ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , federal deficit , national debt , Trump controversies , US economy issues

Reply
Old 24th July 2019, 10:03 AM   #41
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,896
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Which is the point of running up the deficit, to force those cuts to be made.
That was the point 40 years ago but itís long forgotten by todays Republican legislators who seem to really believe they can pay for their spending program with tax cuts.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2019, 10:34 AM   #42
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,901
I am always amazed at how what Republicans are actually doing is being equated with what Democrats might do.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2019, 11:30 AM   #43
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,601
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I would vote for a fiscal conservative if such a thing existed anymore. They're gone.


Is it Trump's fault? Yes, because he has more power to influence US spending and tax policy than any other man on the planet. However, in my opinion, if Clinton had been elected, it would be her fault, because I don't think she would have done what was needed to get it under control. It might not be as bad, but it would still be huge.

And of the people running to replace Trump, who is proposing anything that would make it better? Who is even talking about it? They aren't talking about it because it doesn't get them votes, and that is not their fault, it's ours.


We have met the enemy, and they are us.
We can only speculate about what Mrs Clinton would have done, but Mr Clinton managed to balance the budget.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2019, 12:31 PM   #44
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,221
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
We can only speculate about what Mrs Clinton would have done, but Mr Clinton managed to balance the budget.
But neither one of them are running, so there's not much point in speculating.


What we can do is listen to what the current candidates for president are saying about what they would do, about their priorities, and what they are saying about the national debt and/or deficit is ÖÖÖÖ.<chirp>


So we have Trump, who if you are a deficit hawk is a proven disaster, or we have a bunch of people who don't seem sufficiently concerned to bring it up.

Fiscal responsibility just isn't on the table anymore as an issue.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2019, 04:07 PM   #45
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,874
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
To his credit, he changed a little, by letting some tax cuts expire and by "the sequestration", but the best he got to was a 600 billion dollar deficit. That's not so good.
It's not bad, considering that the deficit was $1.2 trillion when he entered office. A $600b reduction in the deficit in 8 years isn't bad going at all. Especially when compared with the increase in the deficit under Republican presidents.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2019, 04:09 PM   #46
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,830
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Didn't you say he was horrible?
Weird flex but okay.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2019, 06:16 PM   #47
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 22,205
Can't really blame Trump for this one. George HW Bush called it "Voodo Economics" in 1980.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2019, 07:43 PM   #48
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,456
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
What we can do is listen to what the current candidates for president are saying about what they would do, about their priorities, and what they are saying about the national debt and/or deficit is ÖÖÖÖ.<chirp>
You're right in that they don't talk specifically about "the deficit".

But many of them do talk about paying for some of their new spending proposals with tax increases. This kind of suggests that even though they aren't using the word deficit, they at least recognize that the federal budget is an issue.

Why is it necessary to use the word debt or deficit, if their policies indicate that they recognize it as an issue?
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2019, 08:14 PM   #49
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,127
Talk is cheap. Since none of the current leaders in the 2020 marathon have any executive experience, we can't really say, other than what they say and what they've voted for, that they would be proven or disproven fiscal conservatives. The Senators and Congress critters who didn't vote for the Imaginary Tax Cut Act of '17, the greatest cause of the bump in the deficit, can all claim to be fiscal conservatives.

But the term's become meaningless. Not only do the standard bearers of the balanced budget (looking at a certain Salamander Gingrich) just roll over for the Don't Tax and Do Spend money grubbers, but new arrivals to "The Cause" don't even bother talking about a balance of income and outflow.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2019, 08:19 PM   #50
BrooklynBaby
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 861
The Trump/Pelosi deficit.
BrooklynBaby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2019, 08:37 PM   #51
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,857
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
The Trump/Pelosi deficit.
So named because both of them are senators who passed the budget??
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2019, 08:41 PM   #52
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 4,570
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
So named because both of them are senators who passed the budget??
Because if it's bad, must have been the cause of a Democrat.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2019, 08:52 PM   #53
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,221
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
You're right in that they don't talk specifically about "the deficit".

But many of them do talk about paying for some of their new spending proposals with tax increases. This kind of suggests that even though they aren't using the word deficit, they at least recognize that the federal budget is an issue.

Why is it necessary to use the word debt or deficit, if their policies indicate that they recognize it as an issue?
So, what they are saying is, "We will spend money on a new program, but we will pay for it by increasing taxes."

