulus.

Except it never would have.

And war is a terrible waste of resources.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Marokai is right. Unemployment decreased dramatically (from 25% to 14%) between 1933 and 1937, when the New Deal was in full effect. When FDR decided to listen to the GOP's advice and cut govt. spending in 1938, the economy went back into a recession and unemployment bounced back up.

Indeed. In fact there's a line of thought that a larger New Deal, in terms of public works and the like, would have got us out of the crisis completely. WWII, however, provided just as excellent a stimulus.

Except it never would have.

And war is a terrible waste of resources.

That's exactly what the economy needs though.. a terrible waste of free printed money.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Marokai is right. Unemployment decreased dramatically (from 25% to 14%) between 1933 and 1937, when the New Deal was in full effect. When FDR decided to listen to the GOP's advice and cut govt. spending in 1938, the economy went back into a recession and unemployment bounced back up.

Indeed. In fact there's a line of thought that a larger New Deal, in terms of public works and the like, would have got us out of the crisis completely. WWII, however, provided just as excellent a stimulus.

Except it never would have.

And war is a terrible waste of resources.

That's exactly what the economy needs though.. a terrible waste of free printed money.

No, that sort of thing is the reason the economy is in the terrible state that it is in in the first place.

War and government make-work programs only serve to conceal economic troubles in the short-term, and worsen them in the long-term.

[Bo]

Marokai is right. Unemployment decreased dramatically (from 25% to 14%) between 1933 and 1937, when the New Deal was in full effect. When FDR decided to listen to the GOP's advice and cut govt. spending in 1938, the economy went back into a recession and unemployment bounced back up.

Indeed. In fact there's a line of thought that a larger New Deal, in terms of public works and the like, would have got us out of the crisis completely. WWII, however, provided just as excellent a stimulus.

Or had the New Deal lasted longer (in its same capacity), it would have also brought the U.S. out of the Depression.

[Derek]

I'm more concerned about what's going on now. What has happened to the deficit under Obama? I'm also more concerned about what we spend our money on.

[opebo]

LOL, just like FDR, huh? More spending = Cure deficit. Maybe he should start a world war just like FDR had in order to save his legacy.

I vote YES, if that's what it takes to get government spending up to where it should be.

[Derek]

LOL, just like FDR, huh? More spending = Cure deficit. Maybe he should start a world war just like FDR had in order to save his legacy.

I vote YES, if that's what it takes to get government spending up to where it should be.

You don't think the government spends enough of your money already?

[opebo]

You don't think the government spends enough of your money already?

It doesn't spend a dime of 'my' money, Derek.

[Derek]

You don't think the government spends enough of your money already?

It doesn't spend a dime of 'my' money, Derek.

That figures, it must be nice to be on welfare while everyone else goes to work to pay for you. It's easy to want more spending and taxes if it's someone else's money. Put yourself in someone else's shoes who is a single parent making average income with 4 children and has to worry about taxes and the deficit.

[opebo]

That figures, it must be nice to be on welfare while everyone else goes to work to pay for you. It's easy to want more spending and taxes if it's someone else's money. Put yourself in someone else's shoes who is a single parent making average income with 4 children and has to worry about taxes and the deficit.

No, my family is well off and I live in another country, Derek, so I don't pay any (or anyway only indirecly) taxes.  But if and when I do inherit, I will not mind paying taxes on this money.

The single parent with an average income and 4 children does not pay taxes, but rather recieves a bit of money from the State.

Please try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who understands economics, rather than simply has kneejerk emotional responses to economic issues.