Trump ran up national debt twice as much as Biden

[JohnEngelman]

Which President Contributed the Most to U.S. National Debt?​

The national debt increased by nearly 40 times under Abraham Lincoln from 1861 to 1865—the largest multiple of increase in U.S. history.6 Of those who were president in either the 20th or 21st century, Franklin D. Roosevelt contributed to the largest percent increase in national debt. Recent presidents Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and George W. Bush presided over the three largest increases in terms of dollar amounts. Current President Joe Biden is on pace to join or surpass them.

The solution to deficit spending is to impose big tax increases on rich people and corporations. That is what most Americans want.

 

[icanhelp1]

The solution to deficit spending is to impose big tax increases on rich people and corporations. That is what most Americans want.

The cure for excessive spending is cut spending. Heavy taxes on corporations is a back door tax on the consumer.

 

[Bn2f]

The cure for excessive spending is cut spending. Heavy taxes on corporations is a back door tax on the consumer.

I wish Biden would lobby congress for a substantial increase in our defense budget.

Cambridge Dictionary:

clueless: having no knowledge of something, or of things in general:

clueless about… Most people are completely clueless about tide directions, weather conditions, taxation, and government spending.

 

[jomar]

The military took its marching orders from an incompetent fool. The military advised Biden to not withdraw completely from Afghanistan.

Once again you omit background and context. Your orange god is fully responsible for the pullout because he negotiated a full US military withdrawal with the Taliban behind the back of the Afghan government. Had the timeline been ignored or a US military presence remain, the Taliban would end any cease fire and resume full out war, which would have either drawn us further in (at a time when we were ready to end the 20 year involvement) or have made withdrawal far more dangerous and deadly.

 

[icanhelp1]

Once again you omit background and context. Your orange god is fully responsible for the pullout because he negotiated a full US military withdrawal with the Taliban behind the back of the Afghan government. Had the timeline been ignored or a US military presence remain, the Taliban would end any cease fire and resume full out war, which would have either drawn us further in (at a time when we were ready to end the 20 year involvement) or have made withdrawal far more dangerous and deadly.

Bullshit. Biden was president and was under no obligation to withdraw. Stop blaming Trump for Biden’s fuckup. The negotiated settlement that Trump agreed upon was a co-op government. That wasn’t happening. US forces in Afghanistan combined with allied forces with the Afghan army supported by western air power were more than capable of keeping the Taliban in check. Bagram air base was an important strategic base especially with Iran and its proxies acting up. As I’ve written in the past Trump had this all wrong IMHO. Biden like Trump was using the withdrawal as a political tool which went against all senior commanders. Biden removing our military before evacuating citizens and afghan who worked with our military was perhaps the biggest tactical fuckup in history. Biden is an incompetent fool. Biden as CiC had all the authority to adjust windage and elevation.

 

[Lazaran]

Once again you omit background and context. Your orange god is fully responsible for the pullout because he negotiated a full US military withdrawal with the Taliban behind the back of the Afghan government. Had the timeline been ignored or a US military presence remain, the Taliban would end any cease fire and resume full out war, which would have either drawn us further in (at a time when we were ready to end the 20 year involvement) or have made withdrawal far more dangerous and deadly.

And those 5,000 hardened Taliban fighters that the corrupt orange traitor made the Afghan government release from prison would have made things even more dangerous and deadly if President Biden had opted to stay and continue fighting for a lost cause that the Afghan people obviously weren’t fully committed to.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Stop blaming Trump for Biden’s fuckup.

LOL that is backwards, you're the one blaming Biden for Trump's fuck up. But hey no matter which way it went you'd blame Biden...because that is just who you are.

 

[icanhelp1]

No doubt releasing those 5,000 hardened criminals was a huge blunder. Good faith bargaining with the Taliban is an oxymoron. Trump blew it and that’s the difference between you and I. You stand behind Biden regardless of whether his policies are right or wrong.

That being said with the release of 5,000 hardened Taliban thugs how does withdrawing our troops before evacuating civilians and Afghan allies make any sense.