Awesome, but unless you increase taxes by more than you increase spending, more debt still accumulates. You haven't done anything to solve the current problem. All you have done is not make it any worse. It's important that politicians actually acknowledge that current levels of taxation are inadequate to cover current levels of spending.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2019, 08:57 PM   #54
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,901
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So, what they are saying is, "We will spend money on a new program, but we will pay for it by increasing taxes."

Awesome, but unless you increase taxes by more than you increase spending, more debt still accumulates. You haven't done anything to solve the current problem. All you have done is not make it any worse. It's important that politicians actually acknowledge that current levels of taxation are inadequate to cover current levels of spending.
increasing taxes isn't necessarily making things worse. In fact, macroeconomically, it can make things better.

The question of a balanced budget is quite different from that of a manageable deficit: the US needs massive investment in education and infrastructure more than it needs to balance its budgets: those who lend money to the US are more interested in it doing well than they are in getting their money back quick.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 07:58 AM   #55
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,896
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
The Trump/Pelosi deficit.
The 2019 Budget was proposed by Trump in early 2018 and approved by a Republican controlled congress in late 2018. Why would you want to attach Pelosiís name to other than as a weak form of political propaganda?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 08:08 AM   #56
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,896
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So, what they are saying is, "We will spend money on a new program, but we will pay for it by increasing taxes."

Awesome, but unless you increase taxes by more than you increase spending, more debt still accumulates. You haven't done anything to solve the current problem. All you have done is not make it any worse. It's important that politicians actually acknowledge that current levels of taxation are inadequate to cover current levels of spending.
Mandatory spending will be a bit different, but with the discretionary budget, itís actually possible to reduce deficits without any formal tax increases or spending cuts. Tax revenue will rise even without tax increases. The real dollar value of spending will fall even without budget cuts. All you need to do to reduce the deficit is hold spending increases to the largest departments below inflation and donít shoot yourself in the foot with new tax cuts.

The Trump tax cuts have pushed things beyond the point where this is viable. Not allowing the Bush stimulus tax cuts to expire as originally designed didnít help either.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 08:45 AM   #57
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,211
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Hell look at Paul Ryan who fantasized about killing off medicare for decades as one of the supposedly biggest fiscal conservatives there was in his marketing.

The term simply does not say to people what you want it to, even if that is a more technically correct definition.
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Fiscal responsibility just isn't on the table anymore as an issue.

And this is why I've made an effort to replace my traditionally used term "fiscal conservative" with "fiscal responsibility". Because those who today claim the "conservative" title have completely abandoned any pretense of being fiscally responsible.

The way I see it, being fiscally responsible isn't about supporting any one spending program or tax policy, it's about always asking the fundamental question, "so, how are we going to pay for that?", but not in the sarcastic way the current Republicans ask that question. Ask it in a serious manner that is actually looking for a real answer, that's based on the best evidence and analysis we can find.

Want a tax cut? Fine, how do we pay for that? "Trickle down" has been proven not to work, so what spending will you cut? Be specific. Own it if you want to cut some popular program.

Want a major new spending program? Fine, how do we pay for that? Are we going to raise taxes? Which ones, and by how much? Are you going to move money around? Which old programs get cut to pay for the new ones? Again, own it.

Want to pay for it all with an increased deficit? Again, own it. There are times when a deficit is needed, but is this one of those? Show your work. There will be a quiz later.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

Last edited by Horatius; 25th July 2019 at 08:47 AM.
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 09:08 AM   #58
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,085
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
But neither one of them are running, so there's not much point in speculating.

Nope, no reason to do that at all:
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
However, in my opinion, if Clinton had been elected, it would be her fault, because I don't think she would have done what was needed to get it under control. It might not be as bad, but it would still be huge.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 09:38 AM   #59
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 13,176
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It's not bad, considering that the deficit was $1.2 trillion when he entered office. A $600b reduction in the deficit in 8 years isn't bad going at all. Especially when compared with the increase in the deficit under Republican presidents.
... and the fact that he inherited an economy that was about to collapse.
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 09:59 AM   #60
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,221
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
All you need to do to reduce the deficit is hold spending increases to the largest departments below inflation and donít shoot yourself in the foot with new tax cuts.

True. It's sometimes difficult to express things in short sentences when you can't be perfectly, 100% accurate, without much longer descriptions.


My point is that since the end of the Clinton administration, we have been on an unsustainable path. One way or another, it will stop. I prefer an attempt to get the situation under control and manage a soft landing.

