The growth of the debt under Biden compared to Trump

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by kazenatsu, Apr 19, 2022.

Tags:
  1. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    12,934
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I followed your lead. :cool:
     
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,545
    Likes Received:
    4,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you're following the lead of someone you believe to be (figuratively) "jumping off of a cliff"? hahahahahahahaha how BRILLIANT! :)
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2023
  3. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,966
    Likes Received:
    2,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Interesting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    On the negative side of what Biden has done........
    President Trump made the average American worker much, much, much more productive..... and Biden greatly decreased the productive capability of Americans....... although I have to admit that no nation responded very well to Covid 19......... Our P.M. Justin Trudeau made a terrible mess in my opinion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2024
  4. Conservative Democrat

    Conservative Democrat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    2,231
    Likes Received:
    997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If the following chart can be trusted, per capita productivity in constant dollars occurred at roughly equal rates during the administrations of Trump and Biden.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics...-product-gdp-per-capita-in-the-united-states/
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2024
    DennisTate likes this.
  5. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,966
    Likes Received:
    2,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow!!!!

    Sir.... I just heard today that Mississauga's Mayor is resigning.......
    and moving on to a much more important career in the overall political environment of Canada........

    Therefore within months I may well be involved in a race for the office of Mayor of Mississauga.........

    Would you please criticize my campaign platform mercilessly??????

    I am not kidding......

    if I can learn from YOU here on political forum........

    I might just do pretty good if and when I end up in a debate with other aspiring mayoral candidates in the upcoming election.


    Dennis Tait or Tate for Mayor of Mississauga?



    Mayor Crombie announces resignation as Mayor effective January 12, 2024



     
  6. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    156,308
    Likes Received:
    39,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Regan requested less spending every year than Congress authorized and refused to pass all his spending recension's. Had they followed his budgets the deficits would have fallen under $100B heading to surplus.

    Then why did the top earners pay not only more in tax revenues hugely more and a bigger share of taxes when the Gingrich/Kasich budgets not only got revenues back on track after Clinton's increase with their welfare and regulatory reform they brought the deficit back into balance and produced the surpluses. Bush43 with the Republican Congress in order to get us out of the 2001 recession he inherited passed even better tax cuts including cutting CapGains to 15% and produce a RECORD tax revenue increase and they had the deficit down to a measly $161B heading back to surplus.

    Then the Dems took back to Congress and what happened? Where was the deficit two years later?

    Yes just pass more bills, they have to actually do anything especially what they say they are going to do just pass them and claim SUCCESS!!!
     
  7. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    156,308
    Likes Received:
    39,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  8. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    156,308
    Likes Received:
    39,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope this is Democrat spending, Biden and a Democrat Congress. And whenever the Reps try to reign it in we see what happens. Which side did you support in the last two budget ceiling debates?
     
  9. Conservative Democrat

    Conservative Democrat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    2,231
    Likes Received:
    997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are making assertions without documenting them. Anyone who remembers the Reagan years knows it was not a time for bold new initiatives in domestic spending. The last full year Carter was president was 1980. The last full year Reagan was resident was 1988.

    During this time the ,top tax rate declined from 70% to 28%.
    https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

    Military spending increased from $143,69 billion to $309.66 billion.
    https://www.macrotrends.net/global-...nited-states/military-spending-defense-budget

    There was no need for this. The Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan, and collapsing from within.

    James Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense and head of the C.I.A. called Reagan's decision to cut taxes while raising military spending, "The most irresponsible fiscal action of modern times."

    George H.W. Bush called it "Voodoo Economics."

    George Will said in a column that if every Reagan budget was approved of by Congress in its entirety the increase in the national debt would have been only 10% less than it was.

    The national debt increased from $908 billion to $2,602 billion.
    https://www.macrotrends.net/global-...nited-states/military-spending-defense-budget

    David A. Stockman, who was Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985 wrote in his book The Triumph of Politics: How the Reagan Revolution Failed, That it was ever possible to cut taxes, raise military spending, and balance the budget without eliminating farm and business subsidies and making deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare. He added that these cuts were not possible because Reagan knew that many people who voted for him supported those programs.

    DavidStockman.jpeg


    There was no need for this. The Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan and collapsing from within.

    .
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2024
  10. Shutcie

    Shutcie Newly Registered Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    1,338
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "There was no need for this. The Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan and collapsing from within."
    And when Truman authorized the use of atomic weapons to end WWII Japan was all but ready to surrender. Using the bomb still saved American lives.

    Reagan's plan to end the cold war worked. Yes, it increased the deficit, but as we've learned from history, what Reagan added to the deficit to end the cold war was peanuts compared to the pig spending we've seen since, from both sides of the aisle.

    The fact is, if we don't get the politicians to quit spending like drunken sailors, we're doomed.

    We cannot tax our way out of debt.
    We cannot tax our way out of debt.
    We cannot tax our way out of debt.
    We cannot tax our way out of debt.

    We need an immediate across the board cut of every program save Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits. Cutting administrative costs in these programs is fine, but not the benefits because of the way they are funded.
    Cut spending, then we can talk about taxes.
     
