Debt and Deficits

Trump's Nearly $1 Trillion Deficit Is Worse Than a Broken Promise

The president doesn't understand the difference between a budget deficit and a trade deficit.

|

One of the refrains from President Trump's most ardent defenders—as well as from the president himself—is that he keeps his promises. For the last several years, the Republican National Committee, which serves as a de facto arm of the president's political operation, has been touting "promises made, promises kept," a phrase that the president has repeated at campaign stops and rallies. The website PromisesKept.com is operated by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. 

The idea behind the slogan is to combat the idea that Trump has few policy accomplishments, and to portray the president as someone who can be relied on to follow through on his campaign promises. He's a president you can count on. 

Yet when it comes to the federal debt, Trump is clearly failing to live up to his own words. In April 2016, Trump told The Washington Post, "We've got to get rid of the $19 trillion debt." And he believed he could make that happen in a relatively compressed time frame. "I think I could do it fairly quickly," he said. How quickly? "I would say over a period of eight years." 

Nearly three years into his presidency, however, the debt has risen to surpass $22 trillion. And federal budget deficits—the annual gap between revenues and spending—are growing ever larger, hitting levels not seen since the aftermath of the recession during President Obama's first term. 

According to a new estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal budget deficit for the 2019 fiscal year, which ended last month, was about $984 billion dollars. That just-shy-of-a-trillion dollar figure is higher than projected, and represents an increase of about 50 percent from when Trump took office, and an increase of about $200 billion from last year alone. It's more than double the $442 billion deficit under Obama in 2015. 

In the macro, political-difference-making scheme of the universe, it is almost certainly futile to dwell on the question of how Republicans would have reacted to such debt-and-deficit totals under President Obama, and yet: Imagine how Republicans would have reacted to such debt-and-deficit totals under Obama.

Actually, we don't have to imagine. We know. Because Republicans warned, loudly and repeatedly, that Obama's deficits, which came in the aftermath of a nationwide economic slowdown, were apocalyptic, catastrophic, world ending, and so on and so forth. 

Yet here we are. Trump is president, and he has allowed the deficit to soar beyond the increases that were already projected to happen. And Republicans in Congress have reacted with muted concern at best, and more like a collective shrug. Trillion-dollar deficits under a Democrat were a national emergency. Trillion-dollar deficits under Trump are no biggie. It's almost like the real problem, for many Republicans, wasn't the deficit. 

Republicans in Congress, who manage the budget process and who have signed on to various deals that spend more on domestic spending (a Democratic priority) in order to secure more spending on defense spending (a Republican priority), are, of course, a big part of the problem. A president cannot unilaterally address the annual budget deficit without significant help from the legislature.

But part of the problem is that Trump, being Trump, thought he could. In the 2016 interview where he raised the possibility of eliminating federal debt in eight years, he said he could do it through altering foreign trade deals. "The power is trade," he said. "Our deals are so bad." Trump said he would renegotiate trade deals with China, in particular, suggesting that doing so would eliminate federal debt. 

In many ways, that was the most telling part of Trump's response. He appears to have confused the foreign trade deficit with the federal budget deficit, a confusion that he has stubbornly held onto throughout his time as president. In the meantime, both the budget deficit and the trade deficit have increased. Trump has failed on both measures. And, as with his confusion about the budget deficit, his trade agenda has been driven by false claims and deep misconceptions about how trade works. 

Trump's nearly trillion-dollar deficits help reveal a deeper problem with the president, one that simple arguments about promises kept or unkept can sometimes fail to capture. It's not just that Trump can't be counted on to live up to his word. It's that Trump can't even be counted on to comprehend the promises he's made.

Advertisement

NEXT: Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! The October Term 2020 of FantasySCOTUS is now in session

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. [settles in to enjoy the sounds of crickets]

    1. Since you rarely understand what is said, don’t most threads seem that way to you?

      1. When you enter a thread, I mostly hear cicadas.

        1. Your meds are supposed to help with that.

          1. ^ dung beetle

            1. The arrow is pointing at your name lololo

              1. The DEBT is not the DEFICIT. And the DEFICIT is not the DEBT. They are separate problems.

                Government BORROWING drives up the debt, not government SPENDING.

                The solution to our debt problem is simple: STOP ISSUING DEBT-BASED MONEY! Begin issuing pure “unbacked” fiat money to fund the deficit, rather than going further into debt. The inflationary impact of unbacked dollars is no worse than the inflationary impact of the same amount of debt-backed dollars. Issuing unbacked dollars will halt the increase in the national debt and its crushing $479 billion in annual interest. Paying off part of the maturing debt each year and rolling over the rest will eventually bring the national debt (and its taxpayer-financed interest payments) down to zero. See http://www.fixourmoney.com .

                1. Who is going to accept a payment in pure unbacked fiat money?

                  Not me.

                  1. As far as I know, coins are unbacked fiat money. Do you use coins at all?

        2. I am sure you do. Having an empty skull will do that.

    2. I have received $24K during this month by on-line acting from home.its a awfully sensible and straightforward job and comfirtable then regular workplace job.everybody will be a {part of|be part of} this job and earn further take advantage part time by simply open this web site and follow directions.☛ http://earny.xyz/KfKLXSiYq

    3. Damn, Chipper, you got owned in this thread.

      1. Eunuch gets owned in every thread

      2. If you can call both sides lobbing back and forth 7th grade insults one side getting “owned”. The thing is, a competition like the one between Chipper and Joe is like the Special Olympics – even if you win, you’re still retarded.

    4. It would be a lot easier to take MacAdoodle’s fiscal rectitude seriously if during the whole “government shutdown” kerfuffle a few years ago he didn’t cry like a hysterical little bitch and demand that the republicans just shut up and give his godhead Block Insane Yomomma everything he demanded.

      In short, he is as completely full of shit as you are.

  2. The president doesn’t understand the difference between a budget deficit and a trade deficit.

    Gosh, or maybe the president actually does understand the difference but (1) made the budget deal for political reasons, (2) is engaging in the trade dispute with China because China is actually violating international trade norms, and (3) understands (unlike you, apparently) that a massive trade deficit with a totalitarian nation is, in itself, a bad thing.

    But, hey, you keep harping on about Trump’s supposed ignorance while displaying your own, Suderman.

    1. It is just remarkable how Trump somehow causes his critics to lose their minds and say stupid things. If you didn’t know better, you would think there was some kind of supernatural cause to it, that Trump is a witch who puts a hex on people like Suderman.

      1. I think Trump just reveals people for what they have been all along, because when they get angry at him, their masks drops and their filters vanish.

        We just didn’t know how many war mongers, authoritarians, and stupid people were hiding among the intellectual and journalist class. I also think a lot of “Libertarians” just took positions in libertarian organizations, think tanks, and news organizations because they couldn’t get any jobs in the more mainstream organizations.

