Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The truth is if you care about the national debt the presidential election is not the battleground for this. The House dictates the spending so choose all your representatives wisely.
>House dictates the spending
That's what you learn in your 9th grade Civics class. Technically the official constitutional process starts in the house.
The reality of the past half-century or more is that the house, senate, and president work together to put together budget proposals long before any legislation voted on in in the house. All three need to be in alignment or no budget gets passed.
In a situation where one party has the presidency, and one or more houses, the executive has a lot of influence over the budget. With the modern Republican party that exists only to give fealty to Trump, one man has tremendous influence over the budget.
This debt is Trump's doing, no matter how much he denies responsibility or how his media spins it.
edit: typos
The actual truth is, if you care about the national debt, executive and legislative branches are both important. Case in point: George W Bush’s quagmire in the middle east that cost our country trillions of dollars.
Yes, you can blame congress and say they authorized it, but if you were alive at the time you’ll remember he lied about the required preconditions in order to put the authorization into motion. Furthermore, he employed accounting tricks to hide the expense as much as possible.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/
tl;dr executive matters just as much as legislative
>This debt is Trump's doing, no matter how much he denies responsibility or how his media spins it.
I mean, I'd say it's COVID's fault more than anything. The deficit is still increasing by a pretty major sum, and Trump isn't in office. How is he to blame for the deficit increasing from $1.4 trillion last year, to $1.9 trillion this year? The Trump tax cuts may have decreased tax revenue, but they did not decrease it by $500 billion annually.
Right, and in point of fact, it's pretty much all spending increases that are responsible:
[https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary)
Revenue decreased only a little during COVID and is back up. Spending increased a lot and still much higher than pre-COVID.
>Revenue decreased only a little during COVID and is back up. Spending increased a lot and still much higher than pre-COVID.
Absolutely, it's massive.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/federal-budget-receipts-and-outlays
Here's a list of the budget, deficit, and income of the Federal government by year and by President of when they were in office. The data stops at 2021, and uses projected numbers for President Biden's numbers - so those are going to be inaccurate. Unfortunately, those projections ended up being lower than the reality we faced. We had a projected deficit of $1.3 trillion or FY2024, the reality is we have a deficit of $1.9 trillion. A whole $600 billion higher than what was expected.
Not the tax cuts that has left a gap in the budget since it was passed in 2017? The one that was projected to add 1 trillion dollars to the deficit by 2019 during the 2016 election season by multiple bodies?
Congress just refused to give Biden the money he wanted. They blocked almost 7 billion in spending on Build Back Better bills.
So now it's "Biden being unable to pass his bills is a great thing, because it kept the debt lower". Jeez, we take the small victories here I guess.
Also, look at what those reps are proposing and if it looks like it will pass, invest in those companies. Made 27% return in a week on isotope and uranium mining companies when I saw a nuclear technology bill getting close to being passed
100% of things are priced in. That's why nobody makes money or beats the market average.
Wait except for all those people who do, like Buffett or Simons or several indie traders you've never heard of. I guess they always just get lucky. The market doesn't price that in, I guess?
Efficient market hypothesis is the lamest pseudoscience of the century honestly.
A few ways. First, if it is largely bipartisan legislation without a lot of culture-war baggage (don't bet on a bill that allows chicken trucks to go over weight limits to pass if the bill also includes eliminating COVID masks from school teachers and rants about transgender kids), second, is by the individuals who sponsor the bill, I chose one that a senator with a high rate of legislative success sponsored. Third, and more obvious, there are websites that already do this kind of research and give relative ratings. 4th, look at the current conditions around the bill, this bill was proposed after nuclear energy-related sanctions on Russia so it needed to pass. Fifth, general common sense honestly. Look at legislation long enough and you can get an idea of what will get through and what won't. And finally, a little data analysis by looking at the markets! When the legislation was introduced, a subset of companies that would have benefited from this legislation all had a simultaneous uptick in value that then tapered off while it was in committee. Then the day it passed, a bigger wave that I was lucky enough to ride. You are right that the markets do know best, but doing a bit of cross-correlation can help you pin down your timing.
And of course, there are no guarantees in investing, just things you can do to shift the odds in your favor.
“Everything is priced in” and “the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent” are funny because they both counsel the same thing for completely opposite reasons.
That’s why you gotta find the Bernie/AOC/Katie Porter ideologue that can’t get bought. If we had 5 Bernie’s in the senate the US would be a in a far better place.
Same. Half of their takes make my eyes want to roll backwards out of my skull, but they’re genuine. I’d trust any of them 10x over the Schumer, McConnell, Cruz, Rubio, Booker crowd.
Hell I’d take Romney in a heartbeat over half the dems. I find almost all of his positions shitty but at least he’s not as transparently for sale as the rest of the senate.
And perusing the Project 2025 manual, youll see it explicitly states there is an achievable plan of circumventing congress so the new "unitary executive" can allocate spending as they see fit.
Trump replaced the nonpartisan oversight head of the PPP loan program with a Trump party loyalist: https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-donald-trump-ap-top-news-politics-health-cc921bccf9f7abd27da996ef772823e4
This enabled unchecked fraud, waste, and abuse of the program including what may be hundreds of billions in fraudulent loans:
> We estimate that SBA disbursed over $200 billion in potentially fraudulent COVID-19 EIDLs, EIDL Targeted Advances, Supplemental Targeted Advances, and PPP loans. This means at least 17 percent of all COVID-19 EIDL and PPP funds were disbursed to potentially fraudulent actors.
https://www.sba.gov/document/report-23-09-covid-19-pandemic-eidl-ppp-loan-fraud-landscape#:~:text=We%20estimate%20that%20SBA%20disbursed,disbursed%20to%20potentially%20fraudulent%20actors.
And here is a report putting the $800 Billion Paycheck Protection
Program at likely a significantly higher rate of fraud than these older reports: https://shapingwork.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jep.36.2.55.pdf
Even if Trump added less to the debt than Biden did in the same time frame, what money did go out the door was so spectacularly mismanaged that any efficiencies start to mirror how Trump runs his personal finances, all grift all the time.
Yes and no. Congress has given up a lot of their traditional powers of the purse by allowing executive branch departments significnat discretion. A great example is student loan debt forgiveness. Congress never passed a law containing the massive changes to student loan programs, congresd just gave secretarial discetion for spending and certain types of debt relief. No one expected a president and his secretary to accumulate such massive debt from this program, in fact the CBO scored the student loan program as a money maker when it was overhauled during the Obama admin. So, who is to blaim for that kind of spending? Mostly the president in my view.
In that specific instance, yes. But, congress deserves more blame in general. Historically, the presidency passes back and forth every eight years, while not true with congress. Both parties have given away congressional powers to the president, without any care, because they know their party will wield those powers half of the time.
That may be right, but the single biggest factor was the tax cut, which increased both "his" share of the increased debt and Biden's.
Let's not pretend that Trump didn't have a big, big hand in getting those tax cuts passed; both directly as President but also by helping get so many republicans elected that they had the power they did in congress.
Why has the debt gone up far more under Republican presidents than Democratic ones my entire lifetime? (39m) Genuinely curious if there is a reasonable answer or if you are attempting to cope.
They don't get the chance to reduce spending, because they start talking about cutting social security and medicare (and now the ACA too) and all the people who voted for them don't vote or vote differently.
It doesn't matter what you choose. Neither primary party gives a shit about the debt/deficit because they have no incentive to. You don't win elections by worrying about debt/deficit.
Then let’s talk results. Results tell us that democrats are better on debt/deficit. If the results you want is lower deficit, democrats are the clear choice
Exactly. Presidents can write up a budget (or at least budget item proposals), and get someone in congress to submit them, but they rarely get passed as written. The budget is a congressional issue.
not anymore! remember when biden tried to pass student loan forgiveness spending, got shut down, then did it anyways? It turns out the president is basically a dictator-in-chief when there’s no police to police the president.
These were not the same thing. There's much more to it then that. One was blanket forgiveness, now he has to go through case by case, and usually only applicable to fraud or if the balance on the loan has already been paid, etc.
The national debt of the United States has increased over time for a variety of reasons, specific to the policies and circumstances during each presidency. Here’s an overview of some key factors for each administration:
### Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
- **Tax Cuts:** Reagan implemented significant tax cuts, particularly for the wealthy and corporations, which reduced government revenue.
- **Increased Military Spending:** There was a substantial increase in military spending during the Cold War.
- **Economic Policies:** Supply-side economics, or "Reaganomics," aimed to stimulate the economy but led to large budget deficits.
### George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
- **Economic Recession:** Early 1990s recession reduced government revenue and increased spending on social programs.
- **Gulf War:** Costs associated with the Gulf War added to the national debt.
- **Budget Deficits:** Continued budget deficits due to a combination of reduced revenue and increased spending.
### Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
- **Economic Growth:** The 1990s economic boom increased government revenues.
- **Budget Surpluses:** Fiscal policies, including tax increases on the wealthy and spending restraints, resulted in budget surpluses in the late 1990s.
- **Debt Reduction:** Some of the budget surpluses were used to pay down the national debt.
### George W. Bush (2001-2009)
- **Tax Cuts:** Significant tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 reduced government revenue.
- **Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:** The costs of these wars added significantly to the national debt.
- **Great Recession:** The 2008 financial crisis led to massive bailouts and stimulus spending to stabilize the economy.
### Barack Obama (2009-2017)
- **Economic Stimulus:** The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 aimed to stimulate the economy post-recession, leading to increased government spending.
- **Affordable Care Act:** Implementation of the ACA, while intended to reduce long-term healthcare costs, involved significant initial spending.
