US Government default, debt ceiling, cash on hand etc.

[Bob001]

The Dems made a terrible mistake by not raising the debt limit when they could have, or just eliminating it completely. It's based in a 1917 law that really serves no purpose now except as a political football.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Trillion. Social services cost a fraction compared to military spending. One rotting gun-platform less would pay for a whole national service, and no more money need be found to do it.

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Are you making the claim that our total social spending in the USA is less than our military spending... because if so, no thats patently false. We spend far more on social programs than the military.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad42aa00e2.png

That doesn't include state and local spending on social programs who foot some of the bill for Medicaid, and the large majority of the bill for education (as examples).

*** that tiny sliver of revenue we get from corporate taxes, is IMO, our biggest issue. The large majority of the biggest 1000 corps in the world are US based.

Originally Posted by ahhell

Nope, its one of the big three or four if you include medicaid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...6_vs._2015.png In Billions:

SS 1000
Medicare, 705
Medicaid, 389
Defense, 639.

ETA: The graphic above appears to be more up to date.

You will see a lot of misleading internet memes that ingnore SS, Medicare, and Medicaid because that's convenient and they call it mandatory spending vs discretionary. Its not really mandatory, its more accurate to call it automatic.

And yes we can and will need to raise taxes, but to do that without cuting spending will kill the economy. And mostly to keep shoveling money at the richest group of people in the world, Baby Boomers. It's as much a fantasy to say we can address our deficit with taxes alone as it is to say we can just cut spending.

I stand partially corrected, with thanks.

But my point remains: Of the three-quarters of a trillion dollars for defence, a fraction of one percent reduction, maybe a billion or two, would make no difference to how many useless war tools get made. That money would go a long way to the good somewhere else.

[mikegriffith1]

Every time the Republicans try to take even modest steps to stop our insane debt spiral, Democrats trot out phony doomsday scenarios of a massive government default, Social Security and Medicare payments frozen, etc., etc. Yet, the Democrats just keep spending us closer and closer to bankruptcy.

We are $31T in debt and counting, while our GDP is only about $26T, and we're still running deficits in the hundreds of billions every year. Just the interest payment on our debt is now the sixth-largest item in the federal budget. It's more than we spend on several entire government agencies. This is reckless and unsustainable.

If we do not raise the debt ceiling, that does NOT mean we will go into a general default. That is nonsense, and most Democratic politicians know it's nonsense. What will happen if we don't raise the debt ceiling is that, oh my goodness, we will have to cut some spending and will need to prioritize our overall spending to keep essential programs funded (such as Social Security and Medicare). There are entire federal agencies that do not really need to exist and whose functions are duplicated by state-level agencies, and those agencies cost us over $200B per year.

Oh yes, it will be painful to not raise the debt ceiling because we will have to make some tough choices and face some harsh reality. But if we just keep going deeper and deeper into debt, we will eventually find ourselves in a far worse situation and will have to make much more painful decisions.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Every time the Republicans try to take even modest steps to stop our insane debt spiral, Democrats trot out phony doomsday scenarios of a massive government default, Social Security and Medicare payments frozen, etc., etc. Yet, the Democrats just keep spending us closer and closer to bankruptcy.

Kind of a toothless rant considering 25% of the US national debt was added under Trump.

You should try research though, it'll save you from saying **** that isn't true.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by ahhell

....
Thing is, we have to cut social security and medicare, they make up almost half the Federal budget. How do you control your deficit with out cutting the biggest line items?

Social Security and Medicare are paid for by payroll taxes that every worker pays all his working life. They are not budget items. They are the last places to cut. SS could be made more stable by raising the income cutoff for contributions.

And income tax rates could be increased and deductions/loopholes reduced for everyone. Today the top marginal income tax rate is 37%. Historically it has been as high as 91%. When Reagan took office it was 70%. Reagan passed massive cuts, and it's been off to the races ever since. One of the first things Bush II and Trump did was impose fat tax cuts, a big part of the reason for the current deficit. Cutting social programs is always the Repub go-to solution as part of their ultimate goal of eradicating government itself.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/stat...come-tax-rates

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Every time the Republicans try to take even modest steps to stop our insane debt spiral, Democrats trot out phony doomsday scenarios of a massive government default, Social Security and Medicare payments frozen, etc., etc. Yet, the Democrats just keep spending us closer and closer to bankruptcy.
.....