        1. I also think a lot of “Libertarians” just took positions in libertarian organizations, think tanks, and news organizations because they couldn’t get any jobs in the more mainstream organizations.

          ya think?!

        2. You know, a poster UCrawford actually stated something that really made sense. This article reflects the envy and arrogance of Peter Suderman. UCrawford referenced an interview with the chairman of Whole Foods some time ago in the WSJ. The CEO said it was not hard to understand the viewpoint by people like Suderman. It is their envy and arrogance. They just cannot believe that their ‘intellectual inferior’ has more material success than them…a smarter enlightened person. It never occurs to them to ever question themselves, because if they did, their envy and arrogance would be exposed, and then they would have to face it.

          And this quote exemplifies it: The president doesn’t understand the difference between a budget deficit and a trade deficit.

          Peter Suderman writes articles for a libertarian blog, backed by dollars he never earned, provided by people he probably considers his intellectual inferior. The world has lots of good writers. It is a wonderful skill to have. Donald J Trump is a billionaire who won election against the best funded candidate in history, and managed to overcome FBI and CIA ‘investigations’ against him – on his first fucking try. There are a lot fewer people who could do that.

          But according to Suderman, we’re supposed to believe that POTUS Trump is some kind of simpleton who doesn’t know the difference.
          Um yeah, Ok. If you say so Peter. [doing a huge assed eyeroll here]

          1. They just cannot believe that their ‘intellectual inferior’ has more material success than them…a smarter enlightened person.

            Yeah, I think that’s a good observation. What I don’t understand is where their intellectual arrogance comes from. I mean, with Krugman, it’s at least understandable why. But Suderman’s academic pedigree is Asbury College and the University of North Florida, not the kind of stuff leftist academic dreams are made of. And moving from National Review and the NYT to Reason isn’t exactly a stellar journalistic career move either. Yet Suderman shows no intellectual humility or even care in the preparation of his articles.

            1. What I don’t get: Everyone and their freakin cousin has plainly stated Red China serially lies, serially cheats, serially steals our IP. Before POTUS Trump, nobody did jackshit about it. Now POTUS Trump is doing something to change Red Chinese behavior, and their collective pants are all wet.

              Tariffs don’t thrill me, but if they force a behavior change – stopping Red Chinese lying, cheating and stealing – then it is eminently worth the effort.

          2. Trump is illiterate, you half-educated bigot. He inherited his life, you stale-thinking rube. He is a vainglorious, reckless, vulgar, mendacious boor with an attention span measured in seconds. He is the low-quality malcontent’s conception of a successful person, however, and the culture war casualties’ last gasp hope on bigotry and backwardness, so you love him.

            Other than that, great comment.

            1. Trump is illiterate, you half-educated bigot. He inherited his life

              And you’re an illiterate, uneducated bigot who is stewing in his anger because he didn’t inherit anything at all. What’s your point?

            2. Yeah, an illiterate with a degree from UPenn. Um…Ok. Like UPenn is just a degree mill.

              Kirkland, there is plenty of grist in the mill to criticize POTUS Trump for on policy grounds. Stupidity though, is not in that grist. Personally, I want to see spending reduced – a lot. And I would like to see more wall built.

              I suppose you actually think POTUS Trump is your intellectual inferior. 🙂

      2. It’s amazing that Trump supporters have left their minds to rot in the end.

        No sense in it- just turn it off.

      3. So you’ve always been in favor of huge deficits, John?

        1. What does your cognitive situation have to do with this Jeff?

          1. That was pretty good, I gotta admit. A dodge, but a good one.

    2. Read the third from last paragraph. The trade deficit has virtually no relationship with the budget deficit. It is clear that Trump does not know the difference between the two. This is not TDS, this is based on what he actually said.

      1. But part of the problem is that Trump, being Trump, thought he could. In the 2016 interview where he raised the possibility of eliminating federal debt in eight years, he said he could do it through altering foreign trade deals. “The power is trade,” he said. “Our deals are so bad.” Trump said he would renegotiate trade deals with China, in particular, suggesting that doing so would eliminate federal debt.

        Is that your big gotcha? Suderman interpreting what Trump meant?

        1. Is that your big gotcha? You can’t read it for yourself or your eyes will burn? You have to attack the messenger who reads what someone else wrote of what Trump said?

          Go ahead, attack the message for once. Prove that is not what Trump said. Prove Trump had some other meaning. Do something useful.

          1. Wow, you sure got super shitty about me asking someone else a question.

            “Go ahead, attack the message for once.”

            What the fuck do you think “Is that your big gotcha? Suderman interpreting what Trump meant? WAS lolololool

            God damn dude, you need to calm down you say and do really stupid shit when you’re angry.

            1. “you sure got super shitty about me asking someone else a question”
              “someone else”

              He got pissy with a different sockpuppet account when his first sock was shown the idiocy of the statement.

        2. is he saying he will use tariffs to reduce the deficit that seems like a good idea to me and isn’t that what this nation used to do before WW1

          1. Tariffs are so unprogressive though!

            1. tariffs are anti free market. Can you stay ideologically consistent while defending every fuck up committed by Trump? I doubt it’s possible.

              1. Please specify how pointing out that tariffs are unprogressive is in any way ideologically inconsistent for me.

                1. I took your comment to mean that the reason Suderman would oppose tariffs is that they are anti progressive. I was pointing out that supporting tariffs is anti free market and therefor anti liberty.

                  1. Suderman doesn’t oppose income taxes or nationalization of healthcare.
                    Your false concern for “free” markets is noted and dismissed, much as your false claims of military service

          2. Cut Spending! No new taxes; if you want to implement this fine, get rid of all payroll taxes first. Oh and go through congress instead of using dictatorial powers not expressly granted by the Constitution to the executive branch.

      2. The trade deficit has virtually no relationship with the budget deficit.

        Really? Can you justify that statement? I mean, if you are saying that a dollar of trade deficit isn’t paid out of federal coffers, that’s obviously right. Is that the extent of your insight?

        In fact, the trade deficit and the budget deficit are closely related and caused by common factors: insufficient economic growth, monetary and fiscal policy, massive entitlement spending, overregulation, foreign market interference. Addressing the causes of the trade deficit will also address many of the causes of the budget deficit. Trump actually got that right.

        Of course, the trade dispute with China is not, by itself, going to fix the trade deficit; if you think that’s its objective, again, you haven’t been paying attention. The trade dispute with China is just part of trying to address the multiple causes of our trade deficits and budget deficits.

        1. How about you justifying the opposite, since your interpretation flies in the face of basic economics AND basic English.

