What's causing rising debt?

[Oneuli]

Why did debt fall after 1946? Because WWII ended.

As you know, war vs. peace isn't enough to explain the pattern. In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, we had Korea and Vietnam, and yet debt as a share of GDP fell. Then, in the 1980s we had no war, but debt rose as a share of GDP, thanks to reckless upper-class tax cuts, combined with pointless peacetime military over-spend.

As far as the 90's you don't think Congress played a role?

Of course they did. But we had something of a natural experiment, to see what really mattered. Deficits were already declining BEFORE the Republicans took Congress, and then deficits started rising again before Democrats retook the Congress. The era when deficits fell aligned almost perfectly with the Clinton presidency. That's because he was an obstacle to the usual right-wing budget-busting maneuvers of slashing upper-class taxes and exploding military spending.

Military spending dropped after the end of the Cold War and then spiked after 9/11.

It spiked before 9/11. In FY 2001, which ended September 30, 2001, so it was nearly over before 9/11, military spending was up 3.52% relative to the prior year, and 10.9% relative to 1999.

You conveniently leave world events out as if they play no role in how our country spends money.

Well, I don't mean to imply the 9/11 had no role. If not for the way right-wingers were wetting themselves in fear after that attack, it's entirely possible that Bush would have failed in his effort to stampede the nation's cowards into backing an unrelated conquest of Iraq -- a policy that wound up with something like a $3 trillion price tag. That's when the big boost in military spending showed up -- a 16% increase for FY 2003, relative to 2002.

Clinton and Obama were both Democrats but had very different policies

Granted. Clinton successfully pushed for gun control, created a New Deal-style employment and national service program called Americorps, pushed through the biggest single-year minimum wage hike in history, created a huge new labor protection in the form of FMLA, and greatly increased taxes (and not just on the top bracket). Clinton also helped real military spending come down to more reasonable levels. Obama was more of a right-winger compared to him. That may have had a role in the Obama era, despite showing nearly across-the-board socioeconomic improving, having less dramatic improvement than was seen during periods led by more liberal presidents.

 

[Oneuli]

Praise the good lord Democratic partisans are so honest

Yes, in relative terms they definitely are. However, to be fair to right-wingers, that may have less to do with Democratic partisans being inherently more honorable, and more to do with the fact they have the facts on their side. When the facts line up with your positions, you're less tempted to lie than when lies are the only way to make a point. Poor right-wingers.

 

[Oneuli]

ok=aP4JC0Qv
Firstly the most recent reporting showed a record high in tax revenue. Obviously tax cuts which promote economic growth DO work.

No, obviously they don't. The issue isn't whether nominal tax revenues rise over time. Obviously they do, over any significant time period, regardless of tax policy, because you have an expanding population, inflation, and technological improvements. Those three things mean that even if revenues were to fall as a share of GDP, they'll still tend to rise in nominal terms. But, as you can see if you check the history, following upper-class tax cuts like those of Reagan, Bush, and Trump, we tend to get periods with far-below normal revenue growth, such that even if we had only rates of spending growth that were slightly below normal, deficits would rise.

Secondly look at a graph showing what the government spends and note that entitlements are the greatest percentage. We spend more on them than defense.

Yes. But, as you can see if you check the data and links I provided, that wasn't what caused us to go from falling debt as a share of GDP to rising. Entitlement spending didn't grow faster than expected. It grew slower than expected. Military spending grew faster than expected, and revenues grew slower than expected. That's what sabotaged the budget.... again.

If you dont do something to bend that curve then no reasonable amout of growth will offset it.

What makes you think that?

Oh and a great swath of TAXPAYERS benefitted from the cuts.

We all took on a big chunk of liability, in the form of our per capita share of the extra national debt attributable to the cuts. For the rich, this was vastly overwhelmed by their individual benefit from the tax cuts. For the poor and middle class, we didn't see anywhere near enough to offset that debt.