What you call our "massive debt spiral" is largely the result of massive income tax cuts imposed by Republican presidents. Reagan, Bush II and Trump cut taxes as soon as they were elected, even as Bush launched two foreign wars that he didn't pay for and Trump confronted (badly) a shattering pandemic. Clinton left office with a budget surplus. The Repubs won't even pay for the IRS to collect all the taxes that are lawfully due. And if you want to cut spending, maybe the Pentagon is the first place to start. The Pentagon budget has never even been audited successfully.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Bob001

What you call our "massive debt spiral" is largely the result of massive income tax cuts imposed by Republican presidents. Reagan, Bush II and Trump cut taxes as soon as they were elected, even as Bush launched two foreign wars that he didn't pay for and Trump confronted (badly) a shattering pandemic. Clinton left office with a budget surplus. The Repubs won't even pay for the IRS to collect all the taxes that are lawfully due. And if you want to cut spending, maybe the Pentagon is the first place to start. The Pentagon budget has never even been audited successfully.

I was listening to a podcast from WSJ. They found, by looking at CBO records that the Democrats and Republicans both increased spending by roughly the same amounts. Tack on the GWB and DJT tax cuts and the GoP actually increased the debt by more. This was limited to the 21st century.

Something needs to get done though, we cannot fund the government with a 28% gap between revenues and spending for forever. Not without hyperinflation.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Every time the Republicans try to take even modest steps to stop our insane debt spiral, Democrats trot out phony doomsday scenarios of a massive government default, Social Security and Medicare payments frozen, etc., etc. Yet, the Democrats just keep spending us closer and closer to bankruptcy.

That's a lie. Nothing you say beyond that needs to be taken seriously.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

That's it. Seriously look at me. Look me in the eyes. That's all it is. I tell you this because literally any moment now Republican Trolls are going to flood this thread to tell you that it is literally anything other than that and it is not, they will be lying.

As I said.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

<Bull **** posted now but not during GOP spending sprees>

There, better.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Resume

There, better.

That is one of my complaints about this stuff. Repubs aren't wrong when they claim to care about deficits and spending, they're just lying. The clearly don't care but are some how stupid enough think anyone believes them.

To be clear, its only a tiny part of the electorate that does care. Its sad/funny to listen to actual conservatives on this. I highly recommend listening to the Dispatch podcast over the last few weeks. Lots of, I agree with this thing or that but there is no way politician so and so does, we all know they wouldn't be saying if a Republican was the POTUS.

What is a voter to do if they actually think the deficit a problem and we need both tax increases and spending cuts. At best you have two parties that don't care and each is lying about one or both sides of that equation.

Where mikegriffith is the most wrong, is thinking that the Repubs have actually tried to make modest cuts. The dems have historically lied and exagerated about the extent of proposed spending cuts/changes. The classic is framing reduction in rates of increase as cuts and cuts to future recipients as cuts to current recipients. Or, when who ever it was proposed requiring laws to sunset in five except for the entitlement programs, the dems claimed they meant SS and Medicaire.

[JoeMorgue]

Debt has (nearly) nothing to do with the Debt Ceiling though, so this is all a red herring.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I was listening to a podcast from WSJ. They found, by looking at CBO records that the Democrats and Republicans both increased spending by roughly the same amounts. Tack on the GWB and DJT tax cuts and the GoP actually increased the debt by more. This was limited to the 21st century.

Something needs to get done though, we cannot fund the government with a 28% gap between revenues and spending for forever. Not without hyperinflation.

The WSJ must be looking back to FDR times to come to that conclusion.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Solitaire

Easily fixed. VAT them.

Corporations can outfox any income tax because they can hire talented people
to scheme around it. Other countries just Value Added Tax them on their sales,
say by 20% or so. On the other hand, the corporation would probably block
such a legislative move by lobbying because such a tax reduces sales and income.

Easy way to stop companies getting around companies not paying taxes 1) stop getting accounting firms to write tax law 2) end the distinction between avoidance and evasion, they're the same thing 3) make companies submit their internal accounts to the taxman and 4) make not paying taxes a treason.

They'll squeal like stuck pigs and claim they'll flee the country, but if you hold firm they'll back down, sure as eggs is eggs.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The WSJ must be looking back to FDR times to come to that conclusion.