          1. Oh OK your upthread whining is just you being periody.

          2. “Basic economics?” Are you kidding? Basic economics has the concept of “twin deficits”; go look it up. It’s a simple explanation of why budget and trade deficits tend to be closely linked.

            That’s basic economics for you. I was referring to additional effects on top of that. For example, cheap competition from foreign workers subject to fewer regulations and without a social safety net permanently moves US citizens from the workforce to our social safety net, paid for by tax payers. Over the past 20 years, labor force participation rate has dropped nearly 5%; that’s a massive number of people who are not economically productive and who depend, one way or another, on government spending.

            To say that “the trade deficit has virtually no relationship with the budget deficit” is ignorant beyond belief. It contradicts both basic economics and common sense.

            Yes, Trump got this right: fixing the causes of the trade deficits will go a long ways towards fixing the causes of the budget deficit.

            1. What you are saying is technically true. The problem is that Congress will always find a way to spend the money. So, any effect reducing the trade deficit has will just allow Congress to spend the money elsewhere. The problem is spending.

              1. So, any effect reducing the trade deficit has will just allow Congress to spend the money elsewhere. The problem is spending.

                You can’t “reduce the trade deficit” by itself. You can only reduce the trade deficit by addressing its causes.

                One of the causes of the US trade deficit is the US issuing large amounts of debt; obviously, addressing that cause both reduces the trade deficit and the budget deficit.

                Another cause of the US trade deficit is the lack of competitiveness of US firms due to regulations; reducing regulations will reduce the trade deficit, but it will also stimulate demand for US made goods, thereby increasing job opportunities for blue collar workers and labor participation rates, and reducing dependency on welfare, disability, and social security.

                Etc.

            2. “Yes, Trump got this right: fixing the causes of the trade deficits will go a long ways towards fixing the causes of the budget deficit.”

              how so? The current deficit increase is tied to Trump’s increase in military spending with a simultaneous tax cut.

              1. how so? The current deficit increase is tied to Trump’s increase in military spending with a simultaneous tax cut.

                The causes of the budget deficit isn’t our military spending. If our economy was growing as fast as it should be growing and if the federal government limited its spending to its constitutionally required functions (mostly defense and border enforcement), our military spending would be negligible.

                The causes of the budget deficit and debt is all the spending on programs other than what the federal government is supposed to do: social spending, federal law enforcement, education, research, etc.

                Trump tried to balance his military spending with cuts in other departments, but Congress refused. Since he wanted the military spending and a shutdown would have been politically infeasible, he went along. His biggest impact and legacy will likely be on the judiciary and some deregulation, and short term budget cuts are secondary to that objective, both to him and to voters.

                1. And what’s the excuse for the tax cut? The guy is trying to juice the economy to the gills in the short term to guarantee he gets a second term. He doesn’t care what happens in his second term, as long as the statute of limitations for several state level crimes in which he is currently implicated expire.

                  1. The guy is trying to juice the economy to the gills in the short term to guarantee he gets a second term.

                    Correct observation. And I’m happy that he does. The economy is going to crash anyway; continuing the madness a year or two won’t make any difference to the severity of the crash.

                    He doesn’t care what happens in his second term

                    Oh, he cares a lot. He’s hoping that he gets to replace RBG and many federal judges; cut some regulations; cancel some more bad trade deals; build a wall somehow.

                    as long as the statute of limitations for several state level crimes in which he is currently implicated expire

                    You mean the politically motivated b.s. that some left wing prosecutors are trying to harass him with? I doubt Trump cares about that. But I hope the prosecutors themselves will be held responsible for their abuse of power.

                    1. Michael Cohen is in prison for crimes he committed at the direction and with the cooperation of the president. And he’s never going to build a wall, even if the sycophants conveniently forget about his promise to make mexico pay for it.

                    2. Michael Cohen was never tried and convicted; he simply pled guilty to avoid a lengthy and costly trial. It’s just another case of an out-of-control federal legal system.

                      As for Trump’s wall, he has already started building it. And I couldn’t care less who pays for; let him take the money out of the military budget or welfare for all I care. My family was stuck for decades behind a wall; they really do work in preventing people from crossing borders.

                      Finally, I’m no “Trump sycophant”. I don’t particularly like the guy. But he is what we have, and he is the only thing that separates us from the chaos and destruction that the Democratic candidates would bring to this country.

                    3. I am excited for 2nd term Trump.
                      Should be fun.
                      If psychotics like de had any honor, they’d commit ritual suicide.
                      By we all know there is know honor in his type

                  2. The excuse for the tax cuts is that it is my fucking money, not e governments. Asshole.

        2. going to fix the trade deficit

          The use of that phrase is a pretty good indication that you an economic illiterate, and that your understanding of the economics of trade is at least 200 years out of date.

          1. The use of that phrase is a pretty good indication that you an economic illiterate, and that your understanding of the economics of trade is at least 200 years out of date.

            Really? Then explain to me why you think that persistent national trade deficits (and the budget deficits they are linked to) are not a social, political, and economic problem. Go ahead, enlighten me!

            1. What you posed is called a complex question. When one consists of multiple incorrect pieces, it’s usually best to ignore it, since treating on one piece allows the questioner to engage in rhetorical sleight of hand. It’s even more of a problem when the questioner does it unintentionally, as I suspect applies here.

              The enlightenment you need is in understanding comparative advantage and exchange rates, and optionally some historical knowledge on why people were concerned with the trade deficit.

              To a pretty good first approximation, trade deficits between countries are no more meaningful in themselves than trade deficits between a barber and a customer seeking a hair cut. The impact on exchange rates is the added factor, but there is no fundamental sense in which the deficit, or related changes in exchange rates, are a “problem.” Saying that they are is the assertion of an ignoramus.

              You could, as an example, take a position in a foreign exchange market that is adversely affected by an increase or decrease in net exports, and make the claim that the change was bad *for you*, but that is no reason to say it is bad in general. You just made the wrong choice. When dealing with something that has economy wide affects, like exchange rates, or interest rates, or energy prices, it’s true that these things have consequences on various aspects of society (your “social, political, and economic” categories) but it makes exactly as much sense to use the phrase “fix the trade deficit” as to say “fix the interest rate” or “fix the imbalance of cash exchanged between me and my barber.”

              1. NOYB2: national trade deficits

                BLPoG: trade deficits between countries

                You’re strawmanning his position.

                1. I don’t see how that follows from those at all. The example I mentioned was at the micro level and translates equally well between a specific group and the sum of partners. If anything it holds better as scale increases, either absolutely or proportionately. We should expect less importance with increasing numbers of actors due to decreasing likelihood of BATNA problems and because we could expect the deviation of the sum to scale with the root of the number of summands.

                  1. The example I mentioned was at the micro level and translates equally well between a specific group and the sum of partners.

