The growth of the debt under Biden compared to Trump

I followed your lead.

 

So you're following the lead of someone you believe to be (figuratively) "jumping off of a cliff"? hahahahahahahaha how BRILLIANT!

 

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.

 

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/

 

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

 

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!!!

 

And how does the LFPR compare?

 

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?

 

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.




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

.

 

"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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.



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

 

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?

 

Then let's stop the immigration, and raise taxes on the rich.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

"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.

 

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?

 

"Shut the government down".

 

"Something" requires tax increases and spending decreases. Who in Congress wants to promise both in the next electoral campaign? The truth is that a number of advantages have stopped working for the U.S. economy. With a brief intermission during the Clinton Years,



we have been living beyond our means nationally. What is ahead is a steadily diminishing standard of living for most Americans. Nothing can be done about it, but to elect politicians who will manage our decline. .

 

I do not agree.

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.

An immediate major cut in spending is required.
Veto any budget not balanced.
Hold congress in session until a balanced budget is passed.

The US is as strong as ever.
Giving up and doom and gloom is what liberals want.
I refuse.

 

Income Distribution in the United States: How It’s Changed Since the 1970s

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook

In the 50s and 60s, economic growth was really shared broadly across the distribution. That changed in the 70s.

Since the mid-70s, we've seen rising income inequality to the point where 90 percent of the population hasn't really seen much income growth in real terms for the last 45 years, whereas those at the top of the distribution have seen much, much faster income growth. And particularly when you compare that to how the economy used to grow, that difference in growth has been costing the bottom 90 percent of the population about $2.5 trillion, at least in 2018. And over the course of the last 43 years, that totals to about $47 trillion.Income Distribution in the United States: How It's Changed Since the 1970s | RAND