Budget Deficit

Federal Deficit Hit $984 Billion Last Year—a Nearly 50 Percent Increase Since Trump Took Office

In three years in office, Trump has added more to the national debt than President George W. Bush did in his entire two terms.

|

During the 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump said he'd be able to wipe out the national debt in eight years. Instead, after three years in office, he's overseen a nearly 50 percent increase in the gap between how much the government takes in and how much it spends.

The Treasury Department announced Friday that the official federal deficit for fiscal year 2019, which ended in September, was $984 billion—in line with what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated last month. The announcement serves as official confirmation that the federal government's mountain of red ink has grown dramatically during Trump's first three years in the White House. It is now approaching levels not seen since the early Obama years.

The deficit is growing despite growth in tax revenues. The Treasury Department reported that corporate tax revenue was up 12 percent over the previous year, while overall tax receipts rose by about 4 percent. But spending grew by 8 percent.

In a statement, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said the data showed "President Trump's economic agenda is working"; he also touted the low unemployment rate and ongoing economic growth. He added a boilerplate call for cutting "wasteful and irresponsible spending."

What's really irresponsible is spending growth that's outpacing revenue growth by a rate of 2-to-1. Trump's defenders will point out that he's not solely responsible for setting the government's budget. That's true, but he has the final say on all spending bills and he has been refusing to force the spending cuts Mnuchin says are necessary.

When Congress passed a bipartisan budget plan in March 2017 that annihilated Obama-era spending caps, Trump begrudgingly signed the bill while promising that he'd never agree to another spending hike like that. Earlier this year, when Congress passed another budget-busting spending bill, Trump signed it without so much as expressing a second thought.

Perhaps nothing demonstrates Republicans' complete abdication of fiscal conservatism as much as this: In three years in office, Trump has added more to the national debt than President George W. Bush did in his entire two terms. (Though Bush did have the advantage of starting out with a budget surplus in his first year.)

Bush was no tightwad. In the early Obama era, it was not uncommon to hear Republicans admit that Bush's spendthrift ways had paved the way for worse. Now, on an annual basis, Trump's deficit spending is nearly as bad a Obama's was over two terms.

Give Trump a few more years and I'm sure he'll surpass Obama. That's because the nature of the current budget deficit is fundamentally different from the peaks of the early 2010s. Those deficits eventually tapered off for a variety of reasons. Recovery from the Great Recession boosted tax revenue. The spending binge approved in response to the recession faded away. And fiscally prudent Republicans imposed some modest caps on future spending growth.

Now? The country is running a massive (and growing) deficit despite a decade of economic growth and a low unemployment rate. "Higher outlays for Medicare, Social Security, Defense, and interest on the public debt" drove the deficit increase in fiscal year 2019, the Treasury Department says.

The current deficit isn't the result of temporary circumstances like World War II or a major recession. It's a systemic deficit, a result of poor budgeting and bad decision-making by members of Congress and the current administration. It's not going to resolve itself, and it's on pace to get much worse. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has called the federal government's current fiscal situation "unsustainable," and the CBO expects the national debt to hit "unprecedented levels" in the coming decades, well above the record highs set during World War II.

"A deficit of this size following the longest span of economic growth in history shows just how reckless our leaders have become. This is exactly the time when deficits should be contracting, not expanding," Leon Panetta, co-chairman of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said in a statement. "But instead of getting our fiscal house in order and preparing for the next downturn, our leaders continue to binge on debt-fueled tax cuts and spending hikes rather than showing the leadership necessary to set our fiscal path."

And there is no almost no interest in either major party in cutting spending or balancing the federal budget.

Democrats have abandoned all pretense of caring about the national debt, or even attempting to explain how they might pay for new federal programs. And Republicans seem capable of offering nothing more than obviously false promises and empty rhetoric.

NEXT: Relying on Petty Fines To Fund City Government Can Have Serious Consequences

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. //Democrats have abandoned all pretense of caring about the national debt, or even attempting to explain how they might pay for new federal programs. And Republicans seem capable of offering nothing more than obviously false promises and empty rhetoric.//

    Either stop the spending, or tax the hell out of everyone. Is either a politically viable option?

    1. The only politically viable option is currency collapse.

      1. It’s all just a bunch of monopoly money on a computer screen.

      2. TripK2, exactly. They are going to spend dollars until 1 million dollars does not buy a sandwich.

        The only question is what should the US spend the money on between now and when hyperinflation kicks in. We could:
        1) Spend that money on border security, infrastructure, etc.
        2) Spend that money on a well fare state and mass immigration

        As long as the dollar will be spent into oblivion, it is better to use those dollars on 1) above and not 2).

        1. Or 3) steak, lobster and bourbon.

        2. You forgot the biggest one, 3) wars in the middle east and border fencing for Afghanistan

      3. It’s why I’m heartened to see bitcoin dropping again, I’m hoping it bottoms out soon so I can move more of my assets out of dollar-denominated stuff like bonds.

        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. yeah, what could possibly go wrong…. some of us have worked for decades to have some semblance of a savings account. I’d like that to fund my retirement, not pay for lunch.

    2. the entire raison d’etre for tax cut in the Supply Side model is GDP growth leading to massive tax revenue gains for a net reduction in debt and deficits.This is the 3rd time nationally that lie has been demonstrated. Reagan , Bush, Trump. 3 strikes and your out.

      So watch , R’s will revive ‘starve the beast’ and we will go thru that catechism, again.

      they have learned nothing and if they have they will never admit it.

      1. “So watch , R’s will revive ‘starve the beast’ and we will go thru that catechism, again.”

        And the D’s?

        1. Every time a D becomes President they start making the choices to put us on a path towards fiscal responsibility and then some R comes in and blows it up. The level on maturity and responsibility on spending between the two parties isn’t close. Yes, D’s raise taxes, but they do try to solve the deficit. R’s give no shits at all and shit all over the table like the pigeon in a chess match.

          1. Really? I’m sure the D’s sell bridges too right? Please show me how Obama put us on a path towards fiscal responsibility. BTW – the Great Recession was caused in large part to the D’s in Congress.

            Look the R’s are just as bad on budget. Everyone wants to spend. But you are delusional if you think the D’s try to solve the deficit. Wait, I know you can give examples right now by the D House or D candidates.

            Reading your comments your just a D not so much a Libertarian.

            1. HOLY H-S#$@T…. “tim koss”

              2009-2012 [D] Administration & [D] Congress
              2013-2016 [D] Administration & [R] Congress
              2017-2018 [R] Administration & [R] Congress
              2019 —— [R] Administration & [D] take the House

              Now go look at that deficit since 200 chart…. How blind does one have to be to make such an outrageous claim with the figures right in front of their face.

          2. “Fiscal responsibility” = fiscal insolvency to Lefties.

            Lefties are so full of shit.

        2. I don’t even know the particulars but the last deficit under Obama was $400B

          400 a lot better that a trillion, nes’t pas?

          1. Spending bills originate in the House. Who controlled the House during the Obama years?

            1. The glaring fact the [WE] foundation has banned to save the environment.

      2. The republicans only use that as an excuse, they don’t care about deficits any more than democrats. They’re filthy liars just like all politician. They are all for budgets when they aren’t in the position to control the budget. When they’re in charge they spend like a compulsive gambler in vegas until it’s all gone and then point fingers at democrats as the problem lol

        1. i’d like to know the answer: do deficits matter?

          we think they do, and yet we have run deficits every year such that debt is now 100% of GDP. we have some down years, but really 2-3% growth on average since WW@.

          maybe they don’t matter at all, like P/E’s on stocks.