                    The example you gave is an example of comparative advantage. It’s an argument for free trade, not for persistent national trade deficits. Free trade between free markets cannot produce persistent national trade deficits, which already tells you that your arguments related to free trade simply don’t apply to the situation we have.

                    As for tariffs with China, they aren’t intended to result in some direct reductions of the trade deficit anyway, they are intended to shift supply chains away from China to punish China economically; that’s to gain leverage in negotiations.

                    I asked you: Then explain to me why you think that persistent national trade deficits (and the budget deficits they are linked to) are not a social, political, and economic problem. You haven’t provided an answer because there is none. Persistent national budget deficits are, of course, a problem: they mean that a nation goes more and more into debt, that government is increasingly taxing its citizens, that the free market is not allowed to operate, and that there is eventually going to be a debt default or currency devaluation combined with massive economic disruption. And those budget deficits are linked to national trade deficits because basic economic theory tells us that persistent national trade deficits inevitably have to be financed by borrowing. It’s just like when you want to buy stuff, you either have to (1) earn the money for it, or (2) you have to borrow money for it, or (3) you have to steal it; Americans (through their government) are using options (2) and (3).

                    What you posed is called a complex question. When one consists of multiple incorrect pieces, it’s usually best to ignore it, since treating on one piece allows the questioner to engage in rhetorical sleight of hand.

                    What I posed is called a “rhetorical question”. I posed it to get you to think about basic economics, instead of repeating platitudes about irrelevant subjects. The way you responded is called “evasive” and “dumb”. You’re out of your depth on basic economics.

                    1. It’s an argument for free trade, not for persistent national trade deficits

                      The only ones advocating for a persistent sign on net exports are the ones that want to restrict trade. Literally no one argues for “persistent national trade deficits.”

                      basic economic theory tells us that persistent national trade deficits inevitably have to be financed by borrowing

                      Trade deficits (or surpluses) do not have to be financed through anything. It is an accounting measure. That is all it is. You bundled together a bunch of erroneous assumptions as a single question. I tried to respond to that abortion of a question by focusing on the core concepts important in understanding trade and why trade deficits are a hobgoblin, but you’re too enamored with central planning to realize no one is making the argument you think they are.

                    2. Trade deficits (or surpluses) do not have to be financed through anything. It is an accounting measure. That is all it is.

                      That’s like saying “my credit card bill is just an accounting measure”.

                      but you’re too enamored with central planning to realize no one is making the argument you think they are

                      You haven’t made an argument at all, you are simply in denial.

                      And let’s talk about “central planning”: you have a US economy and budget deficit pumped up by government borrowing, quantitative easing, the federal reserve, and massive wealth transfers trading with a centrally planned communist regime and you are deluded enough to think that unilaterally dropping import duties will result in “free trade” and benefits the American people.

                      You really are a complete economic ignoramus.

              2. To a pretty good first approximation, trade deficits between countries are no more meaningful

                We’re not talking about “trade deficits between countries”, we’re talking about the total national trade deficit of the US with the rest of the world

                The impact on exchange rates is the added factor, but there is no fundamental sense in which the deficit, or related changes in exchange rates, are a “problem.” Saying that they are is the assertion of an ignoramus.

                You’re talking like a first year economics student and stating the obvious. Obviously, in trade between free market economies with free floating fiat currencies or a global gold standard, trade deficits largely don’t matter, currency valuations adjust, and comparative advantage rules. But that’s not what we have in the US. At. All.

                What we have is a situation in which the dollar is the world’s reserve currency and in which the US treasury can create trillions of dollars out of thin air every year. That is, the US creates money and credit out of thin air, US consumers buy foreign crap with it, and then the Chinese buy US debt with it, on top of buying US assets and using them for their national advantage. China isn’t a free market economy either, they do this because it advances their political interests for world domination, and they are willing to enslave their population to make that happen.

                makes exactly as much sense to use the phrase “fix the trade deficit” as to say “fix the interest rate” or “fix the imbalance of cash exchanged between me and my barber.”

                “Fixing the trade deficit” doesn’t mean “setting it by fiat”, it means addressing its causes. What are the causes? Slow growth, excessive US government regulations, an excessive US government social safety net, not trading with totalitarian regimes bent on our destruction, massive budget deficits, and massive creation of money and credit out of thin air by the US government and the Federal Reserve.

                In other words, you “fix the trade deficit” (i.e., reduce it) by removing regulations, reducing non-wage costs, cutting back welfare, getting tough on China, stop issuing government debt, abolish the fed, and stop printing money (preferably by going back on a gold standard). Many of those things are what Trump is trying to do. Many of those things are what Democrats are opposing.

      3. I don’t agree with the strategy, but I believe the tariffs are a long term prop to try and get manufacturing back in country. Reduce trade deficit, improve economy, reduce budget deficit. The logic may be fallacious, but so is saying that he doesn’t have a basic understanding of his strategy.

        1. Though costly in the short run and perhaps the long run, i see a long term benefit to not having so much manufacturing dependent on China. Sometimes cheapest isn’t best.

          and seeing the NBA fall all over itself turning a blind eye to China’s issues so they can keep the money rolling in makes me embrace the trade war slightly more.

        2. Trump didn’t impose tariffs for protectionism; for that to work, he’d have to impose tariffs on goods from all countries. Tariffs are a negotiating tool for negotiating with China. They are intended to change Chinese behavior specifically. It’s changes in Chinese government policy, not tariffs, that will improve the balance of trade with China.

          As for the trade deficit, basic economic theory tells you a more relation to budget deficits then merely a “good economy”: ultimately, persistent national trade deficits can only really be financed by ever increasing debt. Why? Because debt is the only place the money can come from to keep buying stuff from other countries without sending anything useful back in return.

    3. Trump is an economics ignoramus. It doesn’t much matter what he understands in private, since it his public ignorance we have to deal with.

      The very concept of a “trade deficit” only applies in two party trade. There are no two party trade systems today, unless maybe North Korea and China, or Venezuela and Cuba.

      The commonly accepted definition of “trade deficit” is itself bogus, since it doesn’t count all trade.

      And even if we were in a two party trade system using a proper definition of “trade deficit”, it would still be a meaningless concept.

      All you Trumpistas bragging on Trump’s 36DD chess are equally ignorant about basic economics.

      And on top of it all, NONE of you can come up with any answer to the most basic question of where Trump gets the moral authority to dictate who other people trade with, or what they trade, or the circumstances. You are all a bunch of ignorant slavers, happy to follow Trump around, sucking up his farts, and telling each other how tasty it is.

      1. Even if they are right on his 36DD chess, winning on a trade deficit is wholly immaterial to the massive problem of the budget deficit.

        Trump promised to fix the budget deficit, but in three years all he has managed to do is increase it. One can’t lay the blame solely at Congress’ feet because no one was holding a gun to Trump’s head and forcing him to sign the budget raping bills.