If people wjo paid more in taxes get a greater number of dollars back thats how percentages work.

Tax cuts don't have to be done as percentages, obviously. You could give the same value of tax cut to everyone, if you wanted. Servants of the wealthy favor percentage cuts because they go primarily to the wealthy. But even that doesn't fully account for how upper-class-friendly Republican cuts tend to be, since they tend to be focused on income taxes (the poor and middle class pay most in payroll taxes, so income tax cuts have a bigger percentage impact on the rich), and since they tend to favor larger percentage cuts for higher brackets than lower ones.

If you half the country are NOT TAXPAYERS then yeah they had no taxes to cut.

Very nearly every adult in this country, and plenty of kids, are taxpayers. But, again, the servants of the rich want to speak only in terms of those taxes that most impact the rich.

 

[Oneuli]

The $10 TRILLION Obama added to our debt is going to also have to be repaid by future generations.

Yep. But, as you know, on Obama's watch we started reducing the deficit immediately, and it ended up about half what he'd inherited. By comparison, we're going the other way now, with exploding deficits, which will mean debt that's run up at an even faster pace.

 

[cawacko]

As you know, war vs. peace isn't enough to explain the pattern. In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, we had Korea and Vietnam, and yet debt as a share of GDP fell. Then, in the 1980s we had no war, but debt rose as a share of GDP, thanks to reckless upper-class tax cuts, combined with pointless peacetime military over-spend.



Of course they did. But we had something of a natural experiment, to see what really mattered. Deficits were already declining BEFORE the Republicans took Congress, and then deficits started rising again before Democrats retook the Congress. The era when deficits fell aligned almost perfectly with the Clinton presidency. That's because he was an obstacle to the usual right-wing budget-busting maneuvers of slashing upper-class taxes and exploding military spending.



It spiked before 9/11. In FY 2001, which ended September 30, 2001, so it was nearly over before 9/11, military spending was up 3.52% relative to the prior year, and 10.9% relative to 1999.



Well, I don't mean to imply the 9/11 had no role. If not for the way right-wingers were wetting themselves in fear after that attack, it's entirely possible that Bush would have failed in his effort to stampede the nation's cowards into backing an unrelated conquest of Iraq -- a policy that wound up with something like a $3 trillion price tag. That's when the big boost in military spending showed up -- a 16% increase for FY 2003, relative to 2002.



Granted. Clinton successfully pushed for gun control, created a New Deal-style employment and national service program called Americorps, pushed through the biggest single-year minimum wage hike in history, created a huge new labor protection in the form of FMLA, and greatly increased taxes (and not just on the top bracket). Clinton also helped real military spending come down to more reasonable levels. Obama was more of a right-winger compared to him. That may have had a role in the Obama era, despite showing nearly across-the-board socioeconomic improving, having less dramatic improvement than was seen during periods led by more liberal presidents.

Woah!! I say this in all sincerity you ought to look into a job with the DNC. You are intelligent and you have partisan blood running through you. You do an excellent job of spinning everything into the Democrats favor. There are a lot of hacks on this board but you actually have skills in your partisanship.

 

[Oneuli]

Woah!! I say this in all sincerity you ought to look into a job with the DNC. You are intelligent and you have partisan blood running through you. You do an excellent job of spinning everything into the Democrats favor. There are a lot of hacks on this board but you actually have skills in your partisanship.

You flatter me. But the job is really easy from this direction. The facts are so overwhelming that the talking points practically write themselves. One needs a lot more talent to present the right-wing arguments well, since then it's all about skillful misdirection, rather than just rote listing of verifiable facts.

 

[cawacko]

You flatter me. But the job is really easy from this direction. The facts are so overwhelming that the talking points practically write themselves. One needs a lot more talent to present the right-wing arguments well, since then it's all about skillful misdirection, rather than just rote listing of verifiable facts.

