Report: If not for Republican Policies, Federal Govt. Would Run a Surplus

[Jack V Savage]

Didn’t work out so well for Obama.

???

 

[ultramanhyata]

If you tax 99% of everyone's income, like Democrats want, there will never be another budget deficit.

Word has it the big three items on Warren's 2020 platform will be: A single 99% tax bracket for all earners, open borders with instant right to vote and a mandatory, annual transgender surgery lottery.

Still not sure I can bring myself to pull the lever for Trump, though.

 

[The Diplomat]

We don't have to pay it off completely. And we haven't been growing it for decades if you scale it properly. It spiked during WWI, then came down until the Depression, then spiked again for WWII, then slowly dropped until Reagan. Then came down in the '90s, then rose following the Bush tax cuts, and then spiked for the GFC, and then it's been flat, but it's starting to rise again (should have been falling after we completed the recovery). Also, a more-important metric is interest payments to GDP. Here's that:

Reversed it. If you look at the graph above, you can see that it was a scary problem in 1990, and Bush 41 and Congress took major steps to fix it. Clinton took a further step (note that even back then, Republicans wanted to use falling deficits as a justification for more tax cuts for rich people), and then there was the relatively unimportant '97 deal.

As far the end, I mean look at the GFC. We would have been in a much, much better position to quickly recover if we weren't already running high deficits when it hit. Just because most people aren't aware of the damage that the Bush cuts did doesn't mean it didn't matter (though actually I believe Cheney was speaking about politics rather than economics, so from that view, maybe it's true that deficits don't matter).



Well, that's the cycle, right? The debt we're running up now at a time when we should be reducing debt load will put a drag on future growth and give some incentive for a fix down the line. But the administration that signs off on the necessary legislation to fix it will likely not get any credit for it, and they might be blamed for the negative effects of it (temporarily slower growth caused by contractionary fiscal policy plus higher taxes). If we just didn't pass the retarded Trump tax cut, we'd be on a much better trajectory now, and there'd be no observable difference for the vast majority of the population. This is why bothsidesism is so stupid and destructive.

By slowing the debt, I meant this:

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00

You can see that Clinton slowed the national debt growth considerably after Reagen.

But if you look here:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

It grew under Bush Jr, but jumped way up under Obama. He was definitely *not* a slow the growth kinda guy.

 

[The Diplomat]

Didn’t work out so well for Obama.

The US fared better than the rest of the planet during the GFC, under Obama's leadership. Our country's economy kept growing, even after the rest of the world took a hit.

That is not to say that a president has total control or ownership of a country's economy. But if we're going to play the "his fault" game, then you should look elsewhere.

 

[Rod1]

Because that is what the truth is

Except its not?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What part of "Economic boom" is hard to understand?

And good thing you posted that Obama reduced the deficit from 1.4 trillions to 660 billions.

Obama would had balanced the deficit if Republicans hadnt forced the extension of Bush's tax cuts.

The part where you suggesting it could happen makes it actually happen. You know, something that might affect my expectations?

Why's that? You planning on moving the goal posts? I said this. "Even then it's doubtful tax revenues exceed expenditures."

But he didn't. And funny you're saying he was forced to extend the tax cuts by the Republicans and Jack says it was the right move at the time. We should be thanking Republicans for not letting Obama harm the economy? Hadn't thought of it that way.

 

[kpt018]

Dude doesn't even live here but he's obsessed with America (and thinks our gun laws should be like Mexico's).

Dude also knows far more about politics and our history than you do. You got btfo. But honestly you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[Letssnuggle]

???

Oh now you’re confused all of a sudden when it’s time to discuss the Obama economy gdp growth rate.

Good enough.

 

[Rod1]

Dude doesn't even live here but he's obsessed with America (and thinks our gun laws should be like Mexico's).

Again, pure lies.

 

[Jack V Savage]

By slowing the debt, I meant this:

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00

You can see that Clinton slowed the national debt growth considerably after Reagen.

But if you look here:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

It grew under Bush Jr, but jumped way up under Obama. He was definitely *not* a slow the growth kinda guy.

Yeah, but nominal debt growth is a worthless measure, and nominal debt growth during a president's tenure is possibly even worse.

 

[Letssnuggle]

The US fared better than the rest of the planet during the GFC, under Obama's leadership. Our country's economy kept growing, even after the rest of the world took a hit.

That is not to say that a president has total control or ownership of a country's economy. But if we're going to play the "his fault" game, then you should look elsewhere.

I wasn’t playing any game. I was responding to a specific point regarding GDP growth rates. It’s a fact.

 

[PHATV]

Can universal health care work in a progressive liberal utopia with open borders?

Who cares!? It sounds good and feels right. We'll pay for it somehow. Just tax rich people more. Simple. And corporations.

 

[My Spot]

Dude also knows far more about politics and our history than you do. You got btfo. But honestly you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

Damn, you still mad from last week.



And that really means a lot coming from someone who "evolved" on torture during the Obama years.

 

[The Diplomat]

Yeah, but nominal debt growth is a worthless measure, and nominal debt growth during a president's tenure is possibly even worse.

On a year by year basis, I don't think so. It shows how much the government is spending/owing on an overall scale.

 

[Rod1]

The part where you suggesting it could happen makes it actually happen. You know, something that might affect my expectations?

??? i said last time Democrats held government during a boom.

Why's that? You planning on moving the goal posts? I said this. "Even then it's doubtful tax revenues exceed expenditures."

I didnt moved the goalpost just because you didnt read my post carefully.

But he didn't. And funny you're saying he was forced to extend the tax cuts by the Republicans and Jack says it was the right move at the time. We should be thanking Republicans for not letting Obama harm the economy? Hadn't thought of it that way.

Of course he didnt, he didnt had Congress on his favor.

Did you read my post?

 

[My Spot]

Again, pure lies.

So you don't live in Sonora, Mexico?

 

[JamesRussler]

Word has it the big three items on Warren's 2020 platform will be: A single 99% tax bracket for all earners, open borders with instant right to vote and a mandatory, annual transgender surgery lottery.

Still not sure I can bring myself to pull the lever for Trump, though.

That's actually not far from Warren's actual platform.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh now you’re confused all of a sudden when it’s time to discuss the Obama economy gdp growth rate.

Good enough.

No, what's your point?

Here's taxes since 1950 (and you can see Obama's time):

Are you saying that the low taxes were driving strong growth? Or what?

 

[Rod1]

So you don't live in Sonora, Mexico?

I dont support Mexican gun laws for America.

 

[My Spot]

I dont support Mexican gun laws for America.

Oh good. What changed your mind?