        1. Trump deserves to be criticized for not fighting Congress enough to cut spending. That is a fair criticism.

          Suderman being a complete dishonest hack, however, doesn’t make the legitimate criticism. Instead, he somehow ties this to the trade deficit and sees it as proof that Trump is some unique evil rather than just another President who failed to do something about the budget deficit despite promising to do so.

          This article is a microcosm of so much that is wrong with reason and its treatment of Trump. It takes a legitimate criticism and turns it into a batshit crazy rant.

          1. Trump is the one tying the trade deficit and the budget deficit together. Suderman is criticizing this.

            1. And Suderman is wrong, because the trade deficit and the budget deficit are linked; standard economic theory tells you so.

              Other countries sell us goods and services and we send them goods and services, but not enough to pay for the goods and services they send us. The difference is the trade deficit. So what do we send them instead? Mostly dollars and debt, a lot of it government debt. That’s how budget deficits and trade deficits are linked. There are other connections too.

      2. The very concept of a “trade deficit” only applies in two party trade. There are no two party trade systems today, unless maybe North Korea and China, or Venezuela and Cuba.

        Saying stupid shit like this is what happens when you read just enough about a subject to be dangerous. The principle of account balance apply to the trade relations of every nation. What those numbers mean is debatable. That they exist is not.

        And on top of it all, NONE of you can come up with any answer to the most basic question of where Trump gets the moral authority to dictate who other people trade with, or what they trade, or the circumstances.

        It is called popular sovereignty and consent of the governed. We have a Constitution that explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate and tax international trade. Before the income tax, the entire federal government was funded by tariffs on imports.

        How can someone be as stupid as you appear to be? You are not posting canned talking points. You really are this stupid. Worse, you seem to have actually tried to know something and managed to get it this wrong.

        There really is something wrong with you. Did you get dropped on your head as a child or something?

      3. The commonly accepted definition of “trade deficit” is itself bogus, since it doesn’t count all trade.

        To the contrary, it counts pretty much exactly what matters: trade in goods and services that are the result of productive economic activity. When we have a trade deficit with the rest of the world, that means they are economically productive and we send them IOUs of some form, often US government debt. That’s how the trade deficit and the budget deficit are linked.

        That is, a large part of the money the US government is injecting into US markets based on taking on more and more debt, ostensibly to “stimulate the economy”, is simply used by Americans to buy foreign goods and then those foreigners are buying US debt with the dollars they get from consumers. Without that injection of money, Americans would simply not have the money to buy as much Chinese crap, and more Americans would have to work (and be able to work) instead of being on various government programs.

        All you Trumpistas bragging on Trump’s 36DD chess are equally ignorant about basic economics.

        Basic economics predicts that budget deficits and trade deficits are closely linked (“twin deficits”). Go look it up.

    4. Gosh, or maybe the president actually does understand the difference but is playing seven dimensional chess. You’re just too stupid to understand his long term strategy.

    5. Trump actually proposed budget cuts in his first year in office. Congress responded with a bipartisan, veto proof majority vote to mandate increased spending instead.

      Then Trump decided to work on things that weren’t utterly impossible for anybody who wasn’t a dictator.

      I’d like to think Suderman didn’t know that when he wrote the above essay, but I’m not that gullible.

    6. Our economy is larger since Trump took office, so perhaps we shouldn’t panic about the budget deficit yet. It’s true – and has been for years, that China is violating international trade norms. I’m just not convinced Trump’s tactics with China on trade are helping fix any of that yet.

  3. So I guess Congress was an innocent bystander in all of this? Did Trump do this with a pen and phone?

    Trump as far as I remember has never vetoed a budget resolution put in front of him. Whatever blame you can attribute to Trump for not vetoing and shutting down the government to force Congress to cut spending, it would seem even more of that blame should go to Congress both Republicans and Democrats for passing these budgets.

    Congress controls the power of the purse. Funny how they never seem to get blamed for budget deficits.

    1. This.

      Furthermore, even in Congress, there is little leeway. Republicans understand full well how destructive the budget deficits are, but they have to weigh the long term damage against the risks of voting against a budget, causing a government shutdown, losing pork spending for their districts, etc.

    2. Republicans controlled the Congress from 2016 to 2018 and did nothing to control spending. So I think the both parties are to blame is a little off the mark.

      1. The Democrats own the House were all tax bills originate. They wrote the current budget.

        So, no it isn’t off the mark. I am sure it pains you to no end to see the Democrats being to blame for something, but sometimes life is like that.

        1. I am not talking about now. I am talking about 2016 to 2018 when Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress and did nothing to control spending. They whined about the spending for 8 years of the Obama administration and then did nothing. Democrats are not without faults but they will pay for their spending. Yes that means taxes but at least they are paying the bills and not putting it off.

          1. For the ones in those years, sure. Although, I don’t recall the Democrats using what power they did have in the minority to try and curb spending.

            1. Bah bah bah- both sides.
              What a loser John. Have some dignity.

              1. Keep in mind that John’s not a libertarian, he’s a Republican. You’re mocking his faith that Trump is the Man on the White Horse who will lead the GOP to the Promised Land. He hasn’t yet accepted that the system is rotted through and through and there is no deus ex machina around the next corner, just more lies and disappointments and maybe you’re better off just getting on with your life as best you can and stop believing in fairy tales.

                1. Keep in mind Jerry, you are a fucking moron who projects the voices in your head onto other people.

                  If you would like to know what I think, I am happy to tell you though I have little faith you will understand much of what I have to say.

                2. Some day Jerry I will learn how to express my thoughts in terms so simple even people as stupid as you are will understand them. Everyone has an impossible dream and that is mine.

            2. Shift the goalpost to blaming the minority party? Okie dokie.

              1. No one shifted anything. We are talking about the current deficit, which the Democrats own just as much as the Republicans.

          2. I am not talking about now. I am talking about 2016 to 2018 when Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress and did nothing to control spending.

            And what’s the point of “controlling spending” without structural reforms? What would a few cuts in a couple of fiscal years have actually done? Nothing, other than lose a bunch of Republican seats.

            There is no point for Republicans to “control spending” until Democrats are on board instituting structural reforms: eliminating federal departments, cutting entitlements, etc.

        2. Ahh yes- but you didn’t refute 2016-18 you brilliant buffoon.

    3. Congress controls the power of the purse. Funny how they never seem to get blamed for budget deficits.
      Suderman couldn’t be honest in a hit piece if his life depended on it.

      1. Who controlled congress 2016-2018? Now who is being dishonest?

          1. c i t a t i o n n e e d e d

      2. No, Democrats control the power of the purse, regardless of who occupies congress. At least, they do until Republicans get a filibuster-proof majority.