          1. Yes, deficits matter. Does it matter you bills are more than your income this month? (Same thing)

            Trump was right that the income is up due to the tax-cuts but the D’s (the [WE] foundation) got majority of the purse (House). I’d like to see Trump veto all budget-adding bills but the last time he vetoed the budget the [WE] foundation put out a big stink about the government being shut down for almost a month.

        2. And they can’t do anything else.

          If you’re a politician, and you’re unwilling to buy votes with borrowed money, somebody is going to outbid you, and take your place. Then you can be the principled guy who isn’t in office. That’s life in a democracy once running the government on borrowed money is an option. So even politicians who care about balancing the budget forget it once in office, and spend their time trying to do something else.

          The last real chance to change this dynamic was back in the 1990’s, when the Republicans, through no virtue of their own, ended up in the majority in Congress. And Gingrich promised a vote on a balanced budget amendment, which was popular with the voters.

          Then he stage managed the vote, bringing multiple versions to the floor, so that everyone who needed to be on record voting for it could, without any risk of any particular version actually passing and getting sent to the states. His excuse was, “Hey, I never promised I’d try to pass it, just that it would get voted on.”

          THAT was the last real chance this nation had to rein in the deficit, and he took a dive, and I’ll never forgive that.

          Since then, every time the Republicans tried for spending restraint, they got punished for it, and they eventually gave up. The Democrats never tried in the first place.

          1. Yes. And then when someone proposes something that is necessary, but politically unviable, like cutting entitlement spending or eliminating the franchise for non-producers or women, people gloat “Try running on that platform!” The lefties know that what needs to be done can’t get done for the exact reason you say, and they use it as a taunt.

  2. “And there is no almost no interest in either major party in cutting spending or balancing the federal budget.”

    Does Reason have a way to eliminate the budget deficit ?
    Like who gets “paid” ?

    1. Does Reason have a way to eliminate the budget deficit ?

      They’ve been agitating for carbon taxes and a national VAT for ~15 years. Confiscating all of the wealth of the top 10% in the country wouldn’t pay for 1 year’s deficit, but hey, it’s a start.

      1. Reason has NOT been agitating for taxes. Do you even read the same magazine the rest of us do, or does Trump pay you to say that?

        1. You’re talking to someone who thinks that Reason is a Communist outfit.

          1. More fascist really, but who’s counting?

            1. At least we can all agree that reason is not a Libertarian outfit.

              1. Ideologically Reason is soft-pink, just like the Graunaid, but targeted at the edgy kid in class instead of “socially-aware” housewives.

              2. and yet here you are…

                1. Some of us commenters are Libertarians. It makes sure new viewers to reason see a Libertarians position on this website because reason staff sure as shit wont present one.

        2. They sure were upset at the tax cuts.

          1. +100

            IIRC, Ken Schultz also had a bunch to say about how reason was against cuts to Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security.

      2. That is flat out untrue. They spent a good amount of time praising Rand Paul’s budget freeze bill, and then lamenting that it couldn’t get any support from his own party.

        1. You’re flat out wrong. They have very clearly had many pieces calling for carbon taxes.

          1. Because climate change is a real problem whether we’re libertarian or not. A market based solution is the best way to deal with it.

            1. A carbon tax is not a market based solution

              1. If carbon taxes are a market based solution then so are tarrifs.

    2. Shut down any government department that isn’t specifically authorized by the Constitution?

      1. Does that include the Air Force. That not covered in the constitution. Wonder why the founders forgot that?

        1. Roll it into the Navy. Which is covered in the Constitution. And has the 2nd largest air force in the world.

          1. Works for me.

        2. air force was borne of the army

          1. I went to William L. Mitchell high school.

        3. Moderation4ever
          October.25.2019 at 5:27 pm
          “Does that include the Air Force….”

          No, but it includes S/S, Medicare, the D of E, the EPA and many more benes and agencies I could mention.
          You on board for that?

          1. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

          2. I think you’re a shitbag funny red cap wearing douchebag but I have to agree with you on this. The only thing is can we trust every American to do their part without being total douchebags?

            1. Hater of hats^^^^

      2. DoD is authorized. The nature of a military is that it’s an army, regardless of type of assets. They’re even named that way in some nations.

        Getting rid of HHS and Social Insecurity would balance the debt right now.

      3. If we did that, we would have a severe depression and 99% of DC would be on unemployment. Hmmm…..might be worth it.

    3. one candidate last time said he would balance the budget in his first term. he got 3 percent of the vote.

  3. Gubment is and always will be bloated, inefficient, wasteful.

    1. And some resentful people think they should take even more of other people’s money. That’s just ugly.

    2. and with enough propaganda, you can make people think the country with the biggest and most expensive government in human history is the “land of the free”

  4. This is why, as a libertarian, Democratic proposals like Medicare for All, free college, and the Green New Deal don’t worry me too much. Spending will be out of control no matter who’s in the White House.

    1. At least you’d get something for it. Somehow M4A is seen as worse but other countries cover everybody for far less.

      1. Yes, we know. All health care is covered in Europe, provided you live long enough to get an appointment.

        1. I find it strange that the European’s appear happy with their healthcare. Most papers suggest satisfaction and those responding generally suggested if change were needed they were relatively small. It seem clear that the largest dissatisfaction with European healthcare is with some Americans.

            1. I don’t really need to move. I am fortunate to have good health insurance. I simply wanted to point out the canard that some how European have a miserable health care system. Its cheaper, the customers are satisfied, and they live longer.

              1. Yup. You dont need good medical care to live long.

                Meanwhile europeans generally have ugly mangled teeth, cant publicly speak ill of socialist programs for fear of gulags, and cannot leave their country to get proper medical attention for their kids if the socialist governments disallow the treatment.

                You poor socialists.

          1. Moderation4ever
            October.26.2019 at 10:38 am
            “I find it strange that the European’s appear happy with their healthcare…”

            Yes, free shit, even when it’s shit will make a bunch of sub-adults happy.

            1. They are also happy to have a lower standard of living than most U.S. States.

              1. When you don’t have a lot of ambition, you’re happy to be a lotus-eater.
                Euro-trash can stay there and put up with it, but I’m tired of defending the scumbags.

          2. I think it’s what they are used to. So they expect crappy service. Like if all you know is fast food, than you are happy with fast food and no complaints.

            1. +10000000000

        2. so I lived in Belgium. went to any doctor I liked anytime I wanted. no waits, certainly nothing different than here. I am currently waiting for my insurer /doctor/hospital to set time for cancer related surgery . its been 10 days since it was recommend and it will be another 10 days before surgery. we are working to everyone ones schedule but the patient.

          I got into and accident in France. ambulance arrived within minutes, took me to hospital, fixed me up and charged me rein.

          1. Haha. Lies.

            I was stationed in Italy and was in an auto accident. The US Navy warned us not to go to local Italian hospitals.

            Turns out that was good advice since the blood supply in Europe was tainted with mad cow disease, so you are prohibited from donating blood in the USA if you used European hospitals.

      2. I just don’t understand the purpose of insurance in a world where no one can be denied coverage. If people were denied medical care then it insurance would make sense but they aren’t so the public is left to pay for the uninsured and the insurance skim profit off the insured. It doesn’t make sense.