Both presidents failed to accept the strategic, tactical and economic benefits of staying in Afghanistan. It would’ve taken a little courage by both presidents to address the American people and explain the advantages for staying put in Afghanistan. We kept troop concentrations in Japan, S Korea and Western Europe for decades. US Combat fatalities were at an all time low and as long as we worked with the Afghan army the Taliban would continue to experience significant losses which might have in the future forced the Taliban to accept a co-op government.

We gave false hope to all these girls and women who were a new generation of citizens willing to chance taking a shot at freedom, women’s rights and equality. The Afghan army was making strides in taking back their country as long as they had western support.

It has always been my view that in the beginning we should’ve tracked UBL even into Pakistan, killed UBL and then gotten the fuck out. Period! But we didn’t another presidential blunder.

 

[dkovic77]

No doubt releasing those 5,000 hardened criminals was a huge blunder. Good faith bargaining with the Taliban is an oxymoron. Trump blew it and that’s the difference between you and I. You stand behind Biden regardless of whether his policies are right or wrong.

Tell us more, oh oracle, about standing behind someone right or wrong. We would all love to hear it!

Who are you voting for again? Who do you keep propping up? But he blew it?

Sounds par for the course for you, Traitor Tater.

 

[icanhelp1]

LOL that is backwards, you're the one blaming Biden for Trump's fuck up. But hey no matter which way it went you'd blame Biden...because that is just who you are.

Biden made the final decisions and refused to take advise from his senior military advisers.

 

[dkovic77]

Biden made the final decisions and refused to take advise from his senior military advisers.

Tell us more Traitor Tater.

 

[subdudeme13]

Both parties run up the debt. The fact they have convinced you otherwise means they have won.

You, I am sure, understand the difference between the national debt and the deficit. Republican presidents have increased the deficit and Democratic presidents have reduced it. So my guess is Republicans have fooled you into thinking they are budget hawks, WRONG! Trump was the worst ahead of BushII. Bush would have decreased the national debt had he stuck with the Clinton budget buy he fucked it up.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Republicans only care about spending and deficits when Democrats hold the White House. Republicans are silent on those issues when they hold the White House.

History tells us that when the Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House, federal spending doesn’t go down but in fact increases.

History also tells us that in conjunction with increased spending, Republicans cut taxes on the highest earners (see Reagan, GW Bush and Trump).

Increased spending and tax cuts cause huge deficits under Republican leadership.

If Trump wins and the Republicans win control of Congress, they will cut some social programs for show, but overall spending will continue to rise. And taxes on the rich will be cut again. Bigly deficits will result (again).

As the CBO and US Treasury data I’ve shared in this thread illustrate, tax receipts as a share of GDP has not declined, nor have tax receipts declined in inflation adjusted dollars. They are less than what they would have been if the TCJA and prior tax reform laws had not been enacted, but they have not been reduced.

The data also shows that spending has exceeded tax receipts for decades, that it’s gotten worse in the post-Covid era, and under the current trajectory spending will hit 25% of GDP by 2030.

I do agree with you that Republicans are equally responsible for the spending problem and I agree that no matter who wins in November, Congress will not enact the necessary spending reductions to reverse the current trend.

If you are hoping Congress will raise your taxes, don’t hold your breath. Neither party is likely to tamper with the individual tax rates for 99% of us. The TCJA tax rates are set to expire next year but for nearly all of us, they most likely will be extended. The very highest bracket might go up from 37% to 39%, but even that is questionable. Too many rich folks live in blue states. They might tax carried interest though. Not many people would scream and the incremental revenue would be negligible.

There is a decent chance that the corporate rate might increase a bit, perhaps closer to 28%, but the net impact would be small. Corporate taxes only contribute about 8% to 9% of total receipts. Consumers will pay whatever increase might occur.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Biden made the final decisions and refused to take advise from his senior military advisers.

You'd blame Biden no matter what. Trump signed a deal, and Biden followed it.