- **Continued War Spending:** Ongoing costs from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
### Donald Trump (2017-2021)
- **Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:** The 2017 tax cuts significantly reduced government revenue while not leading to proportional economic growth.
- **Increased Military and Domestic Spending:** Both military and discretionary domestic spending increased.
- **COVID-19 Pandemic:** The pandemic led to massive emergency spending on relief packages to support the economy, individuals, and businesses.
### Joe Biden (2021- )
- **COVID-19 Relief:** Continued pandemic relief spending, including the American Rescue Plan.
- **Infrastructure and Social Spending:** Proposals and implementations for large infrastructure investments and expanded social programs.
- **Economic Stimulus:** Continued efforts to stimulate economic recovery post-pandemic.
In general, the increase in national debt is driven by a combination of tax policies, spending on wars and social programs, economic recessions, and significant emergency measures (such as those during the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic).
Here is an overview of the national debt on the first day and the last day of each U.S. presidency starting with Ronald Reagan:
### Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
- **First Day (January 20, 1981):** $930 billion
- **Last Day (January 20, 1989):** $2.7 trillion
### George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
- **First Day (January 20, 1989):** $2.7 trillion
- **Last Day (January 20, 1993):** $4.2 trillion
### Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
- **First Day (January 20, 1993):** $4.2 trillion
- **Last Day (January 20, 2001):** $5.7 trillion
### George W. Bush (2001-2009)
- **First Day (January 20, 2001):** $5.7 trillion
- **Last Day (January 20, 2009):** $10.6 trillion
### Barack Obama (2009-2017)
- **First Day (January 20, 2009):** $10.6 trillion
- **Last Day (January 20, 2017):** $19.9 trillion
### Donald Trump (2017-2021)
- **First Day (January 20, 2017):** $19.9 trillion
- **Last Day (January 20, 2021):** $27.8 trillion
### Joe Biden (2021- )
- **First Day (January 20, 2021):** $27.8 trillion
- **Current Day (June 24, 2024):** Approximately $32.7 trillion
These figures are approximations based on historical data and may vary slightly based on sources and exact calculation methods.
Attributing debt directly to a president is a fools errand for many reasons. Tracking the overall national debt based on first/last day in office is equally silly. The most obvious proof of this is the great recession. By most objective measures, the government bailout of banks and industry as a result of the great recession was one of the most successful government intervention programs ever created.
* TARP resulted in a net gain of $30B.
* Fanny/Freddy bailout has profited more than 50% in dividend payments since 2012.
* Bear Stearns bailout was paid off by 2012 and >$750M in interest payments were gained
* AIG bailout earned the government more than $23B in profit
Using your tracking methodology above, all of the bailout debt would be attributed to GWB, but the benefits of that program would be attributed to Obama.
The Great recession was also a huge wealth transfer from people to investment entities. It looks good on paper from certain angles, but that money could also have kept people in houses and paid the banks.
About the only positive was the anemic Dodd-Frank act.
There were a lot of people on the right point this out at the time and how Bush's debt numbers looked worse and Obama's better due to government accounting.
Basically the TARP money went out under Bush and back under Obama, but the coming back part gets buried in the details. If the TARP money had never been repaid Obama's deficits would have been even worse. $426 billion spent and $441 billion returned.
I think the data presented shows how Trump and the GOP, over 4 years, racked up about 2x what Obama did in a single term. It's pretty good for demonstrating the premise of this post.
On some level people on the right can't process basic math, science, or critical thinking activities like critical reading. They see the one number and point to what else they think they know.
This set of numbers clearly show about a 2x from each president but that is over 8 years while Trump only had 4.
I dont like Trump. I think he is a garbage human being. I think he spent irresponsibly and didn’t deliver traditional conservative/republican results.
Having said that, looking at this data and ignoring the context of the pandemic is just bad faith. From the time Trump took office until March 2020, the national debt increased ~$4T. From March 2020 until Trump left office, the debt increased another $4T. If you remove the pandemic, national debt was on pace to be about the same increase relative to Obama.
There are so many things to attack Trump over, but this ain’t it.
… it was George Bush who raised taxes that allowed Bill Clinton to be successful. That was the whole reason why he lost his second term. He promised not to raise taxes, and he did. A third Republican candidate ran as an independent that took away almost 20% of the vote that would’ve went to Bush, allowing Bill Clinton to win.
That's the problem with rating the president by how the economy is right now. Most of the economy is outside of the president's control, and when presidents take steps that influence the economy, the effects are often not felt until the next administration.
Reagan was an absolute fuckhead, but his Fed's policy got inflation under control paving the way for the 90s business cycle boom to be prolonged compared to others so notably
Thanks for posting this. Someone actually gives us some real economic data instead of the usual bullshit political rhetoric. None of this happened in a vacuum. Now sit back and watch everyone argue about who and which party is at "fault".
Are these inflation adjusted?
Revenue in 1980 was 18.09% of GDP. In 1988 it was 17.36%of GDP.
Spending was 20.68% of GDP IN 1980 and 20.32% of GDP IN 1988.
Tax revenue has never been above 20% of GDP. Tell me more how tax cuts are the problem and not the spending.
Well, if you want to spend more than ever, you need to make more than ever or increase the deficit. It's rather trivial logic isn't it? I suppose it's like saying if you want to lose weight, you must burn more calories than you eat, however American obesity rates would suggest that as a people, they lack the discipline to do so. Debt reduction seems rather similar.
> Revenue in 1980 was 18.09% of GDP. In 1988 it was 17.36%of GDP.
>
>
>
> Spending was 20.68% of GDP IN 1980 and 20.32% of GDP IN 1988.
So you're basically acknowledging that Reagan had to increase taxes on the non-rich in order to fund his tax cuts for the rich.
This isn't the flex you think it is
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-15/the-mostly-forgotten-tax-increases-of-1982-1993
No, tax rate cuts didnt drastically change revenue. And if you look at who paid income taxes before and after the rate cuts, the non rich paid less in taxes, not more.
None of that is accurate. The tax cuts did change revenue but they were offset by tax increases that produced a similar amount of revenue.
And average effective rates plummeted for the richest Americans during this time period from ~47% to 35% while payroll taxes rose. This is even explicitly called for under the terminology of "broadening the tax base," a specifically defined goal of the GOP and right wing think tanks.
If you think revenue is stable regardless of the rate of taxation, I don’t know what to tell you.
The Laffer curve is real, but it’s much sharper than initially theorized and you never really know where you are on it.
Things like the last two big rounds of tax cuts had measurable downward impacts on federal revenues.
It’s not a matter of thinking revenue is stable is relation to GDP. It is a fact. It is data. Wishing it isn’t so doesn’t make it so. And yes, after the tax cuts revenue went down, for a year or two. Then it goes back up.
You didn't answer their question. You just deflected.
Why wasn't tax revenue to GDP significantly higher back before tax cuts? You need to explain that. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Tax revenue was 19.75% before bush tax cuts.
Dropping all the way to 15.5% after bush tax cuts/dot com bubble.
Deficit as a % of gdp is usually 2-4%.
19.75-15.5= 4.25%
Congrats with tax cuts you now created a debt every year that accumulates
For the record, Obama was worse than Trump here. While the Great Recession did require some outlays, it was nowhere near the catastrophic and unforseen Black Swan event of the coronavirus pandemic.
Also, while the 2017 Tax Cuts did have an impact, the statement that there wasn't the economic positive from it is a bit sus. The economy in Dec 2019 was firing on all cylinders and had things continued those revenues might have balanced out well enough.
Nobody has the appetite for austerity, nobody has the appetite for increased taxation.
Both are political suicide. And both are necessary to solve the problem.
Nothing stops this train.
Why is it a problem? If this is the necessary fiscal policy for an economy strong enough to be politically viable, then what's the issue?
Why should people suffer mass unemployment and increased poverty to service some financial ratios that don't mean anything to a country that controls its own currency?
> then what's the issue?
I'm just going off of the reality of politics and voting patterns for the last 50 or 100 years. Probably longer. Of course raising taxes and austerity aren't popular!
Sure, but the point is that the debt problem isn't really a problem. It's just a sum total of net private sector savings. There is no risk in there being too many savings, as the demand for savings will be infinite. The risk comes with people spending all those savings and causing inflation. If we're not seeing unwanted demand pull inflation, then all those savings aren't an issue.
But you can't just ponzi our way up into a giant savings account. The money, the yield has to come from somewhere.
Demand for savings is infinite, but the ability to make the payments on those is not. On our current trajectory, you either default, or you inflate away the debt. There are no other answers.
And, well, America doesn't default on it's debt.
The yield is voluntary. It comes from the Fed, the monopoly issuer of the currency, which has full price setting power when it comes to interest rates.
The ability to make payments is infinite. The government can spend any amount of money it wants. It obviously shouldn't but recognizing that it can means you don't have to play to the fiction that the government is beholden to the private sector to fund itself.
The government can just stop paying interest. No more interest driven inflation problem after that. Spending levels can then be dictated by trying to achieve full employment, not some anachronistic system that is based on having a convertible currency.
> service some financial ratios that don't mean anything to a country that controls its own currency?
Have control until it doesn’t. Only have true control over if it doesn’t engage in international trade.
Do you think the US government will collapse? Not much chance that USD becomes worthless otherwise.
This is also just an increase in the cost of imports, not the currency issuer losing control over its currency. If your exchange rate goes down then domestic production benefits and exports get more attractive. That's good for the real economy and pushes the value of the currency back up.
>Do you think the US government will collapse? Not much chance that USD becomes worthless otherwise.