        The reason for this is decades of Democratic institution of bureaucracies that do all of the real governing, together with formulaic entitlement spending. Even a solid Republican majority in all three offices can’t change any of that so long as Democrats can filibuster. The career politicians (aka bureaucrats) ensure that left-wing collectivism dominates our society all the time.

  4. At this point if you vote for… well almost any candidate on either side of the aisle, you’re merely deciding on what degree of budget deficit and ultimately, national debt you’re willing to gag down.

    1. And of course with ~100% of the Democratic candidates officially declaring their willingness to extend Medicare To All to any person who dives into the endzone across our national borders, the very concept of fealty to deficits or debts of any kind becomes a curious anachronism.

      1. Green New Deal feeling left out.

        1. What is student loan debt forgiveness, chopped liver?

    2. That is exactly the case Paul.

    3. exactly wait until the dems get control and see the deficits of all types go through the moon if they even keep one of their socialist promises

      1. should of read DR(P)’s second comment which i fully second

        1. *should HAVE

          c’mon man – you’re better than that

  5. Trump like fought like hell to get this bill passed in the Senate:

    https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52849

    A similar bill had already been passed in the House.

    That bill would have cut $1.022 trillion in direct spending–$772 billion of it from Medicaid spending, a socialist wealth redistribution program.

    Trump promised to sign that bill and cut that spending–and twisted every arm in the Senate as hard as he could to get it passed.

    Peter Suderman, on the other hand, opposed the Senate passing that bill–despite it cutting $1.022 trillion in direct spending–supposedly because of what the bill didn’t do!

    And I will never forget that fact.

    1. Suderman is by far the most dishonest of the reason staff. The rest of them have their flaws but none of them are as blatantly and consistently dishonest as Suderman. Suderman has never made a good faith argument in his life.

      1. He really shouldn’t let the fact that his wife is far more successful and almost certainly fucking another man influence his writing.

        1. When you idiots resort to juvenile insults attacking the messenger instead of refuting the message, oops, a Trumpista has just surfaced!

          1. No dipshit. We are attacking the message and then using the faults in the message as evidence against the messenger. If you say something stupid, my considering you an idiot because of it is not an ad hominem fallacy. It is me making a reasonable conclusion.

            Do you know the proper meaning of any word? Do you know anything at all?

            1. Is that confirmed? That particular brand of Dunning-Kruger sure feels familiar.

              1. Not confirmed, just a feeling.

          2. “insults”

            What insults? Cuckoldry is a proud tradition among Suderman’s type. Stop being a judgy bigot.

            Or was it the fact that his wife is more successful? Jesus, you bigots can’t understand that he does that on purpose to help his wife be empowered.

            God damn, you’re a bigot and a misogynist. “Insults” this old irrelevant fossil says…

      2. Shikha’s response, “Hold my beer”.

        Nothing beats her trying to blame Trump for growing tensions between Pakistan and India.

    2. Where are you finding trillions in direct cost savings? From the headline:

      CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 would reduce federal deficits by $321 billion over the coming decade and increase the number of people who are uninsured by 22 million in 2026 relative to current law.

      1. never mind, found it

        1. Lol you’re such an idiot.

      2. Just for anyone else who cares to notice, there was $1.022 trillion in direct spending cuts, where were partially offset by tax cuts.

        “CBO and JCT estimate that, over the 2017-2026 period, enacting this legislation would reduce direct spending by $1,022 billion and reduce revenues by $701 billion, for a net reduction of $321 billion in the deficit over that period”

        https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52849

        That $701 billion in reduced “revenues” is how the Congressional Budget Office refers to tax cuts. Libertarians traditionally have terms for cutting taxes and cutting direct spending even more. It’s called, “making the government smaller”.

        Peter Suderman opposed that bill.

        Peter Suderman opposed that bill.

        Peter Suderman opposed that bill.

        Peter Suderman opposed cutting $1.022 trillion in direct spending and giving most of that money back to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts–supposedly because of what the bill didn’t do.

        I suspect he actually opposed the bill because it cut $772 billion from Medicaid. If anyone can find a statement by Suderman arguing that Medicaid should be cut, feel free to post it.

  6. I don’t remember where now, but I recall reading that the deficit is only a topic used by the party out of power. Which would explain it being a perennial libertarian trope.

  7. The president doesn’t understand the difference between a budget deficit and a trade deficit.

    That’s a helluva claim. I can’t wait to see the evidence.

    In the 2016 interview where he raised the possibility of eliminating federal debt in eight years, he said he could do it through altering foreign trade deals. “The power is trade,” he said. “Our deals are so bad.” Trump said he would renegotiate trade deals with China, in particular, suggesting that doing so would eliminate federal debt.

    In many ways, that was the most telling part of Trump’s response. He appears to have confused the foreign trade deficit with the federal budget deficit, a confusion that he has stubbornly held onto throughout his time as president.

    Some off-hand “I make the best deals, trust me” thing from 3 years ago is proof that Trump is functionally retarded. TDS is real.

    1. Yes, TDS is real. The Trumpista refusal to acknowledge how ignorant Trump is, there’s a shining example.

      Trump beat Hillary, I get it, that was the miracle on the Potomac, and you are forever grateful. I am too, he’s better than Hillary in more ways than he’s worse. But your refusal to admit his faults is just as much TDS as is the opponents failure to admit his good points.

      1. No one is refusing to admit faults here. The problem is people like you and Suderman are too angry and retarded to make a reasonable criticism even when they are available.

      2. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf,

        You are far, far, faaaaar less intelligent than Trump

      3. Trump has a million faults. They’re crippling his presidency. Being borderline retarded is one of your faults though, not his.

        1. I dunno, seems like most people who get close to the president come away with the opinion that he is, in fact, a “fucking moron”.

          https://qz.com/1267508/all-the-people-close-to-donald-trump-who-called-him-an-idiot/

          1. Most? God, you lie so casually you don’t even realize you’re doing it Jeff.

            1. It does seem like most, yes. Please read carefully.

          2. Successful people tend to think little of illiterate, silver-spooned, vainglorious, lying, reckless bigots.

            In this case, that thing on his head is enough for most people to think ‘what an idiot.’

            1. You likely have never held a job in your life. Sit this one out pal.

            2. How would you know about what “successful people” think? You aren’t successful and you don’t know anybody who is.

      4. The view that trade and budget deficits are linked is mainstream economics. It’s people who deny it (like Suderman) who are ignorant.

        As for Trump keeping his promises, he’s doing his part; it’s not his fault if Congress or courts torpedo his attempts to fulfill his campaign promises.

        Finally, on the budget deficit, it’s pointless for Republicans to try to do anything about it until Democrats come on board with reducing it. Trump, for now, should focus on nominating judges and cutting regulations. That’s far more important than whether another trillion is added to the debt; the only way to get rid of the debt at this point is to default on it anyway.