As to advice from his senior leaders, where is that citation. Your answers are baseless in most cases, and you have zero credibility.

 

[R34D]

First off, debt can be misleading when compared to spending because they represent different aspects of a government's financial situation and economic impact.

In essence, while debt and spending are interconnected, they serve different analytical purposes and require nuanced consideration within the broader context of fiscal policy, economic growth, and market dynamics. Simply utilizing debt in isolation can oversimplify complex economic realities.

To determine the total governmental spending for the periods 2016-2020 and 2020-2024, we can look at the annual federal outlays for each fiscal year. Here are the figures based on data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

2016-2020:
- 2016: $3.85 trillion
- 2017: $3.98 trillion
- 2018: $4.11 trillion
- 2019: $4.45 trillion
- 2020: $6.55 trillion (includes significant COVID-19 relief spending)

2020-2024:
- 2020: $6.55 trillion (repeated for context)
- 2021: $6.82 trillion
- 2022: $6.27 trillion
- 2023: $6.37 trillion (estimated)
- 2024: $6.71 trillion (estimated)

Summary of Total Government Spending:

- Total for 2016-2020: $22.94 trillion
- Total for 2020-2024: $32.72 trillion

Presenting data in a dishonest manner to push an agenda is a practice known as data manipulation or cherry-picking. It involves selectively choosing or presenting data that supports a particular viewpoint while disregarding or downplaying contradictory data. This can mislead others by distorting the true picture or significance of the data. It's important in any context, whether scientific, political, or otherwise, to present data transparently and accurately to ensure informed decision-making and understanding.

 

[MajorRewrite]

As the CBO and US Treasury data I’ve shared in this thread illustrate, tax receipts as a share of GDP has not declined, nor have tax receipts declined in inflation adjusted dollars. They are less than what they would have been if the TCJA and prior tax reform laws had not been enacted, but they have not been reduced.

The data also shows that spending has exceeded tax receipts for decades, that it’s gotten worse in the post-Covid era, and under the current trajectory spending will hit 25% of GDP by 2030.

I do agree with you that Republicans are equally responsible for the spending problem and I agree that no matter who wins in November, Congress will not enact the necessary spending reductions to reverse the current trend.

If you are hoping Congress will raise your taxes, don’t hold your breath. Neither party is likely to tamper with the individual tax rates for 99% of us. The TCJA tax rates are set to expire next year but for nearly all of us, they most likely will be extended. The very highest bracket might go up from 37% to 39%, but even that is questionable. Too many rich folks live in blue states. They might tax carried interest though. Not many people would scream and the incremental revenue would be negligible.

There is a decent chance that the corporate rate might increase a bit, perhaps closer to 28%, but the net impact would be small. Corporate taxes only contribute about 8% to 9% of total receipts. Consumers will pay whatever increase might occur.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present the DSCNCSP (Deficit Spending Conspiracy Nut Clown Show Party), formerly known as the Republican Party.

Motto: “We criticize the Democratic Party for deficit spending because our supporters are too fucking dumb to realize we are the bigger deficit spending party.”

 

[MajorRewrite]

First off, debt can be misleading when compared to spending because they represent different aspects of a government's financial situation and economic impact.

In essence, while debt and spending are interconnected, they serve different analytical purposes and require nuanced consideration within the broader context of fiscal policy, economic growth, and market dynamics. Simply utilizing debt in isolation can oversimplify complex economic realities.

To determine the total governmental spending for the periods 2016-2020 and 2020-2024, we can look at the annual federal outlays for each fiscal year. Here are the figures based on data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

2016-2020:
- 2016: $3.85 trillion
- 2017: $3.98 trillion
- 2018: $4.11 trillion
- 2019: $4.45 trillion
- 2020: $6.55 trillion (includes significant COVID-19 relief spending)

2020-2024:
- 2020: $6.55 trillion (repeated for context)
- 2021: $6.82 trillion
- 2022: $6.27 trillion
- 2023: $6.37 trillion (estimated)
- 2024: $6.71 trillion (estimated)

Summary of Total Government Spending:

- Total for 2016-2020: $22.94 trillion
- Total for 2020-2024: $32.72 trillion

Presenting data in a dishonest manner to push an agenda is a practice known as data manipulation or cherry-picking. It involves selectively choosing or presenting data that supports a particular viewpoint while disregarding or downplaying contradictory data. This can mislead others by distorting the true picture or significance of the data. It's important in any context, whether scientific, political, or otherwise, to present data transparently and accurately to ensure informed decision-making and understanding.