No I don’t think the US government will collapse but I do believe that the dollar CAN be printed till it becomes largely devalued on the international market.
Your thesis was - “print infinity money since the government controls the money it’s fine”
> If your exchange rate goes down then domestic production benefits and exports get more attractive.
Maybe our sweatshops can become competitive again.
> No I don’t think the US government will collapse but I do believe that the dollar CAN be printed till it becomes largely devalued on the international market.
Sure, at some point. It's not something that can be forced onto the US though. It would have to be a voluntary outcome of monetary and fiscal policy. It would be extremely stupid and the political pressure to address the decline in this hypothetical would be enormous.
>Your thesis was - “print infinity money since the government controls the money it’s fine”
That's not my argument at all lol. My statement was about an economy healthy enough to be politically viable. That means funding close enough to full employment for people to accept the outcomes. That absolutely doesn't mean carelessly spending "infinity money" because consequences aren't real. Overspending is bad and will create unwanted inflation. However, you have to pass through the full employment economy stage before you've used up all your resources and the spending becomes inflationary on its own. Just stop at the full employment stage.
>Maybe our sweatshops can become competitive again.
You're right, there is no manufacturing in the US at all and it could only be regained with sweatshops.
> My statement was about an economy healthy enough to be politically viable.
The current spend rate (deficit) is not sustainable in my opinion and I’m also not sure it is “politically viable” so in interpretation of this is that you feel we should spend more.
Which in my thoughts we arrive here:
> Overspending is bad and will create unwanted inflation.
> The current spend rate (deficit) is not sustainable in my opinion
Sure, and you're entitled to your opinion, but you've only really argued it with hyperbole and strawmen.
>you feel we should spend more
No, I would spend different, which should allow for less spending. I'd have a federal job guarantee so deficit spending was precisely targeted and helping those that need it most. It would stimulate the economy subject to the amount of labour market slack. You could stop running everything through the financial sector first which just serves to boost incomes and wealth for those that are already rich.
Since that seems very unlikely to happen, the only real alternative is inefficient deficits that are large enough to stimulate the demand for labour above some acceptable point.
Exactly. Plus we are a global empire which takes a lot of spending. You just keep rolling until you don't. There is literally no way to fix this. No one is ever going to raise taxes and no one is ever going to implement austerity measures. It's laughable right? All the discussions about it on here are just academic. Us talking over coffee and cigarettes. It's the same reason that CFOs don't run companies and CEOs do. It's just the human condition writ large. Sure, when and if it crashes and burns everyone on the subreddit can roll their eyes and say I told you so but it still doesn't change anything.
Doomer nonsense. We are at the point now where the margins in both chambers of congress are razor thin, and a good portion of that is because of the nearly symmetric polarity of the country. Its a matter of ideological gridlock that prevents any sort of change coming from the legislative branch. You say all of this to make the lurkers feel hopeless and not vote, because those people tend to vote for Democrats.
Does anyone else find it the slightest bit deceptive to represent paying the government less in taxes as “the government spending more”? Is anyone else buying that?
Revenues are up vs pre-COVID. It is indeed the spending that is way-up and driving the deficits/debt:
[https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary)
New analysis? We’ve known this information for a long time lol. The difference is trump was in office during the early days of Covid when markets/infrastructure/everything was collapsing. Bidens just running up debt now for nonsense. Trump spending was definitely overkill, not good… But at least put it in context, otherwise posts like this just belong in r/politics
The article covers this. Take out Covid relief/recovery from both and Trump is still at roughly double Biden's spending. And both terms had a relatively favorable House/Senate for a few years and then a more unfavorable House/Senate.
Trump was in office during the start of Covid and signed the initial stimulus packages, yes, but he was also in office for 3 years before that with a good economy. And under that good economy he signed tax cuts and increased spending years before the pandemic was a thing.
>The article covers this. Take out Covid relief/recovery from both and Trump is still at roughly double Biden's spending.
How they do this is with a 10year look that blames Trump for spending under Biden. Spending today is way above what it was pre-COVID during Trump's term. To blame that on Trump instead of Biden makes no sense.
> And under that good economy \[Trump\]... increased spending years before the pandemic was a thing.
He did not:
[https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary)
That doc shows the deficit accelerating again in Trump's first 3 years though?
I won't debate the specific numbers this article came up with, main point is that you can't say Trump's spending is all on Covid. His signature accomplishment was major tax cuts without enough of a subsequent economic boost or real spending cuts to offset it. His push for keeping interest rates low and taxes low while his economy was doing well also didn't give his administration much room to work when Covid hit, besides pushing huge stimulus packages.
>That doc shows the deficit accelerating again in Trump's first 3 years though?
Yes, from $665 in 2017 to $947B in 2019 (inflation adjusted). That's mainly due to the drop in revenue from the Trump tax cuts. For 2023 it was $1,405B. If you're looking for a trend, that last number is almost exactly inline with continued, equal increases from 2017 to 2023. Trump's pre-COVID deficits were mainly due to the tax cuts: Biden's post-COVID deficits due to spending increases.
>His push for keeping interest rates low and taxes low while his economy was doing well also didn't give his administration much room to work when Covid hit, besides pushing huge stimulus packages.
Yeah, we probably should have started raising interest rates, maybe as early as 2017, but that wasn't a lever to pull during COVID. The economy needed cash for people to spend, not capital investment.
The House was controlled by Democrats from 2018 till 2022. Let have an honest discussion about spending or don’t talk about it. Look at the Covid spending and who voted for it. Democrats overwhelmingly voted for all of it, even pushing for more. I’m a democrat and really don’t like this discussion. I personally take responsibility for what I do…..they should as well.
You know Biden is in trouble when their attacks focus on record spending supported by Democrats. If Democrats cared so much about soending they wouldnt have supported another round of stimulus AFTER the pandemic was over. How many Democrat tax increase bills were passed when they controlled the House of Representatives. It's almost as if both parties support spending and lower taxes.
Funny how it only took me about 2 seconds to fact check that is nonsense, yet I’m sure I’ll get downvoted into the ground for it: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD
Yeah, who would’ve known Covid would’ve racked up a lot of debt due to those stimulus checks, and people not working. Beforehand unfortunately he cut taxes (which was nice), but failed to cut useless spending along with it. The man should’ve taken cues from Calvin Coolidge and California Governor Reagan, not idiotic populists who call for more cowbell.
I had to look this up because this didn't pass the sniff test. Sure enough, the title is so egregiously incorrect this article should be removed. [Here is the up to date federal debt tracker.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN) Everyone can view it themselves. From the time Trump came into power at the beginning of 2017, to the time he left at the beginning of 2021, the federal debt increased by $7,770,671B. During Biden's term, so far, the debt has increased $6,838,735B. Nowhere close to double, and Biden's term isn't even over yet. At current trajectory, Biden will have added more by the end of his first term.
The cited source for the article confirms this:
> Debt held by the public rose by $7.2 trillion during President Trump’s term including $5.9 trillion in the first three years and five months. Debt held by the public has grown by $6.0 trillion during President Biden’s term so far.
The [source](https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-and-biden-national-debt) is fair and balanced, and includes a lot of interesting details. I encourage everyone to go to *that* article instead.
So Trump overseeing some 600Bil in fraudulent PPP loans gets a pass? Covid spending is a nice excuse to let the GOP get away with insane increases to the deficit while blaming Dems for taking responsibility and sorting out the chaos left over. It's consistent, the GOP suck at running a budget and refuse to legislate otherwise.
Here's a tracker of spending and revenue showing that the big change from pre-COVID is spending is way up (still today) whereas revenue is only up a little.:
[https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary)
The 'Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget' are Center-Right and factual, per most bias tracking sites.
They focus heavily on entitlement reform, aka taking away benefits and services used by citizens daily. For example this org champions cutting Social Security and Medicare instead of targeted progressive tax increases. This follows a long history of it's core donors ideology going back to the Nixon era, like via Peter G. Peterson. They've also accepted money from tobacco companies before lobbying for those groups.
Although the numbers may be accurate, I do not trust the opinion based work they contribute to analysis. Their stated goal is counter to the needs of every day citizens.
I think people need to get the idea of reducing the national debt out of their heads. It's simply not going to happen in a complex system like this one.
America is a global empire. America is also the global hegemon. In order to maintain the status quo, money will need to be spent. It isn't exactly cheap to keep this thing moving. It helps that the dollar is also the reserve currency used for trade, which gives the US a lot more leeway.
This is the simple truth. Hegemony isn't cheap. Hegemonic powers want to remain hegemonic. This requires money. And the American people are reaping the benefits of this hegemony. Are you aware of how many nations the US had to step on to provide things like the stuffed crust pizza or the Crunchwrap Supreme or buying massive bulk items at warehouses? These are the rewards of the massive deficits that keep the Empire running.
To make anything as great as the 50's we need to start with 50's tax rates on the rich and target other methods by which capital is extracted from markets like stock by backs and similarly counterproductive market moves.
If the top tax rate was above 65% and we uncapped SS contributions we might start to fund those investments.
But you realize as debt grows faster than revenue, we have to spend more and more money (as % of revenue) just paying interest on that debt. That means less money being spent on stuff that actually matters. Eventually this can spiral out of control and we will need austerity measures.
I mean at the end of the day it will be inflated away. We're are all "paying" for it one way or another, and, inflation allows us to keep the train going and the worst from happening for a lot longer.
“But we can’t possibly inflate our way out of debt problems! What will the widows and orphans do on their fixed trust incomes? We should cut everyone’s SS and Medicare first.”