No, it's not facts, it's the spin you put on them. I can be just as partisan as the next person so I'm not speaking as holier than thou but we spin the numbers to fit our narrative. That's how you're choosing everything to be rosy for Democrats and doom and gloom for Republicans.

 

[Nordberg]

There is nothing more costly and yet more worthless than a second rate military. Democrats have constantly been opposed to military spending. Now we are paying the price to rebuild our military, after years of neglect. So who is really responsible for this deficit?

We have spent more on the military than the next 10 countries combined. We have been doing so for decades. We operate almost 900 military bases around the world. We are wasting our wealth on the military. This is what Gen. Eisenhower said about it. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...-that-eisenhower-every-gun-that-is-made-quote When you spend so much on the military to fight off a threat real or imagined, you are inviting in another.

 

[Superfreak]

Yep. But, as you know, on Obama's watch we started reducing the deficit immediately, and it ended up about half what he'd inherited. By comparison, we're going the other way now, with exploding deficits, which will mean debt that's run up at an even faster pace.

Pure nonsense. The first year deficit spending was due to a severe financial crisis. He maintained crisis deficit levels long after we were out of the crisis. He still ended with higher deficits than prior to the financial crisis. He completely FAILED fiscally. Also, deficits were RISING as Obama left office. Not falling.

 

[katzgar]

What are these austerity measures that Republicans supposedly implemented? Out of one side of your mouth you say they blow up the debt and then you say they implement austerity measures. Republicans don't actually cut spending. Once every blue moon they may reduce the growth in something but they don't actually cut spending.

Democrats don't have a problem with government spending (see Bernie Sanders and MMT) they just don't like how Republicans spend. It's not on their interest groups. And of course the attempted denial of the cost of entitlements. Everything else pales in comparison

SS and medicare have nothing to do with the national debt.

 

[katzgar]

There is nothing more costly and yet more worthless than a second rate military. Democrats have constantly been opposed to military spending. Now we are paying the price to rebuild our military, after years of neglect. So who is really responsible for this deficit?

you are a liar

 

[archives]

What are these austerity measures that Republicans supposedly implemented? Out of one side of your mouth you say they blow up the debt and then you say they implement austerity measures. Republicans don't actually cut spending. Once every blue moon they may reduce the growth in something but they don't actually cut spending.

Democrats don't have a problem with government spending (see Bernie Sanders and MMT) they just don't like how Republicans spend. It's not on their interest groups. And of course the attempted denial of the cost of entitlements. Everything else pales in comparison

Deficts and Debt was one of the primary issues for Republicans throughout the Obama years, least they said it was one of their major concerns. Keep in mind that Obama faced two wars, an unpaid prescription plan, and a historical recession with decreasing tax revenue coming in. In later years as the economy improved, Obama cut back on discretionary spending in attempts to reduce deficits

Trump gets elected and inherits an advancing economy and rather than continue as is with a substantial debt grants a major tax cut while increasing spending. Simply looking at what goes out and what comes in dictates blowing up an already major debt. Examining entitlements has to come next, which many thought was the goal of the tax cut

Trump's economic policy is nuts, short term gain aimed at getting elected in 2020, long term pain thereafter

 

[archives]

The $10 TRILLION Obama added to our debt is going to also have to be repaid by future generations.

Trump could pass it, and the difference is Obama created the debt dealing with two wars, anunpaid drug prescription program, and a historical recession. Trump, inherited an advancing economy not a recession, one war is over and the other dwindling, and he goes ahead and blows up the debt by creating a stimulus for the upper income brackets in the country

Even a high school economics students can see the difference and the consequences

 

[Truth Detector]

The Republicans are engaged in their usual two-step swindle. Step one, they give massive tax handouts to the rich and spending increases for their buddies in the military industries. Step two, they say the resulting run-up in debt requires austerity measures to be taken when it comes to programs that regular Americans rely on, like Social Security and Medicare. Mitch McConnell insists that cuts to those things are needed, because they're what's causing the problem. Let's test that rhetoric.