DSCNCSP 2: Electric Boogaloo

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present the DSCNCSP (Deficit Spending Conspiracy Nut Clown Show Party), formerly known as the Republican Part.

Motto: “We criticize the Democratic Party for deficit spending because our supporters are too fucking dumb to realize we are the bigger deficit spending party.”

I’ve been clear in my criticism of both parties and have presented data from the CBO and US Treasury that supports it.

 

[MajorRewrite]

I’ve been clear in my criticism of both parties and have presented data from the CBO and US Treasury that supports it.

Republicans only talk about spending and deficits when a Democrat is in the White House.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I’ve been clear in my criticism of both parties and have presented data from the CBO and US Treasury that supports it.

You've also been clear that the only solution to resolve the growing debt that is acceptable to you is to cut spending. Yet you're silent on what to cut. I offered up the military budget, and still gotten crickets back from you on that.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

You've also been clear that the only solution to resolve the growing debt that is acceptable to you is to cut spending. Yet you're silent on what to cut. I offered up the military budget, and still gotten crickets back from you on that.

This thread represents an attempt to assign blame for past actions under Trump and Biden. Questions of exactly where to raise future taxes and/or where to cut future spending are beyond the scope of this thread but here are a few quick thoughts on your comment.

Defense spending is at its lowest point since the 1950s and it will be tough finding where cuts can be made, especially while the US is currently funding two wars and facing threats from hostile nations like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. That said, I’m open to any suggested cuts that would not compromise national security.

Unfortunately, we can’t undo the wasteful components of CARES Act, the American Rescue Plan Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the $1.2 trillion spent without congressional approval via executive actions for student loan forgiveness and other items, etc., but future presidents and Congresses should not repeat these kinds of costly mistakes of the past.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

This thread represents an attempt to assign blame for past actions under Trump and Biden.

No this thread illustrates the past actions of Trump and Biden, and how that reflects on the current total US debt.

Questions of exactly where to raise future taxes and/or where to cut future spending are beyond the scope of this thread but here are a few quick thoughts on your comment.

Defense spending is at its lowest point since the 1950s and it will be tough finding where cuts can be made, especially while the US is currently funding two wars and facing threats from hostile nations like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. That said, I’m open to any suggested cuts that would not compromise national security.

The US spends more than the next three countries combined on military spending. The problem with cutting military spending is: It is the shiny light of US manufacturing now. Still you could half it and the military projection wouldn't change one iota.

Unfortunately, we can’t undo the wasteful components of CARES Act, the American Rescue Plan Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the $1.2 trillion spent without congressional approval via executive actions for student loan forgiveness and other items, etc., but future presidents and Congresses should not repeat these kinds of costly mistakes of the past.

lol, if you're gona list actions, where the fuck is Trump's tax cut? It was not a required solution. There was no problem, except people like you don't like to pay ANY tax.

 

[Pad_Foot]

First off, debt can be misleading when compared to spending because they represent different aspects of a government's financial situation and economic impact.

In essence, while debt and spending are interconnected, they serve different analytical purposes and require nuanced consideration within the broader context of fiscal policy, economic growth, and market dynamics. Simply utilizing debt in isolation can oversimplify complex economic realities.