        1. Anyway my comment is missing and has a few superfluous words but you get my point. The insurance industy is useless and we’re wasting money and getting nothing out of it.

          1. A couple of years ago I received a $6000 lab bill because my provider did labs that were out of network. Fortunately my insurance covers 80% on out of network. Some how after talking to my insurance company I only had to pay a little over $400.

            Yeah, useless.

            1. Pod is useless.

          2. Maybe we shouldn’t have built an industry out of a tax subsidy after your forebears decided to institute wage controls during the Depression, but here we are. An actual marketplace for health care would be the most efficient way to allocate resources – and would still have a huge role for insurance for catastrophic and accidental coverage – but the current clusterfuck of employer-provided insurance is still fuck loads better than your authoritarian fever dreams. If we’re luck you’ll get exactly what you want and die from colorectal cancer after suffering unimaginable agony for 3-4 years waiting for a colonoscopy.

            1. after your forebears decided to institute wage controls during the Depression

              World War II, actually.

              1. Well, both.
                They were removed prior to the war, but again instituted during the war.
                If Truman had removed them on VE Day, we probably wouldn’t be where we are.

        2. You can be “denied” in a fashion. If your medical request is for a voluntary or cosmetic need that isn’t considered necessary, you’d be pushed down the list and might have to wait a significant amount of time. Some countries with a single-payer system also have supplementary insurance which is used in these cases or in order to go to a private (read: for the rich) hospital.

          1. Yup you die or suffer extra harm while waiting on the lists.

            Plus you pay out the ass for single payer taxation and then still need some supplemental insurance for when the government tells you to fuck off.

            These socialists always have excuses for their failed systems.

        3. If insurance is so superfluous, then why in the run-up to the ACA were we told that it’s such a tragedy that so many people didn’t have it, and why were we being told last year that it’s an unthinkable tragedy for anyone to not be forced to buy it?

          1. Are you sincerely asking that question, or are you wasting everyone’s time with bad snark?

            1. Read the comment that I’m responding to and see if that clarifies anything.

      3. “Somehow M4A is seen as worse but other countries cover everybody for far less.”

        Somehow, you can’t post without lying, scumbag.

      4. At least you’d get something for it

        Spending on Medicare and Medicaid Services last FY was $1.57 trillion. Ten years ago, it was $972 billion.

    2. Assuming the rate it is uncontrolled does not count ?

    3. Right you are, OBL.
      The democrats have proven time and again they are much more frugal with other people’s money than the GOP.
      Plus, the democrats are prudent enough to know that if you spend more money at even a faster rate than the republicans, our economy will collapse much quicker.
      Then life will be so much better once everyone has money as worth less as a Confederate dollar and go back to bartering as the major staple of our economy.
      Venezuela, here we come!

    4. wait til AOC is old enough to run.

  5. “Democrats have abandoned all pretense of caring about the national debt, or even attempting to explain how they might pay for new federal programs.”

    Demonstrably false. Warren and I think even Bernie have introduced new taxes to pay for their programs. You might say they’re unlikely to cover it all, etc. but they at least attempt to do it, same as Republicans who just flat out lie to your face that “tax cuts will pay for themselves” as the deficit exploded.

    1. Tax receipts are at record highs despite marginal rates being reduced, shreeky.

      1. You are correct that taxes are up but not enough to cover spending. Ultimately taxes and spending need to be balanced and that will mean compromises on both sides. Taxes will need to go up to more realistically cover spending and spending will need to be decreased to levels where taxes cover expenses. We are well past the point where increased taxes or spending cuts can alone balance the budget.

        1. “…Taxes will need to go up to more realistically cover spending and spending will need to be decreased to levels where taxes cover expenses…”

          Fuck you. Cut spending.

          1. Sorry we are well past the time that might work. You need to raise taxes and cut spending to get reductions.

            1. Moderation4ever
              October.26.2019 at 6:19 pm
              “Sorry we are well past the time that might work. You need to raise taxes and cut spending to get reductions.”

              Lefty assertions =/= argument nor fact.
              You
              Are
              Full
              Of
              Shit.
              Fuck you, cut spending.

            2. No, if you can’t restrain spending, then any increase in revenue just results in a deficit at a higher level of spending. That’s been proven over and over.

              At best, if a stock market bubble happens to produce a surge in revenue without much warning, and Congress and the President are distracted by an impeachment fight, you might get a delay before they can agree on how to spend the loot, and shrink the deficit for a year or so. (And then lie to everybody about having run a surplus, by not counting interest payments as “spending”.)

              The Democrats are well aware that increasing revenue won’t reduce the deficit. They don’t WANT a smaller deficit. They just want a bigger government.

              1. I wouldn’t say that they don’t want a smaller deficit. In a fantasy world, they would. But they want it less than having increased spending and a larger government in general.

      2. “Tax receipts are at record highs despite marginal rates being reduced, shreeky”

        Right-wingers say a lot of ignorant shit. A lot. But in terms of sheer obliviousness, this ranks pretty high. Yeah, federal tax receipts are up, because : They’re ALWAYS up. In the last fifty years, tax receipts have grown all but four times. They grow after taxes are cut, after taxes are hiked, after no change to the rates at all. They grow when the economy is booming and they grow during recessions. The ONLY time they don’t increase is after a major economic shock, then they just reset lower and begin to climb again. When right-wing-world proudly points to increased tax revenues they’re saying nothing more than water is wet. They’re just too economically illiterate to know it.

        The population grows, the economy expands, tax receipts increase. The real question is how much? Because guess what : The same process occurs with costs. They rise with the same clockwork inevitability even if the scope of government is scope of government is unchanged or even reduced. Tax cuts reduce the rate revenue grows. Spending cuts reduce the rate costs grow. The U.S. economy is like a damn supertanker on the high seas. You can throw the wheel hard over, but you do not turn on a dime.

        Supply Side Economics always fail because it’s only a political tactic to excuse free stuff from voters. Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves.

        1. grb
          October.25.2019 at 6:59 pm
          “Right-wingers say a lot of ignorant shit. A lot. But in terms of sheer obliviousness, this ranks pretty high. Yeah, federal tax receipts are up, because : They’re ALWAYS up. In the last fifty years, tax receipts have grown all but four times. They grow after taxes are cut, after taxes are hiked, after no change to the rates at all. They grow when the economy is booming and they grow during recessions. The ONLY time they don’t increase is after a major economic shock, then they just reset lower and begin to climb again. When right-wing-world proudly points to increased tax revenues they’re saying nothing more than water is wet. They’re just too economically illiterate to know it.”
          Fucking lefty ignoramuses post stuff like this as if it means anything
          Pedantry.

        2. So if they grow no matter what, why are you so upset when rates are cut? And why do you tax increases produce far less than the statically-scored revenue. Every. Single. Time.

          1. Sigh. It’s like trying to explain calculus to your pet hamster. But ever-patient, I attempt again :

            (1) Any tax cut that reduced revenue by itself alone – not in conjunction with a massive economic shock – would have to ginormous. The scope of the natural expansion of the economy is too large. People who claim rising revenue validates voodoo snake-oil ignore the other plus -ninety percent of the time revenue rose as well. They ignore the most basic facts of economics. And they ignore plain common sense.