/s
Stop this foolish assertion. This is such a cheap hand wave that ‘oh that debt doesn’t matter!’
Only about 1/3 of US debt is intragovernmental.
And that is federal retirement pensions and social security. Are those things you just want to default on.
Oh, that’s why the Republicans are going harp on it, they understand the average voter has no fucking clue how things work.
That’s said, there’s only one party that you absolutely know is gonna do everything they can to cut taxes for those who can afford to pay the most. And those who should pay the most.
So if you wanna give billionaires tax cuts, you know who to vote for.
edit: There’s also the fact that Trump ran up the national deficit twice as much as Biden. Even after you account for Covid spending.
Is this a misprint or am I missing something?
By the numbers: Trump added $8.4 trillion in borrowing over a ten-year window, CRFB finds in a report out this morning.
Biden's figure clocks in at $4.3 trillion with seven months remaining in his term.
10 years for Trump and 3.45 for Biden?
No you're missing something. It's 8.4t in 10 year debt for trump and 3.45t at with seven months left in 10 year debt for biden. The debt is evaluated as 10 year debt because its funded by treasury notes that you can redeem at the end of 10 years.
Correct. The headline is not just incorrect. It's a flat out lie. From the source:
> [Debt held by the public rose by $7.2 trillion during President Trump’s term including $5.9 trillion in the first three years and five months. Debt held by the public has grown by $6.0 trillion during President Biden’s term so far.](https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-and-biden-national-debt)
The author of the submission article conflates "ran up" with "authorised." Clearly intentionally because it makes for a great clickbait title.
You're conflating debt increase with the cause of the debt.
It's like if we're in a boat that's taking on water and I drilled a bunch of holes in the boat, woke you up and said its your turn to watch the boat and then 6 hours later got mad at you for how much water is in the boat.
Trump, along with all other countries around the world, had to fund extra to cover the covid-19 pandemic.
What is Biden's excuse? A hefty inflation measure that didnt stop inflation at all?
Debt doesn't matter.
Debt as a percentage of GDP is what matters.
Debt rose in 2021 and 2022 but the debt became more sustainable.
It's also the economic conditions make a huge difference. Bush only added 5 Trillion but a lot of that was a waste in a war and the economy was pretty good for the most part.
Obama came into 2008 recession and deficit fell each year and debt as a percentage of GDP stabilized.
The interest rate change made the deficit go up by $1T.
I think some interest rate falling is expected.
Raising taxes as the TCJA individual tax cuts expire in December 2025 and if taxes go up on people making less than $100k every politician will be on the chopping block. Hopefully pair that with some more tax increases and hopefully think about raising more taxes/cutting spending and lowering interest rates.
Instead of slowing the economy down by interest rates we could just tax/cut spending and lower interest rates.
> Debt as a percentage of GDP is what matters.
Growing GDP has been the playbook of outgrowing deficit spending for the last 70 years.
Infinite growth is not a valid excuse.
But I don't understand GDP gas grown.
And if you are a degrowther GDP grew and carbon emissions have fallen since 2015. We are not hitting a limit on growth yet.
Debt spiked as a percentage of gdp during the pandemic from 104 to 120’s. Since then it has remained 15 to 20% too high. Servicing the debt is getting harder which is why absolute numbers matter in my humble opinion.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
With the 'Economy' being the #1 voter issue, there's been lots of economic posts to r/economics to discredit Trump.
These articles are PsyOps published to sway voter sentiment.
Consume with skepticism.
These analysis are so flawed. Each side has their biases.
Here is the reality.
Trump gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy and companies that the wealthy own. While this was very expensive, it is very expensive over time, and not a huge amount each year. Bad though.
The reason Trump has spent so much was because of covid. That isn't he fault. The republicans and democrats both agreed on the covid spending. It wasn't perfect, a bit excessive, but it was a good call. It's the only reason we had a V shaped recovery. People have no concept of what sustained 20% unemployment can do. We were looking at the next great recession.
Biden had some more covid response spending, but he largely inherited those Trump tax cuts. Those Trump tax cuts have lead to a majority of Bidens budget deficit.
I mean Trump did enable about 600BIL in PPP loan fraud by putting his onw guy in charge. There are other clear arguments for his ownership of that debt #.
It's also about 2x the debt added over the same period by any other president. Where most others 2x'ed the debt in 8 year periods, Trump did it in 4.
> The reason Trump has spent so much was because of covid. That isn't he fault.
It actually is, even if not 100%. A **doubling** of the deficit in only 4 years clearly can't be written off as a COVID bump when fraud rampant in various programs sponsored by Trump and the GOP (ex PPP oversight was replaced by a Trumper then saw some 600Bil in potential fraud).
I would argue that denying Trump and the GOP's responsibility for the debt increase and fraud perpetuated against us as citizens is irresponsible yourself but maybe par for the apologist entries in this sub. The GOP demonstrate again and again they are only good for the rich and corps yet we see dialogue like this projecting innocence on the worst offenders.
>The reason Trump has spent so much was because of covid. That isn't he fault. The republicans and democrats both agreed on the covid spending. It wasn't perfect, a bit excessive, but it was a good call. It's the only reason we had a V shaped recovery. People have no concept of what sustained....Biden had some more covid response spending....
I agree that the COVID spending was excessive. So, doesn't that mean that Biden and the Democrats should take significant blame for that, given that they passed another round after he was elected (it was a campaign promise)?
>but he largely inherited those Trump tax cuts. Those Trump tax cuts have lead to a majority of Bidens budget deficit.
Revenue is above pre-pandemic levels. But spending is way above pre-pandemic levels. It's the spending that is the main driver of the current high deficits:
[https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary)
>That isn't he fault
I disagree. Ignoring, downplaying and politicizing the virus was a conscious choice he made, one that turned out poorly for our country.
He spent so much to get us out of a situation that his neglect directly put us in.
“I pledge to make the top 1% pair their fare share is half of your talking point.
I’m sure they word smithed cutting spending some how even though it’s a lie.
Yikes.
I had imagined the Federal Budget to be a rather complex behemoth, with countless variables - but ultimately something chosen by Congress and for which Congresspeople are accountable
Silly me
The omnipotent dictator president has been in total control the whole time….
I suppose I vote Kennedy, then, since he seems to be the most sober, accountable, and knowledgeable
I'm no fan of electing convicted felons, but it looks to me like revenues have returned to pre-COVID levels while spending both as in terms of inflation adjusted dollars and a percentage of GDP has not. And as a result the current deficit is higher than pre-COVID....so how is this Trump's fault? By describing 10-year impacts it kinda sounds like they are attributing debt accrued under Biden to Trump. Very strange.
[https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary)
Dude is what used to be called a big government Republican. Give this dude a bottomless pit of US Treasury $$$ and he will blow it. He obviously doesn’t do well with it, other than gaming schemes to finance his imperial tastes through debt finance, shell corps and money laundering.
It appears this Reddit forum has been taken over by Godless liberals who believe Trump caused the prices at the grocery store to be crazy high. Quite ridiculous!!
Anyone paying attention knew this. The GOP shovels cash into handouts to the rich when they control congress and the presidency.
They then clutch pearls as soon as they lose control and balk at the issues they created.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The truth is if you care about the national debt the presidential election is not the battleground for this. The House dictates the spending so choose all your representatives wisely.
>House dictates the spending That's what you learn in your 9th grade Civics class. Technically the official constitutional process starts in the house. The reality of the past half-century or more is that the house, senate, and president work together to put together budget proposals long before any legislation voted on in in the house. All three need to be in alignment or no budget gets passed. In a situation where one party has the presidency, and one or more houses, the executive has a lot of influence over the budget. With the modern Republican party that exists only to give fealty to Trump, one man has tremendous influence over the budget. This debt is Trump's doing, no matter how much he denies responsibility or how his media spins it. edit: typos
The actual truth is, if you care about the national debt, executive and legislative branches are both important. Case in point: George W Bush’s quagmire in the middle east that cost our country trillions of dollars. Yes, you can blame congress and say they authorized it, but if you were alive at the time you’ll remember he lied about the required preconditions in order to put the authorization into motion. Furthermore, he employed accounting tricks to hide the expense as much as possible. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/ tl;dr executive matters just as much as legislative
>This debt is Trump's doing, no matter how much he denies responsibility or how his media spins it. I mean, I'd say it's COVID's fault more than anything. The deficit is still increasing by a pretty major sum, and Trump isn't in office. How is he to blame for the deficit increasing from $1.4 trillion last year, to $1.9 trillion this year? The Trump tax cuts may have decreased tax revenue, but they did not decrease it by $500 billion annually.
Right, and in point of fact, it's pretty much all spending increases that are responsible: [https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary) Revenue decreased only a little during COVID and is back up. Spending increased a lot and still much higher than pre-COVID.
>Revenue decreased only a little during COVID and is back up. Spending increased a lot and still much higher than pre-COVID. Absolutely, it's massive. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/federal-budget-receipts-and-outlays Here's a list of the budget, deficit, and income of the Federal government by year and by President of when they were in office. The data stops at 2021, and uses projected numbers for President Biden's numbers - so those are going to be inaccurate. Unfortunately, those projections ended up being lower than the reality we faced. We had a projected deficit of $1.3 trillion or FY2024, the reality is we have a deficit of $1.9 trillion. A whole $600 billion higher than what was expected.
FYI, my source has the same numbers but also inflation adjusted and up to 2023....
Oh, thanks. Sorry, I was on mobile and couldn't look at the table in a good view on mobile.
Not the tax cuts that has left a gap in the budget since it was passed in 2017? The one that was projected to add 1 trillion dollars to the deficit by 2019 during the 2016 election season by multiple bodies?