Here's what the budget projections looked like the day Trump took office:

I guess you missed 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 when the Budget deficits were in the trillions right snowflake?

Did you also miss when the Democrats were finally kicked totally to the curb in 2012 and Republicans controlled the Congress, deficits started going down dramatically?

I guess you also missed that the full effect of Obamacare and Obamunism took effect in 2017 after Obama left office. Gee, I wonder why?

But not to worry snowflakes; Trump hasn't even been here two years. He has asked his cabinet heads to come back with 5% cuts in their budgets. It's a great start.

Now you need to worry about Democrats taking back the House. If that occurs, expect the deficits and pain to become much greater.

As you can see, when Trump was coming in, the anticipated gross federal debt, as of FY 2019 (the fiscal year we're currently in) was 103.2% of GDP and falling. But now it's 108.1% and rising. Clearly, things have taken a turn for the worse. But why?

ObamaCare. That's why. Dunce. It didn't come into full effect until Obama was out of office. Great timing don't you think?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello, and right on Oneuli,

The Republicans are engaged in their usual two-step swindle. Step one, they give massive tax handouts to the rich and spending increases for their buddies in the military industries. Step two, they say the resulting run-up in debt requires austerity measures to be taken when it comes to programs that regular Americans rely on, like Social Security and Medicare. Mitch McConnell insists that cuts to those things are needed, because they're what's causing the problem. Let's test that rhetoric.

Here's what the budget projections looked like the day Trump took office:

https://web.archive.org/web/2017012...hitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Here they are now:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/

As you can see, when Trump was coming in, the anticipated gross federal debt, as of FY 2019 (the fiscal year we're currently in) was 103.2% of GDP and falling. But now it's 108.1% and rising. Clearly, things have taken a turn for the worse. But why?

Well, dig into the numbers and you'll see it isn't Medicare. When Obama left office, Medicare spending for FY 2019 was projected to be $663 billion. Now it's estimated at $631 billion. Medicare has actually wound up being about 5% cheaper than we were expecting it would be, back when we thought debt would now be lower as a share of GDP (and dropping).

It's not Social Security, either. Back when Trump was sworn in, we were projecting that Social Security would cost us $1.095 trillion this year, where now it looks like it'll cost $1.052 trillion. Again, Social Security is proving to be about 4% cheaper than we thought it would be, back when we thought debt would now be lower and falling.

It's not other social spending, either. For example, back when Trump first took office, the projection was that in FY 2019 we'd spend $127.9 billion on "education, training, employment, and social services." Now it looks like we'll spend $100.6 billion. That part of the budget is expected to be about 21% less expensive than previously anticipated. We're also on track to spend a lot less than we anticipated on income security, energy, natural resources and the environment, transportation, agriculture, and just about every other area of domestic spending.

So, why is it that debt is significantly higher than expected, and rising, when previously we thought by now we'd have a manageable and improving situation? Well, there are a couple reasons, neither of which have anything to do with the stuff Republicans want to talk about.

One is that our military spending -- which was already anticipated to be preposterous high -- has risen still higher. We're on track to spend about 15% more on "national defense" this year than we had anticipated (despite having anticipated a budget that would already have more than doubled the spending of all our potential adversaries combined). Veterans spending is also up a bit.

The big change, though, was from the tax cuts. Back when Trump came to office, we were projecting $4.095 trillion in receipts for FY 2019. Now we're on track for $3.422 trillion. That $673 billion shortfall more than accounts for the difference between where we thought our debt situation would be and where it is. Even as the government has become stingier and stingier when it comes to middle-class American needs, deficits have sky-rocketed, because of the tax changes.

Specifically, individual income tax receipts are down by a little over 15% compared to where they were projected to be (with the VAST majority of the change impacting the very wealthy), and corporate income tax receipts are down by a little over 57% compared to projections. Excise taxes have also plummeted, relative to projections, by about 29%. That last category includes a drop in taxes collected in relation to Obamacare (e.g., taxes on tanning services and medical devices), as well as a huge (56%) drop in excise taxes on tobacco, relative to the earlier 2019 projections.

