The old saying comes to mind..you got to spend money to make money..

This may be a simpleton view..but it depends on where the money goes if its invested and what the long term pros/cons will be if it did/didnt get invested.. I'd say that if our leaders (at least in the UK) were in touch with society and reality then perhaps i'd say invest money..but regardsless the money needs to be spent for future generations..

another saying comes to mind..damnd if you do damnd if you dont.  

Sounds back to front. The current government (left wing) has increased spending and increased public debt, while the next government (right wing) will reduce spending.

Come next May (assuming the election is as late as possible) I will be voting Conservative, even if it does cost me money...

Your right, got mixed up , let me change it.

Indeed. The parties are so similar you wonder if it's actually worth voting

Yeah - spend the whole lot on themselves...

I don't really think it matters, neither the left nor the right wing wants to decrease expenditure (or at least the deficit). In the U.S. at least, it seems the liberals want to increase spending and the conservatives want to cut taxes. Either way we don't very many, if anyone, willing to do the inverse; decrease spending and increase taxes, which will be necissary sooner or later, though in general it will be less painful if done earlier.

Directly to the OP though, I suppose increasing expenditure in the short term in a recession is the best way to go if possible. When private demand goes down, some degree of government cushioning is likely useful to prevent collapse and give business time to adjust to the new conditions. However, the problem is that this cushioning has to be removed as soon as the business conditions improve, and this is often difficult for governments to do. Even worse, you can't simply go to your prerecession spending levels, you've got to go below them to compinsate for the debt earned during the recession. That is even harder for governments to do, hence (one of the many reasons) why the deficit in many western countries is so high.

Keynes had it right

How bout this...

If you knew that you were getting a pay cut from your work, would you spend more money, even if you had to borrow it?

Answer that and you answer the main question.

A recession is a pay cut for many citizens, and the government as a whole.  It is a good thing - it forces limited government.

If the government were run like a business, it would work out the way it should.  But no, some politicians get rich of the backs of taxpayers.  Its NOT your f###ing money Washington!!!

OH GOD WE'RE OUT OF MONEY WHAT DO WE DO!?!?

I DON'T KNOW SPEND MORE MONEY!?!?!

Brilliant!

My main problem with a Keynesian view is that it assumes the human condition is defined by consumption; it's exactly like the Hayek crowd in that aspect, despite their sprawling disagreements on theory details.

Fundamental objections to rampant consumerism aside, modern economies depend on a waltz between the public and private sectors, and if the private sector is faltering, it seems basically reasonable that the public sector should do its best to help prevent both of them falling on the floor.

Not a fan of democrats, but all I know, under our last conservative prez. we saw tax cuts and higher spending. That's just stupid.

I hate that graph.  It's missing the most important information, the legislature compositions.  Well, it also ignores the minor detail of massive inflation being the only reason debt decreases for the first half, but whatever.

The executive branch executes, the House picks the numbers.  Clinton was blocked by a republican congress that fought him tooth and nail over spending cuts, Reagan and Bush 41 had a democrat house controlling the purse strings, with maybe a little chance for moderation in the senate, but reconciliation prevents Senate republicans from philibustering a budget, even when they had the majority they had to keep everyone in line to avoid hitting 51 votes for the democrat budget.  It's why they started it, to get budgets through the split legislature in 1981.  They pretended they were cutting spending by fixing the inflation issues, but they went way up on spending even if less so than originally set up in the outlays from Carter's incompetent legislative body.

I'd be happy as a clam if they'd just vetoed everything, but you can't veto everything without cutting off the military increases, and we might have actually needed them.

Bush 43 is a tard for not vetoing every last budget though.  He could have done it without causing problems.

From the Boston Globe

"Recall that President George W. Bush inherited a budget solidly in the black, as well as a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. But the tax cuts, new entitlements, and spending increases he oversaw resulted in more than $2 trillion in red ink, and that’s before the bank bailout. And by the time Bush left office, his policies, if carried forward, would have spelled another $10.6 trillion in debt over 10 years.

Now, let’s be clear. Obama’s plans will also mean unsustainably large long-term deficits. Still, it’s important to note that those projected deficits are smaller than they would be under a continuation of Bush’s policies."

I couldn't believe how messed up our budget was under Bush. I don't like a lot of what Obama says, but the guys been stonewalled every step of the way. You can't get much done that way, and you can't fix anything either. We need tax increases, and we need spending cuts both!And at least he tries to do what he says, unlike most politicians. I can respect that.

You can't be the "biggest" world super-power without generating some revenue, and things like roads and schools don't just pay for themselves. We need taxes, and we can come back into the black, we need higher taxes. That said, we spend too much on bulls***. Every legislator seems to have a hundred pet projects that they want to fund with tax payer money. Republicans as much as dems, but when it's their turn to talk, everyone complains about the spending happening everywhere but in their own districts. It's a sad and stupid joke.

Every legestlator seems to have a hundred pet projects that they want to fund with tax payer money. Republicans as much as dems, but when it's their turn to talk, everyone complains about the spending happeing everywhere but in their own districts. It's a sad and stupid joke.

That's crap reporting.

2000 ended with the .com bubble, 2001 brought 9/11 with it.  The projected surpluses were also bullshit, they didn't take into account any of the events that stunted economic growth.

There is always a more significant loss in revenue from a gdp contraction when it's from a top heavy income tax.  The 20% of GDP tax revenue in 1998-2000 were an anomaly caused by the bubble.  The reciepts over the Bush administration were above average, it's the insane spending increases worked into the entitlement programs that are blowing out the budget.  If we were smart, we'd have switched to a national sales tax(not VAT for the love of God, hidden is bad) so we could have more consistent tax income.  That still wouldn't help the idiots

Obama isn't going to cut his new Medicare expansion, and not renewing the tax cuts wont do a damn thing to offset it.  His own numbers are for over twice as much deficit spending as we just had with Bush.