Also the Democrats don't run their entire campaign on 'Government is bad and government spending is always wasteful and bad.'

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Easy way to stop companies getting around companies not paying taxes 1) stop getting accounting firms to write tax law 2) end the distinction between avoidance and evasion, they're the same thing 3) make companies submit their internal accounts to the taxman and 4) make not paying taxes a treason.

They'll squeal like stuck pigs and claim they'll flee the country, but if you hold firm they'll back down, sure as eggs is eggs.

1. I agree but its not so simple as that. There's other interests involved to. Really what the accounting firms want is complexity.
2. Literally like saying murder and killing are the same thing. One is illegal the other isn't.

The way to handle that is the same as number one. Make the tax code simple enough that avoidance is basically impossible. VAT is a step towards that. I'm told by others on this forum that the US tax code isn't actually that complicated. I'm unconvinced.

3. Sure I guess, this implies they keep double books which I'm pretty sure it already illegal. I'm welcome to be corrected by an accountant.
4. Sure, so instead of fines and relatively short prison terms its life or death? Does that count for regular folks too? With corporations, who gets killed? CEOs or CFOs, the boards?

[crescent]

Undeniable Math Fact: Deficits shrink under Dem presidents, but grow under Republicans .

Undeniable Communication Fact: Republicans only talk about deficits when the President is a Democrat, never when it's a Republican.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The WSJ must be looking back to FDR times to come to that conclusion.

Nope, just the 21st century...

GWB: added $5.85 trillion of debt or .731 trillion per year.
Obama: $8.6 trillion or 1.075 trillion per year
Trump: $6.7 trillion or 1.675 trillion per year.
Biden: for 2022 1.37 trillion.


I believe those are nominal dollar, not inflation adjusted.

Ballparks for IAD's, using about the midpoint of each presidency to 2022:
GWB: 1.10t a year
Obama: 1.34t a year
Trump: 1.93t a year(!)
Biden 1.37t

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-d...ercent-3306296

So the two dem presidents are about 18% worse than GWB, but 40% better than Trumpy.

ETA: Clinton increased the debt by roughly 318 billion a year in IAD's... so he wins quite easily.

ETA2: and looking back even further, Regan who campaigned on replacing a tax and spend democrat, increased the debt by far far more than Carter, even when dividing in two because he was president twice as long.

[JoeMorgue]

This is like arguing that if I give Ted 10 dollars and he comes back with dinner and I give Bill 4 dollars and he comes back with a handful of magic beans that Bill has better spending habits because he spent less.

Democrats actually buy **** with the money they spend.

[ahhell]

We shouldn't forget, the president can only sign the budgets congress sends them.

Edit to add: its not as though dems and reps actually spend no different things. They just campaign on spending on different things.

Its more like you give Bill and Ted each 9 dollars and Bill comes back with lunch as says he owes the diner another dollar and Ted comes back and says he owes the diner 2.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by ahhell

We shouldn't forget, the president can only sign the budgets congress sends them.

Edit to add: its not as though dems and reps actually spend no different things. They just campaign on spending on different things.

Its more like you give Bill and Ted each 9 dollars and Bill comes back with lunch as says he owes the diner another dollar and Ted comes back and says he owes the diner 2.

Jesus Christ if we all admit the Democrats are not perfect spenders will you stop trying to wedge some level of "But both sides!" into this?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Every time the Republicans try to take even modest steps to stop our insane debt spiral, Democrats trot out phony doomsday scenarios of a massive government default, Social Security and Medicare payments frozen, etc., etc. Yet, the Democrats just keep spending us closer and closer to bankruptcy.

We are $31T in debt and counting, while our GDP is only about $26T, and we're still running deficits in the hundreds of billions every year. Just the interest payment on our debt is now the sixth-largest item in the federal budget. It's more than we spend on several entire government agencies. This is reckless and unsustainable.

If we do not raise the debt ceiling, that does NOT mean we will go into a general default. That is nonsense, and most Democratic politicians know it's nonsense. What will happen if we don't raise the debt ceiling is that, oh my goodness, we will have to cut some spending and will need to prioritize our overall spending to keep essential programs funded (such as Social Security and Medicare). There are entire federal agencies that do not really need to exist and whose functions are duplicated by state-level agencies, and those agencies cost us over $200B per year.