    2. Suderman is correct to point out Trump answered a question about the budget deficit, by changing the subject to the trade deficit. When I saw that I believed Trump didn’t know the difference, and voted for Johnson. I’ve since changed my mind.

      What I now believe, is that Trump knows what’s going on, and he chose to blame foreigners for our economic malaise for the past 35 years, rather than blaming voters and who we’ve collectively elected, to help him get elected (both via bad trade deals that fatten politician wallets, and illegal immigrants). You don’t win elections telling voters they’re stupid and have been electing politicians that screw them over (which IMHO is the real truth).

      Suderman otherwise reported fairly IMHO, even pointing out the budget is also controlled by Congress. The way I see it, Trump would like to cut spending and the deficit, but Congress (all the Democrats and at least 70% of the GOP) want more spending, so it’s a battle he doesn’t wage. But you did see him force the GOP to vote on a tax cut and repealing Obamacare where they fulfilled a campaign promise (barely) on taxes, but not on Obamacare. He’s getting no help from Congress or the RINOs (the Senate isn’t having hearings on say Joe Biden, or Obama’s administration setup of Trump), except for the Freedom Caucus defending him from the Obama administration setup to get him to lose, then to impeach him.

      1. What I now believe, is that Trump knows what’s going on, and he chose to blame foreigners for our economic malaise for the past 35 years, rather than blaming voters and who we’ve collectively elected

        Saying that the trade deficit is substantially linked to the budget deficit isn’t “blaming foreigners” since both the trade deficit and the budget deficit are caused by US policies and need to be addressed by US politicians.

        What Trump is saying is that if we adopt policies that affect our economy in such a way that the trade deficit goes away, then our budget deficit will also be greatly reduced.

        What are those policies? Cutting welfare benefits, cutting taxes, cutting regulations, trading with other nations on symmetrical terms, encouraging savings, discouraging consumer spending.

  8. Trump AND the GOP congress. Trump made these so-called promises (actually – predictions) because he was placating a GOP base. Every darn Republican running for Congress said the same thing. They ALL made the argument that Obama was driving up the debt and the world was going to end. They will make these same arguments again, no doubt, when Dems get back in control. As EVERYONE with a brain predicted, once the GOP got in control they would slash taxes on the wealthy, and raise the deficit. We all know that the GOP brand is to lie lie lie to the plebes.

    It should also be noted that if not for the tax cuts the economy would have been worse off. The cuts were a stimulus. They came at a time when the economy was doing all right and a stimulus may not have been needed. But they never made the argument that a stimulus was needed. We could have used a stimulus on infrastructure instead of tax cuts but because the GOP masks all their motives we never had the proper debate.

    So let’s be clear here for the sake of historical accuracy. We KNOW that when the Dems get back in charge the economy will tank and they will have no tools left to fight the downturn because the GOP drove up the deficit. The only tool left is a few percentage interest points (that Trump wants to squander now to juice the economy for his election chances). The GOP will yell and scream about how we cannot spend money and must cut cut cut because of deficits and debt and they will never acknowledge their role in creating the debt. Their stupid supporters will buy into their stupid arguments and 12 years from now we will be having the same stupid debate.

    1. To think that running a budget deficit is a “tool to fight” an economy on the downside of the business cycle is nothing but Keynesian clap trap.

      There are lots of good reasons to do something about the budget deficit and government spending. “But we need to run a deficit when the next recession comes” is not one of them.

      1. Amazing ignorance on display. Even Mises acknowledges that government spending/tax cuts can temporarily increase monetary velocity and gdp.

        1. In an economy with a small government that doesn’t already have about a trillion dollars a year in entitlements, sure. Our government, not so much.

          You fuck up everything. There is no idea or piece of knowledge you can’t mishap into the wrong thing.

          1. So tax cuts do not stimulate the economy? Is that seriously your argument?

            1. If you live the straight life, a cup of coffee will stimulate the hell out of you, maybe even keep you up all night.

              At the end of a crystal meth binge, just before you crash and burn, it ain’t doing squat. Nothing’s doing squat, you’ve burned your capacity to be stimulated.

              After decades of running deficits, which do you think is a better analogy for our current economic circumstances?

            2. Tax cuts usually stimulate investment and savings, not consumer spending. Investments and savings are good for the wealth of a society.

              Consumer spending stimulates the economy, increases the velocity of money, and increased GDP in the short term, but it hurts the wealth of a society.

        2. The US military turning the 20 largest US cities into rubble would “increase monetary velocity and GDP”; it would, however, make Americans a lot poorer as well.

          See, monetary velocity and GDP are not actually good absolute measures of the wealth of a society.

  9. How much of the increase in deficit is due to mandatory spending?

    1. It is written into law that the various income transfer programs like Social Security and such must be increased so much every year. One of the ways Congress ducks taking responsibility for spending is claiming they were forced to increase spending on those because the law says so.

      They seem to think everyone is too stupid to understand Congress can change the law just as easy as it can spend money.

      1. Not everyone John. Just enough voters in each district to win re-election.

    2. None, since mandatory spending can be very accurately forecasted and revenues raised against to offset.

      1. “De Oppresso Liber
        October.8.2019 at 4:31 pm
        None, since mandatory spending can be very accurately forecasted and revenues raised against to offset.”

        Magic!
        Tax and spend! Tax and spend! Yeehawwwww!

        1. Better than spend and not tax.

          1. No, it actually isn’t.

            1. Spending and not taxing is better for responsible people, since they can save money and protect themselves against the coming crash.

              Spending and taxing to pay for it is better for causing political change; the problem is that political changes at this point may not be enough to deal with the problem, it’s become too big.

    3. no spending is mandatory.

  10. Hey, a trillion dollars here, and a trillion dollars there, and the next thing you know, America goes down the toilet like the old Soviet Union back in the early 1990’s.

    1. But at least we showed those mexican kids who’s boss!

      1. “But at least we showed those mexican kids who’s boss!”

        Well, at least that’s SOMETHING!

    2. There would be positive aspects to the break up of the USA, as long as the violence could be kept to a minimum.

    3. Yay!

  11. The president doesn’t understand the difference between a budget deficit and a trade deficit.

    As far as he’s concerned, there is no difference. Either way, it’s other people’s money and Trump understands OPM just fine.

  12. This is undoubtedly Trump’s biggest failure.

  13. Talk of troop withdrawal, if he follows through with it, is a huge trump success that needs to be celebrated. Might be one of the best things he does, again, if he follows through with it. I mean then again, he was the one who said how disastrous it was every time O announced a troop withdrawal telling the enemy his plans, but I digress. If it gets done, good on that sloppy obese fuck.