Unfortunately, the politicians involved have a very weak incentive to make that happen. If the electorate doesn't care, then it doesn't matter. Better yet, if they can successfully blame the other party, it's actually a win for them. They can't be expected to do the right thing if the voters don't demand it.

We have met the enemy, and they are us.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 01:06 PM   #61
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,896
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
True. It's sometimes difficult to express things in short sentences when you can't be perfectly, 100% accurate, without much longer descriptions.


My point is that since the end of the Clinton administration, we have been on an unsustainable path. One way or another, it will stop. I prefer an attempt to get the situation under control and manage a soft landing.

Unfortunately, the politicians involved have a very weak incentive to make that happen. If the electorate doesn't care, then it doesn't matter. Better yet, if they can successfully blame the other party, it's actually a win for them. They can't be expected to do the right thing if the voters don't demand it.

We have met the enemy, and they are us.
The major contributions to the structural deficit (The part that is transient responses to economic conditions) are as follows:
- Medicaid part D was never funded
- The Bush 43 stimulus tax cuts were not allowed to expire as originally called for. (they were proposed as economic stimulus to the 2003 recession. They were not neither needed or well implemented, but nominally at least they were short term stimulus not structural until they were made permanent.)
- The Trump tax cuts

The following added a lot to the total US debt, even if they were transient.
- Bush tax cuts before they were made permanent. Bad idea or not they nominally temporary
- Stimulus for the 2008 recession. Mostly tax cuts, IIRC mainly a suspension of FICA payments.
- Extended UI benefits following the 2008 recession.
- Operational cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These were never funded, and indeed under Bush were not even included in the budget so they went right to the national debt without even showing up as a budget deficit.


"Us" in this case seems to mostly mean "Republicans"
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 09:09 AM   #62
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Is your concern that the 2018 deficit / GDP data will change?
If so, do you think the actual deficit is higher or lower?
And what reason do you have to doubt the completeness of the Fed's data?
I'm not questioning the fairness of the Fed's data, nor do I believe the figures will change.

I am questioning how you are framing the data. I suggested comparing the increase in debt as a rate to make any comparison practical. If you prefer to engage in blaming Trump and showing contempt, then I will see myself elsewhere.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 10:09 AM   #63
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,901
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
I'm not questioning the fairness of the Fed's data, nor do I believe the figures will change.

I am questioning how you are framing the data. I suggested comparing the increase in debt as a rate to make any comparison practical. If you prefer to engage in blaming Trump and showing contempt, then I will see myself elsewhere.
Debt per GDP: as I said in the OP, under Trump, the total and relative GDP is increasing.

2014 2.7%
2015 2.4%
2016 3.1%
2017 3.4%
2018 4.0%

2019 projected to exceed 4%
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 04:46 PM   #64
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 24,397
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So, what they are saying is, "We will spend money on a new program, but we will pay for it by increasing taxes."
They are saying "We will implement this new program, paid for by these new taxes".


Quote:
Awesome, but unless you increase taxes by more than you increase spending, more debt still accumulates.
They're not saying "These new taxes will only pay for that program." They're simply anticipating the obvious question "How will you pay for it?"



Quote:
You haven't done anything to solve the current problem. All you have done is not make it any worse.
If the proposed program attracts votes despite the associated tax increase and that tax increase more than pays for the program then they have achieved something. They have sold a tax increase to the general electorate.



Quote:
It's important that politicians actually acknowledge that current levels of taxation are inadequate to cover current levels of spending.
Tackling the deficit won't attract votes in itself. Consider the fate of George HW Bush.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 10:02 PM   #65
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 22,205
The last honest Republican.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 10:17 AM   #66
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,221
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Tackling the deficit won't attract votes in itself. Consider the fate of George HW Bush.
Aye, there's the rub.


That's why I blame the voters instead of the politicians. The politicians are just a symptom.
__________________
See you in September.....Maybe.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2019, 12:07 PM   #67
Molinaro
Illuminator
 
Molinaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,412
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Is it Trump's fault? Yes, because he has more power to influence US spending and tax policy than any other man on the planet. However, in my opinion, if Clinton had been elected, it would be her fault, because I don't think she would have done what was needed to get it under control. It might not be as bad, but it would still be huge.
That does not make any sense. When Obama took office, the deficit was at 1.4 trillion. He got it to a low of 438 billion in 2015, and it climbed back up to 665 billion in his last year in office.

It is on pace to nearly double over Trump's first 2 years.