            (2) But tax cuts do erode the degree which revenue rises. Tax cuts are never “free”. Politicians who promise “free tax cuts” by Supply Side’s rainbow unicorns and magic purple pixie dust are lying to you. From Reagan to Kansas to Trump, the promises are always a lie – told to people who like being lied to. People like you.

            (3) If you don’t change the scope of government one jot, costs will still rise. If you make significant cuts, they’ll still rise. Any spending cuts that reduce overall cost by themselves alone would have to ginormous. The scope of the natural expansion of the economy is too large

            (4) The deficit rises or falls per the extent the rise in revenue matches, exceeds, or falls below the rise in costs. Every economist not kept on a politician’s chain said the Trump cuts would suppress revenue and lead to massive debt. The world of right-wing hackery said Santa Claus – the Easter Bunny – Magic Elves – Free Stuff – Don’t Bother Your Pretty Heads Thinking…

            (5) Guess who was lying?

            1. grb
              October.25.2019 at 11:04 pm
              “Sigh. It’s like trying to explain calculus to your pet hamster. But ever-patient, I attempt again :…”
              It certainly is, and as that hamster, you are too fucking stooooopid to understand.

              “(5) Guess who was lying?”
              You.

              1. 1) That is precious. You literally provided no substantiation of any thing you said. If the “scope of the natural expansion of the economy” were truly that great, then why is everyone fretting about 2% GDP growth? For someone who can copy and paste the word ‘calculus’ you don’t actually understand exponents, do you?

                2) Based on… Look at this chart and show any trend. And your Demand Side Keynesian unicorns have failed spectacularly. No tax increase has ever delivered the projected revenues. Just look at Connecticut.

                3) Government costs aren’t guaranteed to grow at the rate of the private sector growth by some Iron Law. The only reason they do now is because your welfare state programs are pegged to inflation. You literally can’t tax enough to make the Ponzi schemes work unless you rely on static scoring models which claim that a 100% tax will result in the government raking in 100% of a (non-zero, static) GDP.

                4) Tautology is a tautology. Got it. And if we spend less than we take in, we won’t have a deficit. How about that?! Funny how those economists like the illustrious Mark Zandi or the paranoid delusional Paul Krugtron failed to quantify that “suppressed revenue” correctly just as they failed to quantify growth and unemployment correctly. Do you really think banging your head with that brick is going to feel good this time?

                5) I don’t need to guess.

                Apparently Reason doesn’t like facts again. You’ll have to wait for the version with links but it’s unlikely you’d understand them anyway.

                1. Hilarious. How ’bout this : If you want to challenge any fact I provided, why not get off your lazy ass and do some work? Several months ago I put in the effort to look up the federal revenue receipts for the past half century. I’m not going to do it now again for a loser like you, someone only looking for an excuse to continue believing spoonfed bullshit lies. Oh, and government costs would grow just by population growth alone, regardless of inflation. Is it possible you’re too damn stupid to know even that?

                  So I’ll sit back and wait for you to actually check on the facts behind your clownish beliefs. Ain’t gonna be holding my breath tho.

                  1. Several months ago I put in the effort to look up the federal revenue receipts for the past half century….So I’ll sit back and wait for you to actually check on the facts behind your clownish beliefs.

                    Well, then, hicklib, you should be well aware that,-since the end of World War 2, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have never exceeded 21%. They’ve only exceeded 19% five times in that same period, one of them during an actual recession, three of them during the late 90s when the tax rates were far lower than the 1950-era rates that you like to rub yourselves out to. The average has been about 17.5% in a very narrow range. These are all in the OMB Historical Tables, by the way.

                    This has happened regardless of how high the marginal tax rate was set at. Guess what side of the ledger that leaves?

                    Oh, and government costs would grow just by population growth alone, regardless of inflation.

                    In the 1950s, when we had far higher tax rates, average per capita spending was $4,500, adjusted for inflation–and that was a government that spent over half of ALL its spending on defense. In FY19, it was $14,300.

                    I’m willing to go back to Eisenhower-era tax rates if you’re willing to go back to Eisenhower-era budgets.

        3. “Our bloated, wasteful government should be getting even more money”.

          That’s just ugly.

        4. so it’s “obliviousness” to state the truth? the growth in the deficit is entirely from increased spending, not because the tax cuts ended up reducing federal revenues (they didn’t).

        5. You are so right. Just look at high tax areas like Europe and their growth…oh wait.

          What about Japan in the 90s and their growth…oh wait.

          I mean there are more people there so their economy must have grown.

          To say the economically will always grow is idiotic. Hiking taxes has been proven to slow GDP growth. That’s a fact. You argue that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. They do, they spur economic growth, than than spurs tax revenue at a higher rate.

          The problem with our dumba$$ government is they don’t cut or even hold spending. A 2% increase in federal spending is the end of the world.

          By your logical, if we had 100% tax we would have infinite growth right? Maybe have a hamster explain it to you since you can’t grasp basic math, economics, and I’m sure calculus.

    2. “Warren and I think even Bernie have introduced new taxes to pay for their programs.”

      Bullshit.
      The have lied about the possibility of ever covering the costs of their piep-dreams, and ignoramuses like you fall for it.

  6. Hey, wasn’t there another president between Bush and Trump? I looked at the chart and the deficit suffered really steep increases from 2009 to 2013 or thereabouts. Wasn’t anybody president at that time? I don’t recall those years being a politics-free libertarian dreamscape.

    1. @Reason always seems to compare those statistics that will support their conclusion

      1. Orange man bad?

    2. On the day of Obama’s first inauguration – at evening’s end after the oath, parades, and fancy balls, when he walked up to the White House door and patted his pocket for the key : The projected deficit was then 1.3 trillion dollars.

      So let’s look all the way back four decades. What did presidents inherit? Did they make the deficit problem better or worse?

      (1) Ronald Reagan (R) made the deficit much, much worse.

      (2) George H.W. Bush (R) made the deficit much much worse.

      (3) Bill Clinton (D) made the deficit much much better.

      (4) George W Bush (R) made the deficit much much worse.

      (5) Barack Obama (D) made the deficit much much better.

      (6) Donald Trump (R) made the deficit much much worse.

      Ya know, I think I’m spotting a trend here. Republicans party-hearty on the United State’s credit card. Democrats clean-up the resulting mess.

      1. I’m spotting a trend, too. You’re a democrat shill.

        1. The real trend is that when you have a Democratic President and have the Republicans controlling at least one House of Congress you get the most deficit reduction. Clinton and Obama both had to deal with Republicans controlling a part of Congress. Interesting it does not work the other way around (R-President/D-Congress).