    Budget, deficit, spending have been nothing but continued failures under trump. His little cucks can apologize all day and say it’s congress’ fault, but at the end of the day he promised to get us back square, easily, under his rule (and only he could do it!). He has done nothing. He signs every shit bill they feed him. He has continued O’s trend of big spending, and big deficits. And he touts the tariffs (taxes, fucking morons) he puts on us as “increased revenue” for our country. Despite those increased taxes, deficit still approaches a tril. No balls to veto. His signature on every bill. Really standard republican fare in a dumb, fat veneer.

  14. One of the refrains from President Trump’s most ardent defenders—as well as from the president himself—is that he keeps his promises.

    Oh come on. Now you’re not even trying.

  15. the Republican National Committee, which serves as a de facto arm of the president’s political operation

    Isn’t that the purpose of the national committees?

  16. Yeah, we should have voted for the fiscally responsible candidate instead. Oh…nevermind.

    1. His name was Gary Johnson and he was a two term governor.

  17. Congress is responsible for spending. Many of them have been in office since Reagan. One member has been in office for 59 YEARS. How exactly is Trump to blame for our Congress spending money as it is printed?

  18. OMG!!!! Trump has a deficit 1/2 (HALF) that of the Obama Administration…. Oh, the horror!!! Yes, he could probably do a lot better but his whole Trump RED-FLAG is so hypocritical its laughable.

    Like the billion dollar Muller investigations to see if “buying ads in Russia” was impeachable collusion RED-FLAG -or- the “stop harassing me” becomes the “obstruction” RED-FLAG -or- the investigate Sanders activity becomes the so called “Scandal” of the century RED-FLAG.

    All brought to you and payed for at your own taxpayer expense and the DNC (dramatic nazi coalition).

    1. It’s more than double the $442 billion deficit under Obama in 2015.

      He more than doubled the deficit, you fucking moron.

      Read the fucking article. Or the CBO report. Just don’t read Bratfart for your “news”.

      Is that cocksucker still dead, by the way?

  19. All the “we hate the Right just as much as the Left” whining in the world can’t change the fact that while Reason parrots left-wing talking points until it’s blue in the face, the reality of this deficit is that it’s entirely (and then some) a product of increases in entitlement funding legislated by Democrats years ago.

    Absent health care and social security, federal spending has flatlined under Trump while revenues have increased. And we know Trump hasn’t done anything to increase entitlement spending.

    Sorry, Liberaltarians, but you’re wrong. As always. Quit cutting off your nose to spite your face and start opposing the greater (by far) evil.

    1. Another idiot. The Bushpigs created whole new $200 billion year departments (like Homeland Security), NCLB, the Medicare Welfare Drug Act, ADD Act, and more programs all deficit financed.

      1. lol.. So “welfare” created for Medicare (The Democrats Steamboat) is somehow a bush-pig issue? Granite; The RINO move of GWB putting the pharmaceutical industry on welfare stinks to high heaven but lets consider the bigger picture – there wouldn’t be “Medicare Welfare” without Medicare!

  20. Should have voted for Gary Johnson…. oh wait, I did.

  21. I just hope that Republicans will notice that the deficit has ballooned under the last two Republican administrations and reconcile themselves with that. I am an independent and it is very upsetting.

    1. Usually the word “ballooned” refers to an outrageous high change in the status quo but the last two Republican administrations ran on average 1/2 the Obama Administration.

    2. I think it is important to note that there is some difference between deficit and debt.

      Deficit has to do with the amount the annual budget exceeds the amount of incoming revenue, called receipts. Here trump is very, very bad. His annual budget deficit is well over twice Obama’s and does not set well with an independent and libertarian voter like myself.

      National debt, that is, the total amount of unpaid, borrowed funds owed by the federal government, is an accumulation of all deficits. Because there are several different ways of measuring national debt, it is difficult to put one exact number on total debt accumulated under a certain president. But one thing is certain: increasing deficits invariably increase the debt, if not immediately, then in the very near future.

      1. I think it is important to not that those claiming, “His annual budget deficit is well over twice Obama’s” are purely bias cherry-picking the yearly numbers.

        Using Obama’s one-year LEAST deficit (after congress was entirely GOP) and Trumps WORST yearly deficit (after the house got Democratic Majority) is nothing short of deceptive especially when the average of term years shows Trump is still 1/2 Obama’s average and he’s still 1/2-Billion short of Obama’s 1.6T high deficit.

  22. I’m assuming we are to ignore then 9 trillion deficit under (still my favorite President) Obama.
    When Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt was $10.626 trillion. When he left office on Jan. 20, 2017, it was $19.947
    But don’t let actual reality change your nonsense.

  23. I’m pretty sure the president doesn’t understand the difference between his posterior and a hole in the ground, much less the difference between budget deficits and trade deficits. But people wanted to vote for “change.” Be careful what you wish for…

  24. I am making a good salary online from home.I’ve made $97,999 so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.I am genuinely thankful to and my administrator, It’s’ really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it , …… Read More

  25. That’s the small stuff. The unfunded liabilities are far greater.

  26. Nah, trump can eliminate that in the next four years.

  27. Pete MacAdoodle Suderweigel, still as completely full of shit as anyone you’ll ever see. He might as well be named Welchie Boy the Second.

  28. I like how a site named “Reason” has so many Trumpbot trolls that absolutely can never be reasoned with. Donald Trump declared himself the “King of Debt”. Yet we have people arguing the “King of Debt” is not at fault for the debt.

    1. I like how such simplistic ideas are thought of by some as “Reason” at all. Must be that Anti-Trump bot trolling in them.

  29. It’s not Trumps deficit. It’s ours. We elected the congressmen who appropriate money and the President who confirms and spends it. We enable the social programs that consume every dollar of taxes.

    1. When you figure out how to successfully persuade the majority of “We”‘s who aren’t conservative into becoming conservative — be sure and share that technique. I too am just about fed up with the majority lazy-enough-to-go-vote and vote to steal all my rightfully earned wealth away.

      Or maybe; if “we” can get behind judiciaries who ACTUALLY honors their oath of office we can get rid of at least the UN-Constitutional federal communist agencies without talking the lazy into cancelling their stolen benefits.

      Frankly; I have pretty much given up trying to convince lazy-voters into taking the ethical high ground and stop stealing — I’m now leaning more to Constitutional justice.

  30. Trump or not, government spending is out of control and in free fall (as in rising). The promises of payouts made by socialist politicians have come home to roost. What happens when the recession comes? Government revenues fall and social benefits rise. We haven’t seen nothing yet on the deficit front. And what happens after Trump? The Marxists will spend us to death while taxing us into oblivion. They want to prove that you can have Marxism and capitalism both running the economy. No politician is ever going to own up because they are all in the corruption storm together.

Please to post comments