Congress just refused to give Biden the money he wanted. They blocked almost 7 billion in spending on Build Back Better bills. So now it's "Biden being unable to pass his bills is a great thing, because it kept the debt lower". Jeez, we take the small victories here I guess.
Yup. Find out who the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies are backing and always vote for the other option.
Also, look at what those reps are proposing and if it looks like it will pass, invest in those companies. Made 27% return in a week on isotope and uranium mining companies when I saw a nuclear technology bill getting close to being passed
> if it looks like it will pass How do you know better than the market whether or not it is likely to pass? That chance is already priced in.
Buy the rumor, sell the news. I generally agree with you but every once in awhile you can catch a lucky wave
100% of things are priced in. That's why nobody makes money or beats the market average. Wait except for all those people who do, like Buffett or Simons or several indie traders you've never heard of. I guess they always just get lucky. The market doesn't price that in, I guess? Efficient market hypothesis is the lamest pseudoscience of the century honestly.
A few ways. First, if it is largely bipartisan legislation without a lot of culture-war baggage (don't bet on a bill that allows chicken trucks to go over weight limits to pass if the bill also includes eliminating COVID masks from school teachers and rants about transgender kids), second, is by the individuals who sponsor the bill, I chose one that a senator with a high rate of legislative success sponsored. Third, and more obvious, there are websites that already do this kind of research and give relative ratings. 4th, look at the current conditions around the bill, this bill was proposed after nuclear energy-related sanctions on Russia so it needed to pass. Fifth, general common sense honestly. Look at legislation long enough and you can get an idea of what will get through and what won't. And finally, a little data analysis by looking at the markets! When the legislation was introduced, a subset of companies that would have benefited from this legislation all had a simultaneous uptick in value that then tapered off while it was in committee. Then the day it passed, a bigger wave that I was lucky enough to ride. You are right that the markets do know best, but doing a bit of cross-correlation can help you pin down your timing. And of course, there are no guarantees in investing, just things you can do to shift the odds in your favor.
“Everything is priced in” and “the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent” are funny because they both counsel the same thing for completely opposite reasons.
Spoiler alert: by the general if it's competitive, it's probably both.
They tend to back both sides.
That’s why you gotta find the Bernie/AOC/Katie Porter ideologue that can’t get bought. If we had 5 Bernie’s in the senate the US would be a in a far better place.
I don't always agree with their positions but they do possess moral fiber.
Same. Half of their takes make my eyes want to roll backwards out of my skull, but they’re genuine. I’d trust any of them 10x over the Schumer, McConnell, Cruz, Rubio, Booker crowd. Hell I’d take Romney in a heartbeat over half the dems. I find almost all of his positions shitty but at least he’s not as transparently for sale as the rest of the senate.
Yeah, at least Romney's an adult. A shitty adult, but an adult.
my general rule of thumb is the opposite of whoever Fox News is promoting
The House dictates the spending along party lines. The President is the head of his party.
/r/Economics has a lot of Republicans in it who like to lie about the importance of elections.
And perusing the Project 2025 manual, youll see it explicitly states there is an achievable plan of circumventing congress so the new "unitary executive" can allocate spending as they see fit.
can you imagine donald trump having unchecked control over the country's spending? jesus christ
You mean like the oversight of PPP loans, which may have a fraud rate nearing 2/3 or about 600 BIL?
can you connect these ideas?
Trump replaced the nonpartisan oversight head of the PPP loan program with a Trump party loyalist: https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-donald-trump-ap-top-news-politics-health-cc921bccf9f7abd27da996ef772823e4 This enabled unchecked fraud, waste, and abuse of the program including what may be hundreds of billions in fraudulent loans: > We estimate that SBA disbursed over $200 billion in potentially fraudulent COVID-19 EIDLs, EIDL Targeted Advances, Supplemental Targeted Advances, and PPP loans. This means at least 17 percent of all COVID-19 EIDL and PPP funds were disbursed to potentially fraudulent actors. https://www.sba.gov/document/report-23-09-covid-19-pandemic-eidl-ppp-loan-fraud-landscape#:~:text=We%20estimate%20that%20SBA%20disbursed,disbursed%20to%20potentially%20fraudulent%20actors. And here is a report putting the $800 Billion Paycheck Protection Program at likely a significantly higher rate of fraud than these older reports: https://shapingwork.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jep.36.2.55.pdf Even if Trump added less to the debt than Biden did in the same time frame, what money did go out the door was so spectacularly mismanaged that any efficiencies start to mirror how Trump runs his personal finances, all grift all the time.
It would just be him moving evey penny to his personal bank account
Yes and no. Congress has given up a lot of their traditional powers of the purse by allowing executive branch departments significnat discretion. A great example is student loan debt forgiveness. Congress never passed a law containing the massive changes to student loan programs, congresd just gave secretarial discetion for spending and certain types of debt relief. No one expected a president and his secretary to accumulate such massive debt from this program, in fact the CBO scored the student loan program as a money maker when it was overhauled during the Obama admin. So, who is to blaim for that kind of spending? Mostly the president in my view.
In that specific instance, yes. But, congress deserves more blame in general. Historically, the presidency passes back and forth every eight years, while not true with congress. Both parties have given away congressional powers to the president, without any care, because they know their party will wield those powers half of the time.
That may be right, but the single biggest factor was the tax cut, which increased both "his" share of the increased debt and Biden's. Let's not pretend that Trump didn't have a big, big hand in getting those tax cuts passed; both directly as President but also by helping get so many republicans elected that they had the power they did in congress.
Why has the debt gone up far more under Republican presidents than Democratic ones my entire lifetime? (39m) Genuinely curious if there is a reasonable answer or if you are attempting to cope.
Because Republicans always slash taxes on the wealthy and don't reduce spending.
They don't get the chance to reduce spending, because they start talking about cutting social security and medicare (and now the ACA too) and all the people who voted for them don't vote or vote differently.
I mean they could try to cut spending before cutting taxes but something tells me that would never happen.
The fiscally conservative party are the Democrats, since Reagan at least.
Except, 70% of our spending is mandatory spending. Unless we get entitlement reform, that is not going to change.
Yeah, but we only ever hear about the national debt when a Democrat's running for reelection.
It doesn't matter what you choose. Neither primary party gives a shit about the debt/deficit because they have no incentive to. You don't win elections by worrying about debt/deficit.
This is true. What is also true is that Republicans always increase the debt way more than Democrats.
Are you just looking at who was sitting in presidential throne? The economic truth is far murkier than that.
Then let’s talk results. Results tell us that democrats are better on debt/deficit. If the results you want is lower deficit, democrats are the clear choice
But if the headline was reversed and it was Biden it would be all over mass media blaming him for it. We've all seen enough to know how it works.
Exactly. Presidents can write up a budget (or at least budget item proposals), and get someone in congress to submit them, but they rarely get passed as written. The budget is a congressional issue.
not anymore! remember when biden tried to pass student loan forgiveness spending, got shut down, then did it anyways? It turns out the president is basically a dictator-in-chief when there’s no police to police the president.
Umm, he got shut down by the SCOTUS after trying to unilaterally do something with student loan forgiveness. It's called checks and balances.
Umm, he did it anyways after getting shut down 😂
These were not the same thing. There's much more to it then that. One was blanket forgiveness, now he has to go through case by case, and usually only applicable to fraud or if the balance on the loan has already been paid, etc.
point is, if you’re a president who *wants* to spend money, boy howdy you can *spend it* via executive action
The national debt of the United States has increased over time for a variety of reasons, specific to the policies and circumstances during each presidency. Here’s an overview of some key factors for each administration: ### Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) - **Tax Cuts:** Reagan implemented significant tax cuts, particularly for the wealthy and corporations, which reduced government revenue. - **Increased Military Spending:** There was a substantial increase in military spending during the Cold War. - **Economic Policies:** Supply-side economics, or "Reaganomics," aimed to stimulate the economy but led to large budget deficits. ### George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) - **Economic Recession:** Early 1990s recession reduced government revenue and increased spending on social programs. - **Gulf War:** Costs associated with the Gulf War added to the national debt. - **Budget Deficits:** Continued budget deficits due to a combination of reduced revenue and increased spending. ### Bill Clinton (1993-2001) - **Economic Growth:** The 1990s economic boom increased government revenues. - **Budget Surpluses:** Fiscal policies, including tax increases on the wealthy and spending restraints, resulted in budget surpluses in the late 1990s. - **Debt Reduction:** Some of the budget surpluses were used to pay down the national debt. ### George W. Bush (2001-2009) - **Tax Cuts:** Significant tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 reduced government revenue. - **Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:** The costs of these wars added significantly to the national debt. - **Great Recession:** The 2008 financial crisis led to massive bailouts and stimulus spending to stabilize the economy. ### Barack Obama (2009-2017) - **Economic Stimulus:** The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 aimed to stimulate the economy post-recession, leading to increased government spending. - **Affordable Care Act:** Implementation of the ACA, while intended to reduce long-term healthcare costs, involved significant initial spending. - **Continued War Spending:** Ongoing costs from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. ### Donald Trump (2017-2021) - **Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:** The 2017 tax cuts significantly reduced government revenue while not leading to proportional economic growth. - **Increased Military and Domestic Spending:** Both military and discretionary domestic spending increased. - **COVID-19 Pandemic:** The pandemic led to massive emergency spending on relief packages to support the economy, individuals, and businesses. ### Joe Biden (2021- ) - **COVID-19 Relief:** Continued pandemic relief spending, including the American Rescue Plan. - **Infrastructure and Social Spending:** Proposals and implementations for large infrastructure investments and expanded social programs. - **Economic Stimulus:** Continued efforts to stimulate economic recovery post-pandemic. In general, the increase in national debt is driven by a combination of tax policies, spending on wars and social programs, economic recessions, and significant emergency measures (such as those during the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic). Here is an overview of the national debt on the first day and the last day of each U.S. presidency starting with Ronald Reagan: ### Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) - **First Day (January 20, 1981):** $930 billion - **Last Day (January 20, 1989):** $2.7 trillion ### George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) - **First Day (January 20, 1989):** $2.7 trillion - **Last Day (January 20, 1993):** $4.2 trillion ### Bill Clinton (1993-2001) - **First Day (January 20, 1993):** $4.2 trillion - **Last Day (January 20, 2001):** $5.7 trillion ### George W. Bush (2001-2009) - **First Day (January 20, 2001):** $5.7 trillion - **Last Day (January 20, 2009):** $10.6 trillion ### Barack Obama (2009-2017) - **First Day (January 20, 2009):** $10.6 trillion - **Last Day (January 20, 2017):** $19.9 trillion ### Donald Trump (2017-2021) - **First Day (January 20, 2017):** $19.9 trillion - **Last Day (January 20, 2021):** $27.8 trillion ### Joe Biden (2021- ) - **First Day (January 20, 2021):** $27.8 trillion - **Current Day (June 24, 2024):** Approximately $32.7 trillion These figures are approximations based on historical data and may vary slightly based on sources and exact calculation methods.