So, don't fall for the Republican bullshit. The reason our debt is rising isn't because of Social Security and Medicare, much less other social spending programs. We're spending considerably less on those things than was projected, and yet we've moved from debt being a falling share of GDP, to it rising rapidly. That's about Republican-backed changes: higher military expenditures and lower taxes, especially for corporations and the wealthy.

Unfortunately, most political and budget reporters are innumerate. They didn't learn basic math in j-school, so they'll take the lazy way out and report this as a he-said, she-said thing. Effectively, they'll just be transcriptionists for the party leaders' respective talking points. But the budget numbers and history are available at the links I provided. You can follow up on your own and confirm what I've said. Medicare and Social Security are even more affordable now than we thought they'd be, but reckless upper-class tax cutting and obscene military overspend have broken the budget.

DON'T CONFUSE THEM WITH THE FACTS

They like their myths better.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

What are these austerity measures that Republicans supposedly implemented? Out of one side of your mouth you say they blow up the debt and then you say they implement austerity measures. Republicans don't actually cut spending. Once every blue moon they may reduce the growth in something but they don't actually cut spending.

Democrats don't have a problem with government spending (see Bernie Sanders and MMT) they just don't like how Republicans spend. It's not on their interest groups. And of course the attempted denial of the cost of entitlements. Everything else pales in comparison

If you spend more and cut what's coming in the debt goes up. Don't blame Democrats for what you did.

 

[PoliTalker]

Yes. It should be obvious -- and, in fact, it's something that people should have been able to anticipate would happen once the Republicans had power. The record, when it comes to debt, is quite clear. Between 1946 and 1981, debt fell as a share of GDP by over 73%. But then we got Reaganomics and an orgy of peace-time military spending, and by the early 1990s, debt as a share of GDP had more then doubled. Then it came down again, as a result of Clinton's policies, only to start spiking again when Bush pushed through another set of upper-class tax cuts and military spending hikes. So, of course, when projections showed debt again falling as a share of GDP, it was obvious what would happen if Trump became president. Yet the dummies on the right are going to continue to act as if this has nothing to do with their long-debunked policies.

You're making so much SENSE!

Republicans won't listen to it.

 

[PoliTalker]

There is nothing more costly and yet more worthless than a second rate military. Democrats have constantly been opposed to military spending. Now we are paying the price to rebuild our military, after years of neglect. So who is really responsible for this deficit?

Just cut it out. We spend 7 times more on our military than anybody else.

What's second-rate is our infrastructure.

 

[Truth Detector]

Well, dig into the numbers and you'll see it isn't Medicare. When Obama left office, Medicare spending for FY 2019 was projected to be $663 billion. Now it's estimated at $631 billion. Medicare has actually wound up being about 5% cheaper than we were expecting it would be, back when we thought debt would now be lower as a share of GDP (and dropping).

Projected spending and estimated doesn't equate to lower spending levels fool. Do you have a link to the data you are claiming here? I can't find anything that supports the notion we will be spending LESS.

It's not Social Security, either. Back when Trump was sworn in, we were projecting that Social Security would cost us $1.095 trillion this year, where now it looks like it'll cost $1.052 trillion. Again, Social Security is proving to be about 4% cheaper than we thought it would be, back when we thought debt would now be lower and falling.

Link?

It's not other social spending, either. For example, back when Trump first took office, the projection was that in FY 2019 we'd spend $127.9 billion on "education, training, employment, and social services." Now it looks like we'll spend $100.6 billion. That part of the budget is expected to be about 21% less expensive than previously anticipated. We're also on track to spend a lot less than we anticipated on income security, energy, natural resources and the environment, transportation, agriculture, and just about every other area of domestic spending.

Link?