Oh yes, it will be painful to not raise the debt ceiling because we will have to make some tough choices and face some harsh reality. But if we just keep going deeper and deeper into debt, we will eventually find ourselves in a far worse situation and will have to make much more painful decisions.

You are aware are you not that deficits have soared in the last few decades under GOP control and come down when the Democrats are in power.

GW Bush cut taxes then went off on an unpaid for 20 yr war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Trumpy plus the GOP oversaw more tax cuts which resulted in raising the debt by more than a trillion dollars.

You guys insist on underfunding the government then blame liberals.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I was listening to a podcast from WSJ. They found, by looking at CBO records that the Democrats and Republicans both increased spending by roughly the same amounts. Tack on the GWB and DJT tax cuts and the GoP actually increased the debt by more. This was limited to the 21st century.

Something needs to get done though, we cannot fund the government with a 28% gap between revenues and spending for forever. Not without hyperinflation.

So they assigned all the costs of GW's unnecessary war to both parties?

[JoeMorgue]

It's why every conservative's hot take on government debt is the same stupid wrong take.

"Listen. If I ran my household like the government runs itself I'd be outta business. I run the 3rd largest driveway resurfacing business in the tri-county area, I know what I'm talking about."

The government isn't a business numbnuts. A government holding debt and a household holding debt are so fundamentally different that we really shouldn't use the same term to describe both things.

The idea that the solution to government spending is just telling your kids to turn the AC up a few degrees in summer and your wife to stretch the grocery budget just scaled up is so fundamentally wrong.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So they assigned all the costs of GW's unnecessary war to both parties?

Do you mean the part under Obama? There was nothing stopping him and the dems from ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in January of 2009. Secondly, the Afghanistan war had wide democratic support and the Iraqi had some... at first... though you could (successfully) argue that was due to lying.

ETA: in reality we've had two choices in this last century:

The party of "tax and spend"... who doesn't actually raise taxes in any meaningful manner.
The party of tax cuts and thriftiness... who actually isn't thrifty and increases spending, and whose tax cuts almost wholly benefit the top 10%.

ETA2: btw they assign spending, correctly, to the outgoing president for the incoming presidents first year. So any spending in 2009 would've been assigned to GWB, not Obama. In other words, it could've taken us a year to withdraw for Iraq and Afghanistan and none of the war spending would've been assigned to Obama.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Nope, just the 21st century...

GWB: added $5.85 trillion of debt or .731 trillion per year.
Obama: $8.6 trillion or 1.075 trillion per year
Trump: $6.7 trillion or 1.675 trillion per year.
Biden: for 2022 1.37 trillion.


I believe those are nominal dollar, not inflation adjusted.

Ballparks for IAD's, using about the midpoint of each presidency to 2022:
GWB: 1.10t a year
Obama: 1.34t a year
Trump: 1.93t a year(!)
Biden 1.37t

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-d...ercent-3306296

So the two dem presidents are about 18% worse than GWB, but 40% better than Trumpy.

ETA: Clinton increased the debt by roughly 318 billion a year in IAD's... so he wins quite easily.

ETA2: and looking back even further, Regan who campaigned on replacing a tax and spend democrat, increased the debt by far far more than Carter, even when dividing in two because he was president twice as long.

Gee, that Iraq War must have been quite the bargain.

The interest keeps growing which then makes it look like the Democrats are spending on programs when they are really spending on the debt interest.

The GOP keeps lowering taxes and the debt keeps piling up. Reagan cut taxes, made him and the economy look good but in reality it was like running up the debt on your credit card—you got a lot of stuff, looks like you're doing so well, but none of it is paid for.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Do you mean the part under Obama? There was nothing stopping him and the dems from ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in January of 2009. Secondly, the Afghanistan war had wide democratic support and the Iraqi had some... at first... though you could (successfully) argue that was due to lying.

What nonsense claiming Obama could just walk away from the war GW started. As as for the Democrats voted to go in, yeah after they were lied to about the WMD intelligence.

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

ETA: in reality we've had two choices in this last century:

The party of "tax and spend"... who doesn't actually raise taxes in any meaningful manner.
The party of tax cuts and thriftiness... who actually isn't thrifty and increases spending, and whose tax cuts almost wholly benefit the top 10%.