      2. The debt increased $9t in Obama’s 8 years as POTUS.
        That’s an average annual deficit of $1.15 trillion

        1. What exactly is your point? Obama inherited plus-trillion dollar deficits and cut them down, almost year-by-year throughout his two terms. To be fair, most of that resulted from economic growth as the U.S. climbed out of its worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. To be equally fair, Obama also negotiated deficit reduction measures with Congress, offering much more reduction than the GOP would accept. Some history :

          “Mr. Obama had agreed over the coming decade to cut $250 billion from Medicare spending and $310 billion from other domestic entitlement programs, like farm subsidies and education programs. And Mr. Obama was willing to change the formula for Social Security cost-of living adjustments, which many economists say would more accurately reflect inflation, for savings of about $125 billion more. All of Mr. Obama’s concessions on the benefit programs were contingent, however, on Speaker Boehner and Republicans agreeing to higher taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations”

          https://tinyurl.com/yyrzshqw

          But Obama’s same robust economy is now producing deficits twice as high under Trump, and there’s no mystery why. First, a massive tax cut reduced the growth of revenue. Then Trump abandoned any restraint in spending. It’s very hard to have deficits soar in an economy this good. That takes irresponsibility of a very high level. Donald Trump-grade irresponsibility……

          1. All of Mr. Obama’s concessions on the benefit programs were contingent, however, on Speaker Boehner and Republicans agreeing to higher taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations

            Yup – he made that offer to cut spending contingent on the Republicans agreeing to raise corporate tax rates, along the lines of ‘if you’re not going to arbitrarily raise taxes as part of this spending cut then I’m not agreeing to it.’

            Almost like it was primarily political posturing and not something he seriously thought was going to pass. Almost like he was counting on it not passing, actually, in order to point at the Republicans and say “look, see what their real priority is?”

          2. grb
            October.25.2019 at 7:25 pm
            “…Some history :…”

            Some lefty propaganda

          3. The House under Paul Ryan passed at least two budgets which would have resulted in balance. Democrats rejected both.

            And Mr. Obama was willing to change the formula for Social Security cost-of living adjustments, which many economists say would more accurately reflect inflation,

            Guess what? Chained CPI was passed in 2017.

            And as for “Obama’s robust economy” why is it that growth only accelerated after he left office? And the majority of that irresponsible spending was on domestic programs that the Democrats demanded after holding the budget hostage.

            1. God have mercy: Paul Ryan. Let’s do a P.R. budget, readers-digest version :

              (1) Cut taxes six trillion more dollars.

              (2) Convert Medicaid & Medicare into block grants. Feed those grants into a shredder over several years. What spews out the other end eliminates the deficit (plus the addition six trillion cut). Unspecified magic-asterisk spending cuts also supposedly help.

              And that’s it : A total fraud. Elsewhere in these comments I criticize people who believe in something so moronic as Supply-Side Economics, with its unicorns shitting rainbows and elfish magic potions. A Paul Ryan’s “budget” is not one bit more real. In document form there isn’t a single honest thing in it, not even a “the”, comma or period. It was an exercise in empty propaganda, created for people whose knowledge of public affairs comes exclusively from watching cartoons on Fox News.

              Look up to the quote I provided on Obama’s plan and you see real numbers, real targets, and real compromise. And if that’s too great an effort for your calcified brains, take a look at history : The deficit problem was controlled under Bill Clinton and – guess what – magic played zero part. It took :

              (1) Deficit reduction packages from George HW Bush & Clinton

              (2) Higher taxes, including taxes on the middle class.

              (3) Spending cuts, particularly squeezing heath-care outlays.

              (4) Structural spending restraint, such as paygo

              If you’re interested in the deficit today, you’ll need to create a similar mix of compromise, negotiated painful measures, and real political courage. But if you’re just a equivocating poseur – like I see in these comments all around me – you’ll continue to “believe” in magic unicorns and Paul-Ryan-grade bullshit. And you’ll continue to rant&rave because – why not? It’s all just a meaningless show anyway……

              1. I agree and would point out that Paul Ryan had the luxury of knowing that his balanced budgets would get vetoed. He could look good with no consequences. When Republicans actually controlled both houses they could not pass a budget. Similar to the Republican healthcare. They could repeal ACA care as long as they had President Obama to veto the bill. When President Trump came in they could not figure out how to address healthcare.

              2. How much do you get paid in your parent’s basement to type Dem talking points? 50 cents a post? 1 dollar? A kiss from Obama (either one)?

                Geez, you are delusional. Like get help soon.

              3. I’m mostly interested in low taxes. I stopped caring about the deficits: they largely hurt the folks who vote for higher government spending and those fools deserve it.

          4. No, deficits only started coming down after the GOP took the house and forced some spending restraint.

          5. “Some history :”
            “by Calmes and Hulse”

            Pretty much direct quoting the DNC, huh.

      3. What happens if you look at it in terms of who controlled Congress during those years, given that Congress is the one that does the spending?

        1. Or MAYBE you should look at how policy changed with each new president, and then determine just whose policy that was. Doesn’t that make more sense than looking for empty excuses? A few examples :

          (1) Reagan got his tax cuts and increased military spending from a Democratic Congress. The deficit exploded.
          (2) Clinton got his deficit reduction plan with zero GOP congressional support. The Deficit reduced.
          (3)George W Bush got his tax cuts, new drug benefit, and increased military spending from a Congress with a GOP House majority and Senates from either side.

      4. “Obama made the deficit much, much better”.

        Well, I guess it all depends on where you start. Is reducing the deficit from a one time emergency bailout and stimulus fueled budget really an accomplishment? Seriously?

        Haha. Obama leg humpers crack me up.

      5. Obama made the deficit much worse permanently, by taking the one-time emergency TARP bailout spending levels of Bush and making them the new baseline.

        1. TARP is all Democrats can talk about because the GWB Administration passed it.

          AARA they cannot see because it costs $840B and was entirely initiated and passed by the Obama Administration with a full Democratic majority in congress.

          Whereas TARP wasn’t really so much a “bail-out” but a $440B GOV stock purchase which ended up not only paying for itself but making a $15B profit…

      6. “(5) Barack Obama (D) made the deficit much much better”

        What the fuck are you trying to pull here? Even for a discount fifty-center like you, that’s going too far. You must arrogantly imagine people have memories as long as goldfish.

        1. They’re called “numbers”, Fancylad. Think really hard (with you that will probably hurt) and perhaps you’ll recall being taught 2+2=4.

          Like that: numbers.

          Obama made the deficit better because he inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit from W Bush, and left a deficit less than half that size for Trump. You see? Numbers. It’s not that hard to understand; you just have to really, really, really try. Maybe your Mommy can sit with you, taking you thru it, step by step.

          Numbers, you see? Not Fox News bullshit, but simple numbers, where Number A is larger than Number B. Practice enough, Fancylad, and you’ll be able to recognize that at a glance. Look !! One number is larger than another !!!

          How proud you’ll be when you can do that just like a normal person, Fancylad. I sure your Mommy will be proud too….

          1. LMAO!!! GWB didn’t pass a budget with a deficit of 1.3T.. Obama did! AND kept it THERE with a full Democratic Congress for 4-FULL YEARS ……….. UNTIL …………. [wait for it] the GOP got majority control of Congress which [surprise, surprise] INSTANTLY dropped the deficit to 1/2 the previous 4-Year Norm.

            Trumps budget deficit grew after Democrats got majority of the house… BTW — Your party in Seattle thinks numbers and math is some sort of Oppression… lol.. 🙂

    3. I mean, the OP relates the Trump deficits to the Obama deficits, so I’m not exactly sure what your complaint here is.

      But if your point is, “Trump’s deficits are almost as bad as they were when American was struggling through a generation-defining recession triggered by a financial system collapse that Trump is laying the groundwork to repeat,” then that’s fair.

    4. I mean, they explicitly compare Trump and Obama’s records, noting that Obama’s deficits were worse overall. I agree with their conclusion that these deficits are occurring without any real justification for them, other than an abject lack of discipline on both teams. If you want to say “Obama was worse, you just think orange man bad” that’s your right, I guess, but I think you’re willfully missing the thrust of the argument.