So, why is it that debt is significantly higher than expected, and rising, when previously we thought by now we'd have a manageable and improving situation? Well, there are a couple reasons, neither of which have anything to do with the stuff Republicans want to talk about.

One is that our military spending -- which was already anticipated to be preposterous high -- has risen still higher. We're on track to spend about 15% more on "national defense" this year than we had anticipated (despite having anticipated a budget that would already have more than doubled the spending of all our potential adversaries combined). Veterans spending is also up a bit.

Mandatory spending is currently estimated to be $2.739 trillion for FY 2019. The two largest mandatory programs are Social Security and Medicare. That's 62 percent of all federal spending. It's also three times more than the military budget.

The FY 2019 budget estimates it will cost $1.046 trillion.

Medicare will cost $625 billion in FY 2019.

Medicaid costs will be $412 billion in FY 2019.

All other mandatory programs will cost $656 billion. Most of these are income support programs provide federal assistance for those who can't provide for themselves.
https://www.thebalance.com/current-federal-mandatory-spending-3305772

The big change, though, was from the tax cuts.

Can't be; revenue has not declined. Therefore, it is a SPENDING problem not a revenue problem. Dunce.

Back when Trump came to office, we were projecting $4.095 trillion in receipts for FY 2019. Now we're on track for $3.422 trillion. That $673 billion shortfall more than accounts for the difference between where we thought our debt situation would be and where it is. Even as the government has become stingier and stingier when it comes to middle-class American needs, deficits have sky-rocketed, because of the tax changes.

I guess you don't know this, but those are projections and the OMB has NEVER gotten ANY projections right EVER. FOOL.

So, don't fall for the Republican bullshit. The reason our debt is rising isn't because of Social Security and Medicare, much less other social spending programs. We're spending considerably less on those things than was projected, and yet we've moved from debt being a falling share of GDP, to it rising rapidly. That's about Republican-backed changes: higher military expenditures and lower taxes, especially for corporations and the wealthy.

What we won't fall for is your laughable bullshit snowflake. Mandatory spending takes up 62% of the budgets. You cannot reduce them; they are mandatory by law. The defense budget is NOT the problem. Fool.

The tax reductions did not cause this. Revenue is HIGHER. BUT, SPENDING continues to outpace revenue. Therefore, we have a SPENDING problem.

One last thing, Corporations don't pay taxes. As a rule, ALL their costs are passed onto the consumers. Next time Democrats demand raising taxes on corporations, thank them for raising YOUR taxes. Fool.

Fascinating how you leftist liars never seemed concerned at all about the massive deficit spending Obama engaged in. Now, suddenly, you're not merely demanding you take the moral high ground for the very first time, but the fiscally disciplined ground. STFU, seriously.

 

[Truth Detector]

Yes. It should be obvious -- and, in fact, it's something that people should have been able to anticipate would happen once the Republicans had power. The record, when it comes to debt, is quite clear. Between 1946 and 1981, debt fell as a share of GDP by over 73%. But then we got Reaganomics and an orgy of peace-time military spending, and by the early 1990s, debt as a share of GDP had more then doubled.

It wasn't Reagan; it was the Democratic controlled House run by Tipsy O'Neil you moron. He declared ALL of Reagan's budgets DOA.

But NOTHING compares to the deficits Obama ran; why didn't you care back then? STFU, seriously.

Then it came down again, as a result of Clinton's policies, only to start spiking again when Bush pushed through another set of upper-class tax cuts and military spending hikes. So, of course, when projections showed debt again falling as a share of GDP, it was obvious what would happen if Trump became president. Yet the dummies on the right are going to continue to act as if this has nothing to do with their long-debunked policies.

That is a lie; as a result of Clinton's policies with a Democratically controlled Congress, the American people then elected a Republican majority in Congress for the first time in four decades. After that, they managed to balance the budget and bring down deficits.

I do wish you had a brain and weren't a hyper partisan dumbass in steroids.