The national debt stands at $34.7 trillion as of June 2024
And it was 21.6 trillion at the end of January 2021 https://www.pgpf.org/the-current-federal-budget-deficit/budget-deficit-january-2021
so according to you 2 guys, Trump added a net +1.9T in 4 years and and Biden added +13.1T in 3.5 years?
Attributing debt directly to a president is a fools errand for many reasons. Tracking the overall national debt based on first/last day in office is equally silly. The most obvious proof of this is the great recession. By most objective measures, the government bailout of banks and industry as a result of the great recession was one of the most successful government intervention programs ever created. * TARP resulted in a net gain of $30B. * Fanny/Freddy bailout has profited more than 50% in dividend payments since 2012. * Bear Stearns bailout was paid off by 2012 and >$750M in interest payments were gained * AIG bailout earned the government more than $23B in profit Using your tracking methodology above, all of the bailout debt would be attributed to GWB, but the benefits of that program would be attributed to Obama.
The Great recession was also a huge wealth transfer from people to investment entities. It looks good on paper from certain angles, but that money could also have kept people in houses and paid the banks. About the only positive was the anemic Dodd-Frank act.
There were a lot of people on the right point this out at the time and how Bush's debt numbers looked worse and Obama's better due to government accounting. Basically the TARP money went out under Bush and back under Obama, but the coming back part gets buried in the details. If the TARP money had never been repaid Obama's deficits would have been even worse. $426 billion spent and $441 billion returned.
I think the data presented shows how Trump and the GOP, over 4 years, racked up about 2x what Obama did in a single term. It's pretty good for demonstrating the premise of this post. On some level people on the right can't process basic math, science, or critical thinking activities like critical reading. They see the one number and point to what else they think they know. This set of numbers clearly show about a 2x from each president but that is over 8 years while Trump only had 4.
I dont like Trump. I think he is a garbage human being. I think he spent irresponsibly and didn’t deliver traditional conservative/republican results. Having said that, looking at this data and ignoring the context of the pandemic is just bad faith. From the time Trump took office until March 2020, the national debt increased ~$4T. From March 2020 until Trump left office, the debt increased another $4T. If you remove the pandemic, national debt was on pace to be about the same increase relative to Obama. There are so many things to attack Trump over, but this ain’t it.
… it was George Bush who raised taxes that allowed Bill Clinton to be successful. That was the whole reason why he lost his second term. He promised not to raise taxes, and he did. A third Republican candidate ran as an independent that took away almost 20% of the vote that would’ve went to Bush, allowing Bill Clinton to win.
That's the problem with rating the president by how the economy is right now. Most of the economy is outside of the president's control, and when presidents take steps that influence the economy, the effects are often not felt until the next administration.
Reagan was an absolute fuckhead, but his Fed's policy got inflation under control paving the way for the 90s business cycle boom to be prolonged compared to others so notably
That's when the crazy started. Perot wanted to go into Vietnam and rescue POWs. He just couldn't believe that after 40 years there wasn't anyone left.
I downvoted due to "40 years".
>allowed Bill Clinton to be successful. I think anyone would have been successful. It was a gargantuan bull market. A rising tide lifts all ships.
Ok, but it does show that we should raise taxes then. Obama also raised taxes in a couple ways. As has biden.
ChatGPT be like
Clinton isn't the reason we invented the internet. I wish we would stop giving politicians credit for technology breakthroughs.
Thanks for posting this. Someone actually gives us some real economic data instead of the usual bullshit political rhetoric. None of this happened in a vacuum. Now sit back and watch everyone argue about who and which party is at "fault". Are these inflation adjusted?
Why did you note that taxes receipts were lower under GHWB due to the recession, while failing to make the same comment for Reagan?
Revenue in 1980 was 18.09% of GDP. In 1988 it was 17.36%of GDP. Spending was 20.68% of GDP IN 1980 and 20.32% of GDP IN 1988. Tax revenue has never been above 20% of GDP. Tell me more how tax cuts are the problem and not the spending.
Well, if you want to spend more than ever, you need to make more than ever or increase the deficit. It's rather trivial logic isn't it? I suppose it's like saying if you want to lose weight, you must burn more calories than you eat, however American obesity rates would suggest that as a people, they lack the discipline to do so. Debt reduction seems rather similar.
Can it be both?
> Revenue in 1980 was 18.09% of GDP. In 1988 it was 17.36%of GDP. > > > > Spending was 20.68% of GDP IN 1980 and 20.32% of GDP IN 1988. So you're basically acknowledging that Reagan had to increase taxes on the non-rich in order to fund his tax cuts for the rich. This isn't the flex you think it is https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-15/the-mostly-forgotten-tax-increases-of-1982-1993
No, tax rate cuts didnt drastically change revenue. And if you look at who paid income taxes before and after the rate cuts, the non rich paid less in taxes, not more.
None of that is accurate. The tax cuts did change revenue but they were offset by tax increases that produced a similar amount of revenue. And average effective rates plummeted for the richest Americans during this time period from ~47% to 35% while payroll taxes rose. This is even explicitly called for under the terminology of "broadening the tax base," a specifically defined goal of the GOP and right wing think tanks.
Because without the tax cuts, there’d be more revenue.
Why wasn’t revenue higher before the tax cuts then? Revenue is largely stable. Between 16.5% and 17.5% of GDP.
If you think revenue is stable regardless of the rate of taxation, I don’t know what to tell you. The Laffer curve is real, but it’s much sharper than initially theorized and you never really know where you are on it. Things like the last two big rounds of tax cuts had measurable downward impacts on federal revenues.
It’s not a matter of thinking revenue is stable is relation to GDP. It is a fact. It is data. Wishing it isn’t so doesn’t make it so. And yes, after the tax cuts revenue went down, for a year or two. Then it goes back up.
You didn't answer their question. You just deflected. Why wasn't tax revenue to GDP significantly higher back before tax cuts? You need to explain that. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Tax revenue was 19.75% before bush tax cuts. Dropping all the way to 15.5% after bush tax cuts/dot com bubble. Deficit as a % of gdp is usually 2-4%. 19.75-15.5= 4.25% Congrats with tax cuts you now created a debt every year that accumulates
For the record, Obama was worse than Trump here. While the Great Recession did require some outlays, it was nowhere near the catastrophic and unforseen Black Swan event of the coronavirus pandemic. Also, while the 2017 Tax Cuts did have an impact, the statement that there wasn't the economic positive from it is a bit sus. The economy in Dec 2019 was firing on all cylinders and had things continued those revenues might have balanced out well enough.
Nobody has the appetite for austerity, nobody has the appetite for increased taxation. Both are political suicide. And both are necessary to solve the problem. Nothing stops this train.
Why is it a problem? If this is the necessary fiscal policy for an economy strong enough to be politically viable, then what's the issue? Why should people suffer mass unemployment and increased poverty to service some financial ratios that don't mean anything to a country that controls its own currency?
> then what's the issue? I'm just going off of the reality of politics and voting patterns for the last 50 or 100 years. Probably longer. Of course raising taxes and austerity aren't popular!
Sure, but the point is that the debt problem isn't really a problem. It's just a sum total of net private sector savings. There is no risk in there being too many savings, as the demand for savings will be infinite. The risk comes with people spending all those savings and causing inflation. If we're not seeing unwanted demand pull inflation, then all those savings aren't an issue.
But you can't just ponzi our way up into a giant savings account. The money, the yield has to come from somewhere. Demand for savings is infinite, but the ability to make the payments on those is not. On our current trajectory, you either default, or you inflate away the debt. There are no other answers. And, well, America doesn't default on it's debt.
The yield is voluntary. It comes from the Fed, the monopoly issuer of the currency, which has full price setting power when it comes to interest rates. The ability to make payments is infinite. The government can spend any amount of money it wants. It obviously shouldn't but recognizing that it can means you don't have to play to the fiction that the government is beholden to the private sector to fund itself. The government can just stop paying interest. No more interest driven inflation problem after that. Spending levels can then be dictated by trying to achieve full employment, not some anachronistic system that is based on having a convertible currency.