ETA2: btw they assign spending, correctly, to the outgoing president for the incoming presidents first year. So any spending in 2009 would've been assigned to GWB, not Obama. In other words, it could've taken us a year to withdraw for Iraq and Afghanistan and none of the war spending would've been assigned to Obama.

Who's "they"?

I'm going to keep holding GW responsible for the cost of the 20 yr war because that war is on him and his cronies. This is not the thread to debate that in.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Gee, that Iraq War must have been quite the bargain.

The interest keeps growing which then makes it look like the Democrats are spending on programs when they are really spending on the debt interest.

The GOP keeps lowering taxes and the debt keeps piling up. Reagan cut taxes, made him and the economy look good but in reality it was like running up the debt on your credit card—you got a lot of stuff, looks like you're doing so well, but none of it is paid for.

Hasn't really been all that significant until late in Trumps term. Its ballooning for 2023 what with higher interest rates. Theres also the issue of massively increased Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security costs. Because we have an aging population and we insist on an unwieldy expensive hybrid public/private healthcare system. And yes I do know which party to put the blame on that one but it seems theres always enough lobbying dollars to keep a few democrats on the private side.

[JoeMorgue]

Again people the "Debt Ceiling" isn't an argument about what to spend money on.

It's a stupid procedural trick about money that's already been spent.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What nonsense claiming Obama could just walk away from the war GW started. As as for the Democrats voted to go in, yeah after they were lied to about the WMD intelligence.


Who's "they"?

I'm going to keep holding GW responsible for the cost of the 20 yr war because that war is on him and his cronies. This is not the thread to debate that in.

They as in "https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-d...ercent-3306296" the source I used. The 2021 budget for example was signed into law by Trump. Even though Biden took office in January of that year. Its unfair to assign the 2021 deficit to Biden... would you not agree?

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again people the "Debt Ceiling" isn't an argument about what to spend money on.

It's a stupid procedural trick about money that's already been spent.

Yes... but we got on this tangent because a certain party is throwing a fake temper-tantrum about the debt because they blame the other party for it. Which is not even close to true. And therefore they don't want to raise the ceiling.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Yes... but we got on this tangent because a certain party is throwing a fake temper-tantrum about the debt because they blame the other party for it. Which is not even close to true. And therefore they don't want to raise the ceiling.

Hmmm yes indeed. If only someone predicated that in the second post of the thread.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Jesus Christ if we all admit the Democrats are not perfect spenders will you stop trying to wedge some level of "But both sides!" into this?

Nope. As long as folks say things like the Dems on good and nice things while the Reps spend money on magic beans, I'll point out that the dems are also spending money on magic beans.

[Random]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Nope. As long as folks say things like the Dems on good and nice things while the Reps spend money on magic beans, I'll point out that the dems are also spending money on magic beans.

The problem there is that there is only one "Budget". Both sides might have their own ideas about what should be in the "Budget", but at some point there can be only one "Budget". No more, no less.

With each side having enough power to veto the others ideas, some sort of compromise has to be reached. And given the increasing polarization of the parties and their policies, someone has to not get what they want.

Think of it as two people in California who want to take a road trip. One wants to go to New York, the other wants to go to Florida, and they only have time to visit one and they only have one car. They have a furious argument about which one to go to but decide that since they are both on the East Coast, they don't have to make a decision right away and they set off.

When they come to an intersection, both of them try to argue for the route that gets them to their preferred destination, left for New York, right for Florida. Instead, to resolve the impasse, they go straight. They keep making compromise after compromise, each one arguing about why their preference is better.

But eventually, they will end up at Virginia Beach, staring at the Atlantic. Turn left, they go to New York. Turn right, they go to Florida. They cannot go straight. No more compromise is possible.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Random

The problem there is that there is only one "Budget". Both sides might have their own ideas about what should be in the "Budget", but at some point there can be only one "Budget". No more, no less.

With each side having enough power to veto the others ideas, some sort of compromise has to be reached. And given the increasing polarization of the parties and their policies, someone has to not get what they want.

Think of it as two people in California who want to take a road trip. One wants to go to New York, the other wants to go to Florida, and they only have time to visit one and they only have one car. They have a furious argument about which one to go to but decide that since they are both on the East Coast, they don't have to make a decision right away and they set off.

