I mean, part of this is just math. If a government spends more, it’s literally injecting money into the economy, so of course you get more jobs and growth in the short term. That spending is the jobs. If you tighten spending to cut waste or rebalance the books, growth slows and jobs shrink, but that’s kind of the tradeoff when you’re trying to fix long-term issues.

Over the last few decades, neither party has really cared about deficits anyway. Everyone’s been spending, just at different speeds. The real question isn’t “who creates more jobs,” it’s whether the spending is efficient, sustainable, and actually creates long-term value. Eventually the bills come due, interest costs rise, and priorities shift from growth to just keeping the lights on.

So yeah, Democrats tend to show stronger job numbers, but spending more will almost always do that. Whether it’s good spending is a separate debate. Budget discipline isn’t partisan, it’s just basic economics.

▲

victor106 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I mean, part of this is just math. If a government spends more, it’s literally injecting money into the economy, so of course you get more jobs and growth in the short term.

Thats not necessarily true. During Bill Clinton's presidency he cut the deficits and the debt and yet the economy saw very strong job growth.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-und...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presi...

	▲	lokar 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And Clinton (mostly Gore as VP) cut the federal civilian workforce by about 20%, while following the both the letter and spirit of the law, and not causing chaos.

▲

davefol 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m not sure how true this is given that both Clinton and Obama cut the deficits and in Obama’s case he did it despite complaints from the left.

▲

ajross 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Democratic administrations see less spending growth, though. Definitely not more. Look it up.

You're confusing rhetoric with policy.

	▲	theropost 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fair enough, I didn't dig too deep though here's what I have come up with - I'm sure there are many factors, but it is quite interesting here: Historically, Democratic and Republican administrations have followed distinct fiscal and economic patterns: Democrats typically oversee deficit reduction and falling unemployment, often achieved by maintaining or increasing the tax burden. Conversely, Republicans typically oversee deficit growth and rising unemployment, largely driven by decreased tax burdens through legislative cuts. Statistically, since 1945, real GDP has grown faster under Democrats (4.3% vs. 2.5%), while modern Democratic presidents (Clinton, Obama, Biden) have all reduced the deficits they inherited, whereas every modern Republican (Reagan through Trump) left office with a larger deficit than when they started So you'd think tax cuts would create more jobs, less unemployment but it has not. It seems like the opposite, I'm sure there is much more to it.

▲

Hikikomori 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you think republicans lowered spending I have a bridge to sell. See two Santas strategy.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]