To determine the total governmental spending for the periods 2016-2020 and 2020-2024, we can look at the annual federal outlays for each fiscal year. Here are the figures based on data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

2016-2020:
- 2016: $3.85 trillion
- 2017: $3.98 trillion
- 2018: $4.11 trillion
- 2019: $4.45 trillion
- 2020: $6.55 trillion (includes significant COVID-19 relief spending)

2020-2024:
- 2020: $6.55 trillion (repeated for context)
- 2021: $6.82 trillion
- 2022: $6.27 trillion
- 2023: $6.37 trillion (estimated)
- 2024: $6.71 trillion (estimated)

Summary of Total Government Spending:

- Total for 2016-2020: $22.94 trillion
- Total for 2020-2024: $32.72 trillion

Presenting data in a dishonest manner to push an agenda is a practice known as data manipulation or cherry-picking. It involves selectively choosing or presenting data that supports a particular viewpoint while disregarding or downplaying contradictory data. This can mislead others by distorting the true picture or significance of the data. It's important in any context, whether scientific, political, or otherwise, to present data transparently and accurately to ensure informed decision-making and understanding.

So? Biden spent more? Is that your point? And the difference between income and spending? The deficits?
Using numbers correctly is part of statistics.

Or are you trying to point out something else?

Despite all that spending where are we as a nation?
Why the fuck is gas still double what it should be ?? Please don’t say it’s supply driven, or “drill drill drill”

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

First off, debt can be misleading when compared to spending because they represent different aspects of a government's financial situation and economic impact.

In essence, while debt and spending are interconnected, they serve different analytical purposes and require nuanced consideration within the broader context of fiscal policy, economic growth, and market dynamics. Simply utilizing debt in isolation can oversimplify complex economic realities.

To determine the total governmental spending for the periods 2016-2020 and 2020-2024, we can look at the annual federal outlays for each fiscal year. Here are the figures based on data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

2016-2020:
- 2016: $3.85 trillion
- 2017: $3.98 trillion
- 2018: $4.11 trillion
- 2019: $4.45 trillion
- 2020: $6.55 trillion (includes significant COVID-19 relief spending)

2020-2024:
- 2020: $6.55 trillion (repeated for context)
- 2021: $6.82 trillion
- 2022: $6.27 trillion
- 2023: $6.37 trillion (estimated)
- 2024: $6.71 trillion (estimated)

Summary of Total Government Spending:

- Total for 2016-2020: $22.94 trillion
- Total for 2020-2024: $32.72 trillion

Presenting data in a dishonest manner to push an agenda is a practice known as data manipulation or cherry-picking. It involves selectively choosing or presenting data that supports a particular viewpoint while disregarding or downplaying contradictory data. This can mislead others by distorting the true picture or significance of the data. It's important in any context, whether scientific, political, or otherwise, to present data transparently and accurately to ensure informed decision-making and understanding.

Excellent post. Highly relevant data points and sourced from the CBO and OMB.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No doubt releasing those 5,000 hardened criminals was a huge blunder. Good faith bargaining with the Taliban is an oxymoron. Trump blew it and that’s the difference between you and I. You stand behind Biden regardless of whether his policies are right or wrong.

That being said with the release of 5,000 hardened Taliban thugs how does withdrawing our troops before evacuating civilians and Afghan allies make any sense.

Both presidents failed to accept the strategic, tactical and economic benefits of staying in Afghanistan. It would’ve taken a little courage by both presidents to address the American people and explain the advantages for staying put in Afghanistan. We kept troop concentrations in Japan, S Korea and Western Europe for decades. US Combat fatalities were at an all time low and as long as we worked with the Afghan army the Taliban would continue to experience significant losses which might have in the future forced the Taliban to accept a co-op government.

We gave false hope to all these girls and women who were a new generation of citizens willing to chance taking a shot at freedom, women’s rights and equality. The Afghan army was making strides in taking back their country as long as they had western support.

It has always been my view that in the beginning we should’ve tracked UBL even into Pakistan, killed UBL and then gotten the fuck out. Period! But we didn’t another presidential blunder.

What economic benfit to staying in Afghanistan existed. Japan, S. Korea and Western Europe are not the same as Afghanistan and even those are difficult to really justify economically.