> service some financial ratios that don't mean anything to a country that controls its own currency? Have control until it doesn’t. Only have true control over if it doesn’t engage in international trade.
How could a monopoly issuer of the currency lose control over its currency? How does a price setter with total control become a price taker?
You try to buy something with it on the international market and find out it’s worthless.
Do you think the US government will collapse? Not much chance that USD becomes worthless otherwise. This is also just an increase in the cost of imports, not the currency issuer losing control over its currency. If your exchange rate goes down then domestic production benefits and exports get more attractive. That's good for the real economy and pushes the value of the currency back up.
>Do you think the US government will collapse? Not much chance that USD becomes worthless otherwise. No I don’t think the US government will collapse but I do believe that the dollar CAN be printed till it becomes largely devalued on the international market. Your thesis was - “print infinity money since the government controls the money it’s fine” > If your exchange rate goes down then domestic production benefits and exports get more attractive. Maybe our sweatshops can become competitive again.
> No I don’t think the US government will collapse but I do believe that the dollar CAN be printed till it becomes largely devalued on the international market. Sure, at some point. It's not something that can be forced onto the US though. It would have to be a voluntary outcome of monetary and fiscal policy. It would be extremely stupid and the political pressure to address the decline in this hypothetical would be enormous. >Your thesis was - “print infinity money since the government controls the money it’s fine” That's not my argument at all lol. My statement was about an economy healthy enough to be politically viable. That means funding close enough to full employment for people to accept the outcomes. That absolutely doesn't mean carelessly spending "infinity money" because consequences aren't real. Overspending is bad and will create unwanted inflation. However, you have to pass through the full employment economy stage before you've used up all your resources and the spending becomes inflationary on its own. Just stop at the full employment stage. >Maybe our sweatshops can become competitive again. You're right, there is no manufacturing in the US at all and it could only be regained with sweatshops.
> My statement was about an economy healthy enough to be politically viable. The current spend rate (deficit) is not sustainable in my opinion and I’m also not sure it is “politically viable” so in interpretation of this is that you feel we should spend more. Which in my thoughts we arrive here: > Overspending is bad and will create unwanted inflation.
> The current spend rate (deficit) is not sustainable in my opinion Sure, and you're entitled to your opinion, but you've only really argued it with hyperbole and strawmen. >you feel we should spend more No, I would spend different, which should allow for less spending. I'd have a federal job guarantee so deficit spending was precisely targeted and helping those that need it most. It would stimulate the economy subject to the amount of labour market slack. You could stop running everything through the financial sector first which just serves to boost incomes and wealth for those that are already rich. Since that seems very unlikely to happen, the only real alternative is inefficient deficits that are large enough to stimulate the demand for labour above some acceptable point.
This is a bunch of bs. Lots of poor people have an appetite for raising taxes, on the rich!
Austerity killed Europe.
Exactly. Plus we are a global empire which takes a lot of spending. You just keep rolling until you don't. There is literally no way to fix this. No one is ever going to raise taxes and no one is ever going to implement austerity measures. It's laughable right? All the discussions about it on here are just academic. Us talking over coffee and cigarettes. It's the same reason that CFOs don't run companies and CEOs do. It's just the human condition writ large. Sure, when and if it crashes and burns everyone on the subreddit can roll their eyes and say I told you so but it still doesn't change anything.
Doomer nonsense. We are at the point now where the margins in both chambers of congress are razor thin, and a good portion of that is because of the nearly symmetric polarity of the country. Its a matter of ideological gridlock that prevents any sort of change coming from the legislative branch. You say all of this to make the lurkers feel hopeless and not vote, because those people tend to vote for Democrats.
Does anyone else find it the slightest bit deceptive to represent paying the government less in taxes as “the government spending more”? Is anyone else buying that?
Revenues are up vs pre-COVID. It is indeed the spending that is way-up and driving the deficits/debt: [https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary)
New analysis? We’ve known this information for a long time lol. The difference is trump was in office during the early days of Covid when markets/infrastructure/everything was collapsing. Bidens just running up debt now for nonsense. Trump spending was definitely overkill, not good… But at least put it in context, otherwise posts like this just belong in r/politics
The article covers this. Take out Covid relief/recovery from both and Trump is still at roughly double Biden's spending. And both terms had a relatively favorable House/Senate for a few years and then a more unfavorable House/Senate. Trump was in office during the start of Covid and signed the initial stimulus packages, yes, but he was also in office for 3 years before that with a good economy. And under that good economy he signed tax cuts and increased spending years before the pandemic was a thing.
>The article covers this. Take out Covid relief/recovery from both and Trump is still at roughly double Biden's spending. How they do this is with a 10year look that blames Trump for spending under Biden. Spending today is way above what it was pre-COVID during Trump's term. To blame that on Trump instead of Biden makes no sense. > And under that good economy \[Trump\]... increased spending years before the pandemic was a thing. He did not: [https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary)
That doc shows the deficit accelerating again in Trump's first 3 years though? I won't debate the specific numbers this article came up with, main point is that you can't say Trump's spending is all on Covid. His signature accomplishment was major tax cuts without enough of a subsequent economic boost or real spending cuts to offset it. His push for keeping interest rates low and taxes low while his economy was doing well also didn't give his administration much room to work when Covid hit, besides pushing huge stimulus packages.
>That doc shows the deficit accelerating again in Trump's first 3 years though? Yes, from $665 in 2017 to $947B in 2019 (inflation adjusted). That's mainly due to the drop in revenue from the Trump tax cuts. For 2023 it was $1,405B. If you're looking for a trend, that last number is almost exactly inline with continued, equal increases from 2017 to 2023. Trump's pre-COVID deficits were mainly due to the tax cuts: Biden's post-COVID deficits due to spending increases. >His push for keeping interest rates low and taxes low while his economy was doing well also didn't give his administration much room to work when Covid hit, besides pushing huge stimulus packages. Yeah, we probably should have started raising interest rates, maybe as early as 2017, but that wasn't a lever to pull during COVID. The economy needed cash for people to spend, not capital investment.
The House was controlled by Democrats from 2018 till 2022. Let have an honest discussion about spending or don’t talk about it. Look at the Covid spending and who voted for it. Democrats overwhelmingly voted for all of it, even pushing for more. I’m a democrat and really don’t like this discussion. I personally take responsibility for what I do…..they should as well.
You know Biden is in trouble when their attacks focus on record spending supported by Democrats. If Democrats cared so much about soending they wouldnt have supported another round of stimulus AFTER the pandemic was over. How many Democrat tax increase bills were passed when they controlled the House of Representatives. It's almost as if both parties support spending and lower taxes.
I assume stories like this are more pre-emptive than anything else, not a major focus.
Republicans and Democrats are remarkably similar when you look at the economic policies they actually pass when in office.
Funny how it only took me about 2 seconds to fact check that is nonsense, yet I’m sure I’ll get downvoted into the ground for it: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD
Yeah, who would’ve known Covid would’ve racked up a lot of debt due to those stimulus checks, and people not working. Beforehand unfortunately he cut taxes (which was nice), but failed to cut useless spending along with it. The man should’ve taken cues from Calvin Coolidge and California Governor Reagan, not idiotic populists who call for more cowbell.
I had to look this up because this didn't pass the sniff test. Sure enough, the title is so egregiously incorrect this article should be removed. [Here is the up to date federal debt tracker.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN) Everyone can view it themselves. From the time Trump came into power at the beginning of 2017, to the time he left at the beginning of 2021, the federal debt increased by $7,770,671B. During Biden's term, so far, the debt has increased $6,838,735B. Nowhere close to double, and Biden's term isn't even over yet. At current trajectory, Biden will have added more by the end of his first term. The cited source for the article confirms this: > Debt held by the public rose by $7.2 trillion during President Trump’s term including $5.9 trillion in the first three years and five months. Debt held by the public has grown by $6.0 trillion during President Biden’s term so far. The [source](https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-and-biden-national-debt) is fair and balanced, and includes a lot of interesting details. I encourage everyone to go to *that* article instead.
NVM the fact that a lot of trump was covid spending... biden had some as well but his covid spending was unnecessary
So Trump overseeing some 600Bil in fraudulent PPP loans gets a pass? Covid spending is a nice excuse to let the GOP get away with insane increases to the deficit while blaming Dems for taking responsibility and sorting out the chaos left over. It's consistent, the GOP suck at running a budget and refuse to legislate otherwise.
Covid spending was maybe 5 trillion dollars. When Trump entered office the Debt was at 16 trillion. Today the debt is at 32 trillion. Can you do math?
Here's a tracker of spending and revenue showing that the big change from pre-COVID is spending is way up (still today) whereas revenue is only up a little.: [https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary)
The 'Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget' are Center-Right and factual, per most bias tracking sites. They focus heavily on entitlement reform, aka taking away benefits and services used by citizens daily. For example this org champions cutting Social Security and Medicare instead of targeted progressive tax increases. This follows a long history of it's core donors ideology going back to the Nixon era, like via Peter G. Peterson. They've also accepted money from tobacco companies before lobbying for those groups. Although the numbers may be accurate, I do not trust the opinion based work they contribute to analysis. Their stated goal is counter to the needs of every day citizens.
I think people need to get the idea of reducing the national debt out of their heads. It's simply not going to happen in a complex system like this one. America is a global empire. America is also the global hegemon. In order to maintain the status quo, money will need to be spent. It isn't exactly cheap to keep this thing moving. It helps that the dollar is also the reserve currency used for trade, which gives the US a lot more leeway. This is the simple truth. Hegemony isn't cheap. Hegemonic powers want to remain hegemonic. This requires money. And the American people are reaping the benefits of this hegemony. Are you aware of how many nations the US had to step on to provide things like the stuffed crust pizza or the Crunchwrap Supreme or buying massive bulk items at warehouses? These are the rewards of the massive deficits that keep the Empire running.
