|Don's Home Politics U.S. Budget - Spending - Deficit - Taxes|
Debt as a percent of GDP:
The Fiscal Year 2009 budget describes Federal government revenue and spending for October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009. The Bush Administration submitted it to Congress in February 2008, but Congress stated it was dead on arrival. Why? It was the first budget to propose spending more than $3 trillion, it underfunded the War on Terror, and its revenue projections ignored the warning signs of recession.
In 2009 most of the $1 Trillion deficit was because of: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) $253 B The Troubled Assed Recovery Program (TARP) $151 B The Increase in DOD spending for the War on Terror $145 B The Revenue shortfall because of the recession $595 B TARP was an outgrowth of the October 2008 bank bailout bill. ARRA called the Stimulus Act was passed by congress and signed by President Obama in Feb. 2009.FactCheck.org (6/2012) says,
The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.
That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.
When G.W. Bush was adding a trillion dollar deficit over 5 years for the Iraq war (It will ultimately cost much more.), while cutting taxes, Dick Chaney said "Ronald Regal proved that deficits don't matter".
Trump's turn? Republican presidents rule recessions | USA Today Nov 21, 2016
Recessions began after 14 presidential inaugurations since 1901. Number of months each recession lasted:
Real GDP growth, a measure of economic activity in the U.S., averaged 3.33% during the 64 years and 16 presidential terms going back to President Truman in the mid-1940s, according to a 2013 research paper by professors of economics Alan Blinder and Mark Watson at Princeton University. With a Republican in the White House, though, the economy's growth slowed to 2.54%, the economists found. With a Democrat in office, growth jumped to 4.35% on average.
Evidence pointing to better economic growth under Democrats is an illusion created by the timing of when presidents enter office, says Timothy Kane at the Hoover Institution think tank at Stanford University. Factoring in the one-year lag between the time a new president is elected and when the policy effects kick in, "there is no statistically significant advantage for either party in the White House," Kane says. Presidents inherit problems that were created by policy decisions before they were elected, Kane says.
Sure there are what Reagan called welfare queens, but when the unemployment rate went from 7.5% to over 10% in 1982 that's 4 million additional people unemployed and a total of 15 million unemployed. Labor force = # of people over 16 years old (149 M in 2015)
Unemployment data comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.