      1. noting that Obama’s deficits were worse overall.

        The deficit Obama INHERITED was worse than other years before now. Obama cut the Bushpig deficit of $1.3 trillion down to $450 billion and Trump is blowing it back up in a record length economic expansion.

        1. Fuck off with your cherry-picking, you pathetic piece of shit.

        2. The majority of the 2009 budget was passed AFTER Obama entered office. Obama is the only post-war president to run deficits in excess of 5% of GDP on average for his entire first term, and deficits were already increasing before he left office. Convenient how you leave off that point.

          1. “Convenient how you leave off that point.”

            If turd can’t pick cherries and lie, he’s got nothing to post.

        3. The deficit Obama INHERITED was a supposedly one time stimulus program deficit. In two years, the deficit went from $161B in 2007, to $1.413T in 2009. Nearly 9 times larger!

          In every year that Obama had a Democratic Congress, the deficit was over a trillion dollars. When it had been a bit over $400B the year before he took office. It finally took a government shutdown to get it back under a trillion. Then it popped back up, and it took a debt ceiling fight to get it back under again for a year.

          IOW, Obama looks good only because there was a freakishly large deficit the year he came into office. His deficits were horrific compared to the prior norm.

          That said, I will gladly concede that the deficits under Trump have been terrible. The year Trump came into office, he proposed a budget with cuts. Congress responded by enacting spending increases, instead, by a bipartisan, veto proof majority.

          And then Trump gave up on trying to balance the budget, Congress having told him in no uncertain terms that they weren’t going to allow it.

          Should he have kept fighting? Yeah, I think so. But he would have lost that fight.

          Congress has no will to reduce the deficit. Scratch that, they are determined to increase it. No President can change that. We’re going to run horrific deficits until our currency crashes. That’s just the reality of it.

          1. Trump is mainly concerned with rejection and judicial appointments. A bloody fight over the deficit would be pointless.

    5. Unicorn….There was another POTUS in between POTUS Bush and POTUS Trump. His name was POTUS Obama.

      This is an area of legitimate policy criticism, it seems to me. POTUS Trump could institute a hiring freeze, but chooses not to. For Federal employees who leave service (termination, resignation, retirement), just do not replace them for a few years. Let attrition do the work. This alone would save a significant amount of money.

      But POTUS Trump has elected not to do this.

      1. He’s actually mandated to spend that money, you realize. It’s illegal for him to not spend it. The Impoundment Act of 1974.

        It would actually be a criminal act for him to not spend the money they appropriate.

        All he can do is send a request to Congress to change the appropriation. They routinely ignore such requests.

        During the budget shutdown, there was a window where he could have started laying off, legally. And he didn’t take advantage of it. But outside those circumstances? Firing federal employees is practically impossible.

        And even if he fired them, he’d be mandated to spend the money anyway, somehow.

        Congress is totally in control of spending levels.

        You’re going to see that soon, when the current continuing resolution expires in late November, and Congress ends up mandating spending increases.

  7. House controls the purse.

  8. WITH THE DEMOCRATS FIGHTING HIM EVERY STEP OF THE WAY!

    1. The fact is that most Republicans fight to slow government spending. Democrats fight to stop cuts to that government growth.

      There are endless examples of this and one such example is that all the Democrats Presidential candidates are all mentioning massive increases to government spending to cover their pipe dreams (Single-Payer, Medicare for all, UBI, CWA, CCC, PWA, WPA….)

  9. What difference, at this point, does it make?

  10. Meh… he did it by passing a tax cut that would enable America’s entrepreneurial billionaires to pass along their wisdom and glory so that we could enjoy the 0.4% increase in GDP growth over what we had with socialist Obama. Well worth it!

    1. So we got an increase in GDP and a drop in the deficit compared with what we had with socialist Obama?

      Good to see you coming around, AMSOC.

      1. Not quite true. The Deficit rose in the early Obama years due to the recession. After that President Obama’s Administration saw rising GDP and decreasing deficits. President Trump gave all his pals a big tax cut, remember he tell all that at Mare Lago, we got very little in return.

        1. Own it, AMSOC.

        2. Yeah it had nothing to do with the fact that Obamacare specifically pushed a lot of its costs off by 10 years in order to look good on CBO scoring. A large number of the costs did not begin to incur until 2015. Oh hey look, 2015 is when the deficit started going back up. how interesting.

        3. “We got very little in return”.

          What do you think you are owed for showing the benevolence of allowing other people to keep more of their own money? How kind of you!

          Apparently, you must be appeased. Just ugly.

        4. Obama has massive deficits because he used the recession as an excuse for massive cronyism.

      2. Where in those numbers do you see a drop in the deficit?

        1. In the chart accompanying the article, by inspection.

          And if you’re going to get hung up on semantics, fuck off.

          1. You mean the chart that—upon inspection— says the deficit was ~500 billion dollars in 2015 and is one trillion now?

            1. No, the one that says the deficit was 1.4 trillion in 2009 and one trillion now.

      3. I would suspect that I could launch a Great Purge, collectivize the land of the kulaks and embark on a nationwide campaign of iron smelting in the nation’s agricultural zones and still expand the GDP if I managed to spend 400 billion dollars more than Obama did. I keep waiting for the proof that low taxes and less regulation spur economic growth, but the actual numbers don’t seem to point that way. I wonder why.

        1. I would suspect you are a lying lefty ignoramus.
          And I’d be right.
          Fuck off, slaver.

        2. You mean aside from the actual GDP numbers? My, my, just what was happening in 2016?

          1. Now do gdp growth vs tax rate on rich people.

            1. Real tax or marginal rates which they don’t actually pay? I much prefer GDP growth versus entitlement spending.

            2. Or even better, the impact on wealth of getting rid of your Ponzi schemes.

            3. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
              October.25.2019 at 10:36 pm
              “Now do gdp growth vs tax rate on rich people.”

              Now prove how much an ignoramus you are. Again.

        3. the problem with GDP is that it includes government spending. it should be subtracted, not added.

    2. “…Well worth it!”

      Yes, any time people get to keep what they’ve earned, it is worth it.

    3. “Well worth it!”

      Meh. What do you care? It’s not your money. How can you resent people for having less of their money taken by such a bloated, wasteful government? Why do you want to enable that? Useful idiot?

      That’s just ugly.

  11. Imagine how much the deficit will shrink when we get Medicare for All which includes full coverage for the entire planet’s population AND the Green New Deal.

    By Grabthar’s Hammer….wh…what a savings.

    1. Hyperbole aside… We are all paying for health coverage for every American right now with today’s system. But that expenditure falls heaviest on employer-paid insurance costs and hospital markups designed to recoup losses to people who cannot pay. There are several ways we can fix that:
      1) tell hospitals they can turn away anyone unable to prove ability to pay, or
      2) create a national insurance system that makes everyone get insurance, or
      3) a single payer system.

      I’d like to think my fellow Americans would reject #1 for being immoral (but 2016 tells me not to hold out too much hope there.) There are clear political and public health downsides to this one. We all benefit when people with nasty diseases get cured rather than spread them around.

      #2 has the upside of still being largely private in nature and the insurance companies, who donate lots of cash to politicians, get to keep their central role. And, as a bonus, all of the oodles of cash collected by insurance companies gets to keep circulating in the stock market which makes rich people richer and happier.

