Now why would you leave this part off? <img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YICBAWVh6w8/SghFGhjfXqI/AAAAAAAAB-A/6HmKMzzfI6c/s400/GR2009032100104.jpg" />
This is exactly the history of print-money policies. The economy can cope with it in the early stages, but at some point spending goes parabolic and "can't" be reigned-in.... consequences inevitably devastating at some point. We proably won't descend into darkness as fast as Zimbabwe, but we're traveling the same road... If America is to have a future, we need to get rid of the bums in Congress and the Administration... and elect those who will bring deficit spending WAAAYYYY down.
Adjusted for inflation, this would be far from true. FDR and spending during WW2 was a HUGE part of the budget. But compared to now, it was small. And how about who ruled Congress during this years? Most of the Republican admins the last few decades had a Dem congressional majority.
from 1900 to 1999 (they did not have last 10 years): the average Dem controlled congress (both houses) averaged an annual debt increase of 9.69% (median 5.81%) the average Dem controlled congress (both houses) yielded an annual debt increase of 7.48% (median 1.52%) http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/debt.htm CONGRESS is the one that hammers out the actual budget. They only get input from the President and then he signs it, with or without whining.
That's why I posted the percent of GDP, and there's no reason to adjust this percent for inflation. Most, but even the rest had the Republicans running massive deficits. Reagan ran a deficit in all eight years, despite Republicans controlling the senate in 1980, 1982. For most part between 1995 and 2007, the Republicans controlled both houses.
That's almost as likely as Santa Clause showing up with a sled full of money to pay off the debt. Voters are not interested in program cuts, not one little bit, not at all. For years, the GOP talked about smaller government but never delivered because even most of the people who vote republican want more government. Now they don't even talk about it. They don't even give it lip service, because almost nobody wants less government. The democrats have always been for more government and now so are the republicans. Face the sad facts. Americans want more government, more programs, more handouts. As far as they are concerned, they get all the goodies for free and somebody else has to pay for them. And that's as far as their thinking can carry them. TANSTAAFL. Maybe when this is all over and we are once again debt free, we can build a monument to that acronym.
The ONLY way that can occur.... is we get a "start over".. but that entails nearly EVERY American goes bankrupt first. You, your parents, your children... do you want to cope with that? What America NEEDS is more of a sense of self-reliance... to the point of "if you don't provide for yourself, you perish and cease being a burden on the rest of society".
There are three problems with blaming congress rather than assigning credit (or blame) to the president: 1) The CBO, which prepares the proposed budgets, is part of the White House. 2) The president has veto power (for example, Clinton shut down the government to get his balanced budget through during a Republican congress). 3) Under Reagan, for example, the proposed budgets were only marginally smaller than the ones congress approved. Ie. the budgetary requests came from the president.
Duh! Responsibility for the budget rests with the House. The Prez can "request" till the cows come home...