Exactly how do you see that rapid growth as being inevitable if Clinton had won the election?
__________________
100% Cannuck!
Molinaro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 07:59 AM   #68
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Debt per GDP: as I said in the OP, under Trump, the total and relative GDP is increasing.

2014 2.7%
2015 2.4%
2016 3.1%
2017 3.4%
2018 4.0%

2019 projected to exceed 4%
I'm not sure where you obtained those figures. Or what 'Debt per GDP' means exactly. Are your figures about the deficit? The deficit is an important contributor to the long-term financial viability of a nation, however, it does not reliably capture the final financial picture. The deficit is but one variable in a complex formula.

Eventually, any deficit is added to the national debt. As a citizen concerned with the financial vitality of the US, that is what I am personally concerned with.

I found this authoritative and complete reference for Total Federal Public Debt as a Percent of GDP. This source uses the data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis for 1966 Q1 through 2019 Q1. You can even download the raw data if you want to verify it's accuracy. As a bonus, they present a different way to consider the public debt. This is a perspective that I have never considered; how much that debt costs tax payers after it has been added to the balance sheet.

At that link, the Total Public Debt as a Percent of GDP indicates that figure was 104.56% for 2016 Q1, and 104.40% for 2019 Q1. I anchored our analysis to the Trump term, because in your OP you claimed Trump has increased this figure more than others, and that was your cause for concern.

The total public debt as a percent of GDP during the Trump Presidency (The years 2016 to 2019) has been flat. Any thoughts on the information I have presented?
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 08:42 AM   #69
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,901
Sorry, it is deficit per GDP - my bad.
And it is the official numbers.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 02:31 PM   #70
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,351
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
I'm not sure where you obtained those figures. Or what 'Debt per GDP' means exactly. Are your figures about the deficit? The deficit is an important contributor to the long-term financial viability of a nation, however, it does not reliably capture the final financial picture. The deficit is but one variable in a complex formula.

Eventually, any deficit is added to the national debt. As a citizen concerned with the financial vitality of the US, that is what I am personally concerned with.

I found this authoritative and complete reference for Total Federal Public Debt as a Percent of GDP. This source uses the data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis for 1966 Q1 through 2019 Q1. You can even download the raw data if you want to verify it's accuracy. As a bonus, they present a different way to consider the public debt. This is a perspective that I have never considered; how much that debt costs tax payers after it has been added to the balance sheet.

At that link, the Total Public Debt as a Percent of GDP indicates that figure was 104.56% for 2016 Q1, and 104.40% for 2019 Q1. I anchored our analysis to the Trump term, because in your OP you claimed Trump has increased this figure more than others, and that was your cause for concern.

The total public debt as a percent of GDP during the Trump Presidency (The years 2016 to 2019) has been flat. Any thoughts on the information I have presented?
Looks to me like it should decrease when the economy is strong. Why isn't it decreasing??? The economy is growing....great! Why is the deficit increasing, too?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 09:44 PM   #71
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,901
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
The total public debt as a percent of GDP during the Trump Presidency (The years 2016 to 2019) has been flat. Any thoughts on the information I have presented?
Yeah.
For starters, how would Debt to GDP matter in any sane way?
In a recession, GDP falls but debt does not.

What is relevant is GDP vs. deficit.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 11:03 PM   #72
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,456
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Quote:
The total public debt as a percent of GDP during the Trump Presidency (The years 2016 to 2019) has been flat. Any thoughts on the information I have presented?
Looks to me like it should decrease when the economy is strong. Why isn't it decreasing??? The economy is growing....great! Why is the deficit increasing, too?
Exactly.

If you look at the graphs in the reference provided, the Debt to GDP ratio decreased during the 1990s (when Clinton was president and the economy was strong), from 65 down to 57.

We are supposedly in an economic boom period. Low unemployment. Expanding economy. Yet we aren't seeing the same decrease that we saw in the 1990s.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2019, 06:33 AM   #73
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,896
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post

I found this authoritative and complete reference for Total Federal Public Debt as a Percent of GDP.
Do you not understand the difference between debt and deficit?