When they come to an intersection, both of them try to argue for the route that gets them to their preferred destination, left for New York, right for Florida. Instead, to resolve the impasse, they go straight. They keep making compromise after compromise, each one arguing about why their preference is better.

But eventually, they will end up at Virginia Beach, staring at the Atlantic. Turn left, they go to New York. Turn right, they go to Florida. They cannot go straight. No more compromise is possible.

This is basically correct, my only argument is, when it comes to spending, its more like one once to go NY City and the other wants to go to Long Island. They've already agreed to 90% of the trip. Granted, occasionally Reps claim they want to go florida and dems will claim they want to Boston.

In this case FL is cutting social safety net spending and Boston is cutting military spending. In reality, the only time it either really happened was when B. Clinton was POTUS and Gingrich was Speaker.

I fully admit that the GOP is far more full of **** on this. Between W and Trump its clear that only a handful of elected republicans have any legitimacy on the issue.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Random

The problem there is that there is only one "Budget". Both sides might have their own ideas about what should be in the "Budget", but at some point there can be only one "Budget". No more, no less.

With each side having enough power to veto the others ideas, some sort of compromise has to be reached. And given the increasing polarization of the parties and their policies, someone has to not get what they want.

Think of it as two people in California who want to take a road trip. One wants to go to New York, the other wants to go to Florida, and they only have time to visit one and they only have one car. They have a furious argument about which one to go to but decide that since they are both on the East Coast, they don't have to make a decision right away and they set off.

When they come to an intersection, both of them try to argue for the route that gets them to their preferred destination, left for New York, right for Florida. Instead, to resolve the impasse, they go straight. They keep making compromise after compromise, each one arguing about why their preference is better.

But eventually, they will end up at Virginia Beach, staring at the Atlantic. Turn left, they go to New York. Turn right, they go to Florida. They cannot go straight. No more compromise is possible.

Having lived in Virginia Beach I have to say that's very likely fifty percent of the reason people go to Virginia Beach for vacation. The other fifty percent is Canadians who wanted to go to Florida but got tired and gave up when they realized they'd have another ten hours to drive.

[Bob001]

An overview of the budget/debt ceiling situation. Some comments quibble about some of the numbers, but the bottom line is taxes are too low for what we want government to do. And some of the Repub plans are just deranged.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...cant-pay-paul/

[Tero]

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Bob001

An overview of the budget/debt ceiling situation. Some comments quibble about some of the numbers, but the bottom line is taxes are too low for what we want government to do. And some of the Repub plans are just deranged.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...cant-pay-paul/

"If national defense is also off the table, the rest of the budget would need to be reduced 40 percent. "

That, says it all right there. It is not remotely realistic to cut the non-defense discretionary budget by 40 percent. We cannot save our way out of the deficit. If I was POTUS I might offer some budget cuts if it includes tax increases. Maybe on a 1 to 3 basis. For 2024 that is. 2023 was already passed, with about a third of GoP Senators.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Nope, just the 21st century...

GWB: added $5.85 trillion of debt or .731 trillion per year.
Obama: $8.6 trillion or 1.075 trillion per year
Trump: $6.7 trillion or 1.675 trillion per year.
Biden: for 2022 1.37 trillion.

Bush inherited a budget surplus in the last Clinton budget, the deficit increased steadily though his presidency and skyrocketed in his last budget to $1.4 trillion. Bush was also spending a lot of money off budget as costs related to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were not part of the budget under Bush.

Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion per year deficit from the last Bush budget, and this decreased steadily though his presidency to a $600 billion deficit in his last budget.

Trump inherited a $600 bn deficit from the last Obama budget, and this increased though his presidency to 2.7 trillion

Biden has only a single budget on the books a 1.3 trillion deficit for the 2021-2022 fiscal year, the 2022-2023 budget runs though the end of Sept so we won't get final numbers on the deficit until sometime after that.

While true the spike at the end of the Trump budget was covid related and mostly beyond his control, budget deficits were increasing quickly even before that.

The spike in deficits in Bush's last budget were related to the financial crash, but again deficits were already increasing before that and Bush's mishandling of stimulus in the 2001 recession and his mismanagement of the crash itself mean he bares significant responsibility for the related deficits.

This trend of budget deficits growing under Republican presidents and shrinking under Democratic presidents goes back to the 1970's.