      #3 just recognizes that we’re paying for it all through various regressive “shadow taxes” like reduced wages and higher prices. If we nationalize healthcare, we can pay for it through more progressive tax schemes (the rich pay more) and employers won’t have to deal with the hassle any more. The downside is that the cash won’t be in big fat stock portfolios any more which will make some folks rather unhappy.

      1. There are several ways we can fix that

        There are an infinite number of ways to “fix that” that lie between your option 1 and your options 2 (pander to the Evil Corporations) and 3 (free ponies and stick it to the Man). The medical market can be significantly deregulated prior to going all the way to “tell hospitals they can turn away anyone unable to prove ability to pay.”

        #3 just recognizes that we’re paying for it all through various regressive “shadow taxes” like reduced wages and higher prices

        Like the “shadow taxes” on food, like you having to pay for it? Wouldn’t “I’ll make someone else pay your stuff” be a simpler paraphrase for #3?

        1. Please don’t deregulate the “medical market.”

          In fact, let’s ban the advertisement of pharmaceuticals like sane countries do. Let’s regulate it more.

          1. “Please make my healthcare more expensive! I can afford it!”

            1. The regulation I mentioned, along with every other one I’d propose, would, as this is the entire point of this whole enterprise, be for the purpose of bringing costs down.

              1. “The regulation I mentioned, along with every other one I’d propose, would, as this is the entire point of this whole enterprise, be for the purpose of bringing costs down.”
                You
                Are
                Full
                Of
                Shit.

              2. The regulation I mentioned, along with every other one I’d propose, would, as this is the entire point of this whole enterprise, be for the purpose of bringing costs down.

                Yes. But you’re an ignoramus, so your intention really doesn’t matter. This and every other one you propose would, in fact, raise costs.

            2. Because laissez-faire capitalism always lowers prices of goods and services!

              –No economist ever

              1. Yes, yes it does. Government regulation on the other hand…

              2. Because laissez-faire capitalism always lowers prices of goods and services!

                Competition lowers the prices of goods and services. Said every economist ever.

                Government bureaucracy lowers the prices of goods and services” would be more of a “what an economist would never say” kind of thing.

                1. Big anti-trust guy are you?

                  1. Tony
                    October.25.2019 at 11:36 pm
                    “Big anti-trust guy are you?”

                    So when you’re called on your bullshit, you double-down with some additional ‘lefty pejorative’ bullshit and hope no one notices you were proven wrong?
                    Did you start drinking before lunch?

                  2. Big anti-trust guy are you?

                    Want to change the subject, now, eh?

                    1. I’m not changing the subject. Do you believe government should intervene in markets when monopolies form? Monopolies, I’m sure you understand, are bad because they crowd out competition and raise costs.

                    2. “…Do you believe government should intervene in markets when monopolies form? Monopolies,…”

                      This is a typical shitbag question, quite similar to ‘do you believe purple unicorns should be shot?’
                      Show a monopoly which isn’t created by government fiat, shitbag.

                    3. Do you believe government should intervene in markets when monopolies form?

                      You are arguing for monopolistic government control of the healthcare market, not me.

                    4. So you do feel that monopolies are bad?

                      Or no?

                    5. “So you do feel that monopolies are bad?
                      Or no?”

                      Yes, shitbag, monopolies are bad, the ones created by the government and the government itself.

                    6. Hey, shitbag! Too drunk to respond?

          2. Tony, you do realize the advancement in pharmaceuticals come from here right? Because those advertisements cause buying which causes research.

            The issue should be that our drugs should be as cheap as other places. Hey guess what, the government causes them to be expensive.

            1. It’s okay if I’m getting raped up the ass because at least the rapist makes a profit in his day job!

              Logic.

            2. Tony doesnt realize much of anything. Do you see his posts?

        2. The Episcopalians built the hospital in my hometown (it’s owned by a corporation now), I was born in a hospital built by Presbyterians and my wife was treated for cancer in hospitals built by Catholics and Baptists. Once upon a time we were able to get things done without waiting for the government to stick its big beak in. Further the more government involves itself in this or that public sphere the more that other institutions retreat. Libertarians love the power of markets, and rightly so, but other institutions are also important in preserving liberty and we should acknowledge the role that they can play in helping with social problems.

          1. Libertarians love the power of markets, and rightly so, but other institutions are also important in preserving liberty and we should acknowledge the role that they can play in helping with social problems.

            Non-profits are part of free markets. You’ll often hear people around here explaining this exact point to Tony regarding how the healthcare system used to work.

            The idea that libertarians only support for-profit enterprises is a left wing myth. It’s about voluntarism, not (necessarily) profit.

            1. “Non-profits are part of free markets.”

              The lefty ignoramus JFree made a claim last week that free markets required open entry to any portion of the market, symmetrical knowledge of the good and value thereof, and several other bullshit conditions (thereby making it a ‘non-free’ market).
              Nope.
              All it requires is no coercion; non-profits do just fine, so long as they are not funded by the taxpayers.

      2. I’d like to think my fellow Americans would reject #1 for being immoral (but 2016 tells me not to hold out too much hope there.)

        You’re kidding, right?

        It seems to me that we’re not only rejecting #1, they’re expanding the scope of coverage at the speed of light.

        2) create a national insurance system that makes everyone get insurance, or

        Or, massively de-regulate the healthcare system, allowing people to get tailored coverage for themselves, and stop making mandatory coverage systems that are subsidized by a smaller and smaller subset of working people.

        3) a single payer system.

        Which I’ve said repeatedly, the US can do… and can afford it, but our healthcare system wouldn’t look anything like what it looks like today. The entire system– including every employee in it would be nationalized. Doctors, nurses, x-ray techs… everyone becomes a GS rated employee, massive numbers of healthcare facilities are shuttered and reorganized by the state.

        1. Federal govt just pays for it. Keep the grimy mitts of govt out of the private sector. Jeesh-it can’t get any simpler!

          1. “Federal govt just pays for it. Keep the grimy mitts of govt out of the private sector. Jeesh-it can’t get any simpler!”

            Is this a parody account, or is someone actually this fucking stupid?

      3. “…And, as a bonus, all of the oodles of cash collected by insurance companies gets to keep circulating in the stock market which makes rich people richer and happier…”

        Own stock in those companies? Care to cite how profitable they are, you lefty pile of shit?

      4. The majority of health expenditures aren’t for communicable disease, so you can put your pearls away. Most of the expense is due to chronic disease and the co-morbidities that they generate. It’s almost like personal responsibility matters.

  12. Is there any Republican in Congress who cares about the deficit and debt and spending? Any Republican at all? Any

    They had two years of leadership in both houses, and still control one house and have the veto pen in the White House. So why the fuck are they outspending the Democrats?

    1. There are several Republican candidates running for the Presidency in 2020 and they have talked about the deficit. Trump is not one of them.

      1. There are 40 or 50 D candidates running for the presidency and nearly every one proposes to increase the deficit by huge amounts.

      2. RINOs cause havoc on fiscal conservatism.

        Luckily more and more of those Lefties have left office.

    2. Mandatory spending based on demographics. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid expansion under Obamacare.

    3. Are they any libertarians who do? Because the last one running for president basically ignored the problem but doing almost nothing with entitlements, and this publication absolutely hated the idea of any obamacare reform that might cut spending.