It's also worth nothing that the timeframe includes only a singe Trump budget, how on earth are you expecting meaningful view of the debt Trump is creating with only a single data point? What we can see clearly is the fallout from the Bush period and 2008 recession followed by US debt vs GDP stabilizing under Obama. Look at the same data 5 years from now and you will see another spike in debt arising from the Trump deficits.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2019, 06:52 AM   #74
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,146
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
The major contributions to the structural deficit (The part that is transient responses to economic conditions) are as follows:
- Medicaid part D was never funded
- The Bush 43 stimulus tax cuts were not allowed to expire as originally called for. (they were proposed as economic stimulus to the 2003 recession. They were not neither needed or well implemented, but nominally at least they were short term stimulus not structural until they were made permanent.)
- The Trump tax cuts

The following added a lot to the total US debt, even if they were transient.
- Bush tax cuts before they were made permanent. Bad idea or not they nominally temporary
- Stimulus for the 2008 recession. Mostly tax cuts, IIRC mainly a suspension of FICA payments.
- Extended UI benefits following the 2008 recession.
- Operational cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These were never funded, and indeed under Bush were not even included in the budget so they went right to the national debt without even showing up as a budget deficit.


"Us" in this case seems to mostly mean "Republicans"
Yea but that was the era of "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney. What else does one expect from liberals like that?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2019, 05:14 PM   #75
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Sorry, it is deficit per GDP - my bad.
And it is the official numbers.
No worries. I've discussed this before so it was an easy guess. I didn't question the authenticity of the figures you provided.

Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Looks to me like it should decrease when the economy is strong. Why isn't it decreasing??? The economy is growing....great! Why is the deficit increasing, too?
I'm not sure what you meant by saying it looks to you like the debt/GDP should be decreasing. I don't believe that it is a realistic expectation for the individual who is blamed for a recession, thus should consequently in this case be praised for a good economy, to save that growth for another day or President.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Yeah.
For starters, how would Debt to GDP matter in any sane way?
In a recession, GDP falls but debt does not.

What is relevant is GDP vs. deficit.
Debt/GDP matters to the credit rating agencies. It was one of the major contributing metrics that was mentioned during the Greece Financial Crisis. It is also one of the major reasons economist are convinced that Japan will have a financial crisis on their hands in 15 to 30 years. It matters to investors, accountants, economist, bankers, and should thus matter to ever citizen of their nation.

The only justification I've heard from you that the deficit/GDP is more important is that when there is a recession, the debt/GDP ratio increases. That sounds like a problem for the administration in power when that occurs. The US has had a deficit for all but a few years since 1970. What you are asking for does not bode well with precedence.

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Do you not understand the difference between debt and deficit?

It's also worth nothing that the timeframe includes only a singe Trump budget, how on earth are you expecting meaningful view of the debt Trump is creating with only a single data point? What we can see clearly is the fallout from the Bush period and 2008 recession followed by US debt vs GDP stabilizing under Obama. Look at the same data 5 years from now and you will see another spike in debt arising from the Trump deficits.
Did you post that to invoke defensiveness from me? Please quote what I said in this thread that led you to believe that I don't know the different between deficit and debt.

I agree that it is difficult to make accurate judgments about any Trump Budgets that have not occurred. If I cannot make a positive meaningful view of the Trump budget from only a quarter of the time he will be in office, how can I make any negative meaningful views from the same time period? It sounds to me like you need to have a discussion with the OP.

Perhaps you want more 'time' and data points so that you can manipulate and distort the data to fit your world view. Unless I put on my partisan distorted glasses, I cannot see anything stabilizing under the Obama presidency. I do see that debt/GDP increased from 64% to 104% during the Obama Presidency. That qualifies for one of the largest, if not the largest, increases in national debt/GDP for any president.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2019, 10:32 PM   #76
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,351
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post

I'm not sure what you meant by saying it looks to you like the debt/GDP should be decreasing. I don't believe that it is a realistic expectation for the individual who is blamed for a recession, thus should consequently in this case be praised for a good economy, to save that growth for another day or President.
I simply mean that when the economy is strong it is time to start paying off the debt, not cause the deficit to skyrocket.

And I have no idea what you're even trying to say with that second sentence. Who said anything about a recession, or blaming anyone for a recession or good economy??? And isn't the good of the COUNTRY important??
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2019, 07:44 AM   #77
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,896
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
I'm not sure what you meant by saying it looks to you like the debt/GDP should be decreasing.

Whatís to understand? Year to year deficits depend heavily on economic conditions. The drop when conditions are good and go up when economic conditions are bad. When you see large and/or increasing deficits when conditions are good it means that has probably been an even larger increase in the underlying structural deficit.