  11. Conservative Democrat

    Conservative Democrat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    2,231
    Likes Received:
    997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    United States Strategic Bombing Survey
    Summary Report

    (Pacific War)
    Washington, D.C.
    1 July 1946


    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html
     
  12. Conservative Democrat

    Conservative Democrat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    2,231
    Likes Received:
    997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Threatening the Soviet leaders with a nuclear arms race when they knew the Soviet Union was collapsing, was unnecessarily dangerous and provocative.

    If instead of Mikhail Gorbachev the Soviet Union was governed by a neo Stalinist, there may have been a nuclear war.l
     
  13. Conservative Democrat

    Conservative Democrat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    2,231
    Likes Received:
    997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is little popular support for specific spending cuts, and much support for higher taxes on the rich.

    --------------

    Fox News Poll: Voters favor taxing the wealthy, increasing domestic spending
    By Victoria Balara Fox News
    Published January 24, 2019 5:55pm EST

    Voters prefer increasing spending on domestic programs over cutting taxes and reducing spending, and their preferred way to finance that spending -- is tax the wealthy.

    Fifty-one percent of voters want to spend more on programs such as infrastructure, national defense, education, and health care. That includes 63 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of independents, and 39 percent of Republicans.

    Forty percent prefer the federal government cut taxes, spending, and regulations.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fo...xing-the-wealthy-increasing-domestic-spending

    The rich have plenty of money.

    inequality.png

    All we need to do is to direct the government to take it from them. This is a winning issue for the Democrats.
     
  14. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    35,126
    Likes Received:
    11,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even if tax rates on the rich increase, won't that still mean less money per person for everyone else, with the high rates of immigration and waves of migrants?
     
  15. Conservative Democrat

    Conservative Democrat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    2,231
    Likes Received:
    997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then let's stop the immigration, and raise taxes on the rich.
     
  16. Shutcie

    Shutcie Newly Registered Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    1,338
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes. And at that time in the war the allies were still suffering hundreds of casualties every day. How many more would have died if we waited the 2-4 months for Japan to finally surrender, how much more aggression would Russia have shown in it's land grabs?

    No Americans died as a result of the atomic bombings. An unknown but certainly significant number of allied service people did not die because the war ended in August rather than November or December or whenever. I consider that all the justification needed for the use of atomic weapons.
     
  17. Shutcie

    Shutcie Newly Registered Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    1,338
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No matter how high the tax receipts or where they come from, we know that congress does not have the self discipline to live within a reasonable budget. They will spend whatever they have and then some.

    The answer at this stage is not higher taxes, for anyone.
    The answer at this stage is to put government spending on a severe diet.
    I would start with a 20-25% across the board budget cut.
    This would apply to every program, every department, every outlay.
    The only exception would be Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment BENEFIT payments. These programs are funded by dedicated taxes and are designed to be self supporting. BENEFITS would not be cut, administrative costs however would be subject to the same 20% cut.

    An across the board cut is the only way to end the bickering about which Ox is being gored and why my program? The answer is, all Y'all are getting a 20% cut. Live with it.

    I would also veto any budget that was not balanced.
    If Congress would not deliver a balanced budget in a timely fashion I would hold them in Washington until they did. It is not within the presidents power to do so, but if I could, I would seize every elected officials salary and apply it to the debt until they did present me with a balanced budget.
    Any new expenditures would need to have a dedicated funding source associated with it. If someone wants a new bridge, show how it will be paid for. Existing taxes are not an acceptable funding source; all that money is already spent.

    Any new tax would go to the debt until it is under control. Then and only then would the official get their bridge.
     
  18. Conservative Democrat

    Conservative Democrat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    2,231
    Likes Received:
    997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That would be unpopular with the voters for reasons I explained.

    When the rich and the corporations were heavily taxed the national debt was under control.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2024
  19. Shutcie

    Shutcie Newly Registered Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    1,338
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When the rich and corporations were heavily taxed we weren't forgiving school loans, handing out $600 A WEEK bonus unemployment checks and funding TRILLION dollar pork programs either.

    We cannot tax our way out of debt
     
  20. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,545
    Likes Received:
    4,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Both" parties (the Uniparty) are to blame for it. They "both" do it. The latest bit that has occurred over the last couple-ish years falls solely on Democrats though (e.g. Inflation "Reduction" Act).

    There's a small sect of Reps who truly wish to reign it in. However, most "Reps" are actually just Democrats acting as controlled opposition.

    I guess I don't really pay attention to the kabuki theater anymore.
     
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    156,308
    Likes Received:
    39,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    While not totally blames the Reps BY FAR have been the better fiscal managers producing the surpluses in the late 1990's and then bringing the deficit back down after the 2001 recession to a measly $161B heading back to surplus.

    There are a few too many RINO's that have gotten elected I agree and we need more Rep fiscal conservatives back in there.

    Well I, sure you had a position on the matter

    Which side did you support in the last two budget ceiling debates?
     

Share This Page