The debt doesn't need to be reduced. Its growth just needs to be slowed so its (at worst) no more than GDP growth.
And spurring GDP growth probably requires large capital investments, which can only be funded with debt.
To make anything as great as the 50's we need to start with 50's tax rates on the rich and target other methods by which capital is extracted from markets like stock by backs and similarly counterproductive market moves. If the top tax rate was above 65% and we uncapped SS contributions we might start to fund those investments.
But you realize as debt grows faster than revenue, we have to spend more and more money (as % of revenue) just paying interest on that debt. That means less money being spent on stuff that actually matters. Eventually this can spiral out of control and we will need austerity measures.
We mostly owe the debt to ourselves. To think we wouldn’t just bend/break the rules to keep the worst from happening is naive.
I mean at the end of the day it will be inflated away. We're are all "paying" for it one way or another, and, inflation allows us to keep the train going and the worst from happening for a lot longer.
“But we can’t possibly inflate our way out of debt problems! What will the widows and orphans do on their fixed trust incomes? We should cut everyone’s SS and Medicare first.” /s
Stop this foolish assertion. This is such a cheap hand wave that ‘oh that debt doesn’t matter!’ Only about 1/3 of US debt is intragovernmental. And that is federal retirement pensions and social security. Are those things you just want to default on.
Oh, that’s why the Republicans are going harp on it, they understand the average voter has no fucking clue how things work. That’s said, there’s only one party that you absolutely know is gonna do everything they can to cut taxes for those who can afford to pay the most. And those who should pay the most. So if you wanna give billionaires tax cuts, you know who to vote for. edit: There’s also the fact that Trump ran up the national deficit twice as much as Biden. Even after you account for Covid spending.
Is this a misprint or am I missing something? By the numbers: Trump added $8.4 trillion in borrowing over a ten-year window, CRFB finds in a report out this morning. Biden's figure clocks in at $4.3 trillion with seven months remaining in his term. 10 years for Trump and 3.45 for Biden?
No you're missing something. It's 8.4t in 10 year debt for trump and 3.45t at with seven months left in 10 year debt for biden. The debt is evaluated as 10 year debt because its funded by treasury notes that you can redeem at the end of 10 years.
Correct. The headline is not just incorrect. It's a flat out lie. From the source: > [Debt held by the public rose by $7.2 trillion during President Trump’s term including $5.9 trillion in the first three years and five months. Debt held by the public has grown by $6.0 trillion during President Biden’s term so far.](https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-and-biden-national-debt) The author of the submission article conflates "ran up" with "authorised." Clearly intentionally because it makes for a great clickbait title.
You're conflating debt increase with the cause of the debt. It's like if we're in a boat that's taking on water and I drilled a bunch of holes in the boat, woke you up and said its your turn to watch the boat and then 6 hours later got mad at you for how much water is in the boat.
That is correct. Inflammatory headline is inflammatory.
Trump, along with all other countries around the world, had to fund extra to cover the covid-19 pandemic. What is Biden's excuse? A hefty inflation measure that didnt stop inflation at all?
Debt doesn't matter. Debt as a percentage of GDP is what matters. Debt rose in 2021 and 2022 but the debt became more sustainable. It's also the economic conditions make a huge difference. Bush only added 5 Trillion but a lot of that was a waste in a war and the economy was pretty good for the most part. Obama came into 2008 recession and deficit fell each year and debt as a percentage of GDP stabilized.
The interest rate has gone up significantly. That makes it less sustainable
The interest rate change made the deficit go up by $1T. I think some interest rate falling is expected. Raising taxes as the TCJA individual tax cuts expire in December 2025 and if taxes go up on people making less than $100k every politician will be on the chopping block. Hopefully pair that with some more tax increases and hopefully think about raising more taxes/cutting spending and lowering interest rates. Instead of slowing the economy down by interest rates we could just tax/cut spending and lower interest rates.
You’re more optimistic than i on voters correctly directing their ire resulting from tax increases… Will only happen if Trump takes the white house
> Debt as a percentage of GDP is what matters. Growing GDP has been the playbook of outgrowing deficit spending for the last 70 years. Infinite growth is not a valid excuse.
Debt grew most of the last 70 years but the debt as a percentage of GDP plummeted post WW2 until we get to the 1970s.
> debt as a percentage of GDP plummeted post WW2 And why did it do that?
GDP rose faster than debt
Which was my original point! :)
But I don't understand GDP gas grown. And if you are a degrowther GDP grew and carbon emissions have fallen since 2015. We are not hitting a limit on growth yet.
You have to pay interest on the debt. That’s the whole point. It squeezes the US’ expenditures each year.
But it's like asking if a $500k home is affordable. If you make $1 million a year the answer is no, make $30k a year then no you can't afford it.
Take your example further. It’s like making a million a year but you own 10 $500,000 houses already. Can you afford the 11th?
Debt spiked as a percentage of gdp during the pandemic from 104 to 120’s. Since then it has remained 15 to 20% too high. Servicing the debt is getting harder which is why absolute numbers matter in my humble opinion. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
With the 'Economy' being the #1 voter issue, there's been lots of economic posts to r/economics to discredit Trump. These articles are PsyOps published to sway voter sentiment. Consume with skepticism.
These analysis are so flawed. Each side has their biases. Here is the reality. Trump gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy and companies that the wealthy own. While this was very expensive, it is very expensive over time, and not a huge amount each year. Bad though. The reason Trump has spent so much was because of covid. That isn't he fault. The republicans and democrats both agreed on the covid spending. It wasn't perfect, a bit excessive, but it was a good call. It's the only reason we had a V shaped recovery. People have no concept of what sustained 20% unemployment can do. We were looking at the next great recession. Biden had some more covid response spending, but he largely inherited those Trump tax cuts. Those Trump tax cuts have lead to a majority of Bidens budget deficit.
I mean Trump did enable about 600BIL in PPP loan fraud by putting his onw guy in charge. There are other clear arguments for his ownership of that debt #. It's also about 2x the debt added over the same period by any other president. Where most others 2x'ed the debt in 8 year periods, Trump did it in 4. > The reason Trump has spent so much was because of covid. That isn't he fault. It actually is, even if not 100%. A **doubling** of the deficit in only 4 years clearly can't be written off as a COVID bump when fraud rampant in various programs sponsored by Trump and the GOP (ex PPP oversight was replaced by a Trumper then saw some 600Bil in potential fraud). I would argue that denying Trump and the GOP's responsibility for the debt increase and fraud perpetuated against us as citizens is irresponsible yourself but maybe par for the apologist entries in this sub. The GOP demonstrate again and again they are only good for the rich and corps yet we see dialogue like this projecting innocence on the worst offenders.
>The reason Trump has spent so much was because of covid. That isn't he fault. The republicans and democrats both agreed on the covid spending. It wasn't perfect, a bit excessive, but it was a good call. It's the only reason we had a V shaped recovery. People have no concept of what sustained....Biden had some more covid response spending.... I agree that the COVID spending was excessive. So, doesn't that mean that Biden and the Democrats should take significant blame for that, given that they passed another round after he was elected (it was a campaign promise)? >but he largely inherited those Trump tax cuts. Those Trump tax cuts have lead to a majority of Bidens budget deficit. Revenue is above pre-pandemic levels. But spending is way above pre-pandemic levels. It's the spending that is the main driver of the current high deficits: [https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary)
>That isn't he fault I disagree. Ignoring, downplaying and politicizing the virus was a conscious choice he made, one that turned out poorly for our country. He spent so much to get us out of a situation that his neglect directly put us in.
Ok lol
Biden’s problem is spending not the Trump tax cuts you idiot
Is this really where we are at? Who cares who ran it up more? Where’s the guy or girl that’s going to get it going in the other direction?
how would that guy or girl get elected? “I pledge to raise taxes and cut spending across the board!” isn’t exactly a winning message
“I pledge to make the top 1% pair their fare share is half of your talking point. I’m sure they word smithed cutting spending some how even though it’s a lie.
By an electorate that wasn’t a bunch of financially illiterate boobs…so, they won’t. Doesn’t mean we should give credit to the least worst.
Yikes. I had imagined the Federal Budget to be a rather complex behemoth, with countless variables - but ultimately something chosen by Congress and for which Congresspeople are accountable Silly me The omnipotent dictator president has been in total control the whole time…. I suppose I vote Kennedy, then, since he seems to be the most sober, accountable, and knowledgeable
I'm no fan of electing convicted felons, but it looks to me like revenues have returned to pre-COVID levels while spending both as in terms of inflation adjusted dollars and a percentage of GDP has not. And as a result the current deficit is higher than pre-COVID....so how is this Trump's fault? By describing 10-year impacts it kinda sounds like they are attributing debt accrued under Biden to Trump. Very strange. [https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary)
Dude is what used to be called a big government Republican. Give this dude a bottomless pit of US Treasury $$$ and he will blow it. He obviously doesn’t do well with it, other than gaming schemes to finance his imperial tastes through debt finance, shell corps and money laundering.
It appears this Reddit forum has been taken over by Godless liberals who believe Trump caused the prices at the grocery store to be crazy high. Quite ridiculous!!
Anyone paying attention knew this. The GOP shovels cash into handouts to the rich when they control congress and the presidency. They then clutch pearls as soon as they lose control and balk at the issues they created.