When the next recession inevitably hits the US deficit could easily go up 50% - 100% which would out it in the $1.8 trillion - $2.4 trillion range and itís all because of the mismanagement occurring right now.
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Did you post that to invoke defensiveness from me? Please quote what I said in this thread that led you to believe that I don't know the different between deficit and debt.
Read the post you quoted, it already explains why debt vs GDP isnít very useful in the context of this thread.
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
I do see that debt/GDP increased from 64% to 104% during the Obama Presidency. That qualifies for one of the largest, if not the largest, increases in national debt/GDP for any president.
Again, this is because you are choosing an inappropriate metric. Debt vs GDP lags the actual fiscal irresponsibility, often by more than a decade.

The last Bush budged ended with a $1.4 trillion deficit. Even with much improved fiscal responsibility under Obama a massive debt explosion in Debt vs GDP was inevitable because of how large a deficit Bush left. Similarly, there is now another impending explosion in Debt vs GDP because of the deficits Trump is creating.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2019, 07:59 AM   #78
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,763
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
And this is why I've made an effort to replace my traditionally used term "fiscal conservative" with "fiscal responsibility". Because those who today claim the "conservative" title have completely abandoned any pretense of being fiscally responsible.

The way I see it, being fiscally responsible isn't about supporting any one spending program or tax policy, it's about always asking the fundamental question, "so, how are we going to pay for that?", but not in the sarcastic way the current Republicans ask that question. Ask it in a serious manner that is actually looking for a real answer, that's based on the best evidence and analysis we can find.

Want a tax cut? Fine, how do we pay for that? "Trickle down" has been proven not to work, so what spending will you cut? Be specific. Own it if you want to cut some popular program.

Want a major new spending program? Fine, how do we pay for that? Are we going to raise taxes? Which ones, and by how much? Are you going to move money around? Which old programs get cut to pay for the new ones? Again, own it.

Want to pay for it all with an increased deficit? Again, own it. There are times when a deficit is needed, but is this one of those? Show your work. There will be a quiz later.
The underlined: thats the problem right there. Many many Trumpist's still believe that it does. My dad included... he's a financial consultant and should really really know better. But any argument and he basically sticks his fingers in his ears and "goes nuh-u The 80's were awesome, the 70's were terrible." We're in a post-facts world.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2019, 08:01 AM   #79
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,896
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I simply mean that when the economy is strong it is time to start paying off the debt, not cause the deficit to skyrocket.

And I have no idea what you're even trying to say with that second sentence. Who said anything about a recession, or blaming anyone for a recession or good economy??? And isn't the good of the COUNTRY important??
Yeah ďblamingĒ the President for a recession is a little silly. The President doesnít have much short term control over economic conditions and in fact modest recessions are a fairly normal and even healthy thing for an economy. When you get more serious events they are almost always caused by things that happened years earlier.

For example banking de-regulation that occurred under Clinton and Bush economic stimulus in 03/04 that mostly ended up being dumped into the housing market created a housing bubble than culminated in the financial crash back in 2008. In some ways the US economy has yet to fully recover from this, eg employment rates are still below where they were in the early 2000ís before the crash.

Depending on how it plays out Trump is setting an even bigger economic bomb for the US economy by attacking the independence of the Federal Reserve. If Fed independence is eroded expect not just one crash but a series of them and long term stagnation of the US economy. Political interference in central banks is an economy killer, itís one of only few things that can truly destroy a countries economy.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2019, 08:39 AM   #80
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,456
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Quote:
Looks to me like it should decrease when the economy is strong. Why isn't it decreasing??? The economy is growing....great! Why is the deficit increasing, too?
I'm not sure what you meant by saying it looks to you like the debt/GDP should be decreasing.
Not sure why that's such a difficult concept.

The economy is supposedly strong (meaning the GDP is rising). This should 1) bring in extra tax revenue, 2) decrease certain expenditures (such as welfare). This will decrease the deficit, and as a result, the debt grows more slowly, and the debt/GDP ratio should be decreasing. The fact that the ratio is remaining stable is a problem, because if/when the economy hits another recession, the debt/GDP ratio will become even worse.

Quote:
I don't believe that it is a realistic expectation for the individual who is blamed for a recession, thus should consequently in this case be praised for a good economy, to save that growth for another day or President.
I don't really understand what you're trying to argue here. Seems your post may have been worded poorly.

We are talking specifically about Trump here, and today's economy. There is no recession. So why isn't it realistic to expect that the debt/GDP ratio to fall? It fell back when Bill Clinton was president.

It did rise under Obama, but Obama had to deal with a recession that started before he came to power..
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.