      1. Gary Johnson proposed a balanced budget in his first term. pay attention.

        1. Gary Johnson doesn’t support Team Red. Therefore he is a Communist.

          1. Wow, soooooooo butthurt

            1. lol

              Self-awareness is not your strong suit, is it?

        2. Lol.
          I propose a balanced budget too.
          Easy to propose. Just words.
          How was he going to do it?

          1. I propose a balanced budget too.

            Link?

        3. Gary Johnson is a stooge. Balanced budget amendment and implementation would be recessionary. Population increases and inflation alone would destroy the economy in short order. Freezing the federal budget (“federal spending”) would require private spending (bank loans) to increase at a rate equal to or more than the stagnant level of federal spending otherwise GDP would suffer and create a guaranteed RECESSION! It can’t get any simpler than this. You pay attention!

          1. “Balanced budget amendment and implementation would be recessionary. Population increases and inflation alone would destroy the economy in short order. ”
            You
            Are Full
            Of
            Shit.

    4. 3 or 4. hard to pass any spending cuts with under 10 votes.

  13. Inflation, baby. I would have told anyone they were crazy if, when I started earning a living, that my salary would ever top six figures.
    Now, I tell the grandkids they will all someday make $1mm per year and live about like they do today.

  14. Oh, I remember back in 2010 or so when all the GOP peanuts here were going bonkers about the trillion dollar deficit (in the midst of two wars and an economic calamity caused by his predecessor). THE DOLLAR IS WORTHLESS!!! BUY YOURSELF A MOAT AND AN UNDERGROUND BUNKER!!! GREEK ANARCHISTS!!! AAARGGHHHH!!!

    Now, not so much. Are you guys taking Zoloft now. That’s good… I was worried about you.

      1. Almost worthy of a Hihn ‘ransom note’ award, doncha think?

  15. What about the hidden flat rate tax aka insurances? That’s insurance with an s.

  16. I sure am glad the ruling elites in DC are ignoring the debt.
    Once the American economy collapses, we can start all over again…like living in caves, drinking from streams, killing your own food, gathering firewood, etc.
    Won’t life be wonderful?

    1. Haha. I think they have a plan for that. One that doesn’t quite involve living in caves, but does involve mass dependence on the state. And obedience.

      Globalism has a price.

  17. Can you point to the part in the Constitution where the President is responsible for authorizing a budget?

  18. Obummer and Democrat deficit spending is HORRIBLE and EVIL!!!

    Deficit spending under the Trumptatorship? All totally cool!!! As long as the walls get built, and the heathen yellow-skinned Chinee (and Vietnamese and Mexicans and Canucks and yadda-yadda) ALL get fenced out in trade wars, ALL to protect “good jerbs for good Americans”!!!

    THANK YOU, xenophobic, bigoted, knuckle-dragging, Trump-dick-sucking conservatards!!!

    1. No, thank you and the rest of the TDS victims for making asses of themselves.

  19. Interest rates are at record lows, indeed about a quarter of all debt world wide has a negative yield. I attended a meeting at the Independence Institute https://i2i.org on Tuesday, 9/3/2019, where Stephen Moore was the speaker. He mentioned that he was seeing signs of deflation.

    Is it any wonder that no one cares about the deficits?

    None of the effects that huge deficits are supposed to cause are being seen – why?

    Until this mystery can be convincingly explained, there isn’t any way to make people care about the deficit.

    1. OK, please PAY me to borrow your money then!!!

      WHY doesn’t that work? Do YOU think it will work in the long run? For you, or the Trumptatorship, or ANYONE?

      Also, I have REALLY good deals for you in futures options for tulip bulbs, and Florida real estate, and Trump’s “get-rich-quick” schemes in “go to school and study how to become a mega-millionaire on realty like me” schooling…

      BUY NOW!!!

      1. Haha. Wow. You are obsessed. Dude (or chick, or other) didn’t even say anything about trump.

        You are aware that our debt based monetary system, as well as negative interest rates in parts of the world predates trump, right?

        And he (she/it) is spot on that massive debt won’t be a concern until inflation or deflation cause a meltdown.

        Your narrow focus will demand a wonderful solution from the same people who caused it. Haha. Too funny.

        1. What happens to nations that spend WAAAY more than they take in or create? Can you say Greece, Venezuela, Zimbabwe? Even Italy, which is now borrowing money from China for “Belt and Road” initiatives? Hello?

        2. Also, have you heard of the 2008 near-collapse, and NINJA (No Income, No Job) house loans? Making loans (to include negative-interest loans) to people who can not, or will not, pay back… Like Trump and his 7 bankruptcies… Does NOT pay off! Too much of this shit means we are building on sand, not on bedrock!

          1. SQRLSY One
            October.26.2019 at 8:40 am
            “… Like Trump and his 7 bankruptcies…”

            Seek help. Or please die and take your obsession with you.

            1. Please lend all of your money to Trump, since you love and support Him so much. Preferably at NEGATIVE interest rates! PAY Him to borrow your money, please! See how it works out for you!

              But please do NOT involve my tax money! Because Trump loves to play with ideas of “partially welching” (not paying back) those who invest in the feds!

              https://slate.com/business/2016/05/donald-trump-says-the-u-s-can-t-default-on-its-debt-because-it-prints-money.html

              From there…

              “A few days ago during an interview with CNBC, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee seemed to suggest that, if the U.S. ran into trouble with its debt, he would ask creditors to accept partial repayments—which is to say, he’d go kamikaze and default. “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal,” he said. “And if the economy was good, it was good. So, therefore, you can’t lose.” Binyamin Appelbaum of the New York Times noticed these comments and helpfully pointed out that they were absolutely insane—the merest whisper of a hint that the U.S. president would be open to a default would rock global markets to their core.”

              1. Seek help. Or please die and take your obsession with you.

                1. In other words, you have NOTHING left, in the face of the facts… So you resort to childish insults. Do you and Tulpa hump each other? Wet humping, or dry humping? Is there video posted anywhere?

                  1. Seek help. Or please die and take your obsession with you.

                  2. You could be replaced by a broken record player. Does your lack of job security not concern you?

                    1. You could easily be replaced by a squalling infant, except you don’t make as much sense.
                      Seek help. Or fuck off and die where we can’t smell you

    2. None of the effects that huge deficits are supposed to cause are being seen – why?

      Modern Monetary Theory.

    3. the national debt gets WORSE with deflation though. they should be inflating their way out of it, so they can pay it off in a week.

  20. Any student of economics knows that there is quite a difference between the national debt and the national deficit. These two distinct terms are apples and oranges, yet they seem to be used interchangeably throughout this article. The deficit is the difference calculated between exports and imports whereas the debt is what the government owes to the central bank. This is irresponsible journalism.

    1. Conflating trade deficit with the federal budget deficit. I ate more green cheese than my family budget allows, I guess it will magically disappear off of the mass of the Earth’s moon, due to the laws about the conservation of mass-energy.

      WHO KNEW?!?!

      I think that it is all explained by the below Deep Cultural Wisdom…

      Gozer the Traveller! He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii, the Traveller came as a large and moving Torb! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex Supplicants they chose a new form for him–that of a Giant Sloar! Many Shubs and Zulls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day, I can tell you.

    2. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

      Former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

      St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.
      No matter how much the federal government owes, it simply creates the dollars to pay its creditors. Even if federal tax collections were zero, the federal government could pay its bills, forever.

      The so-called federal “debt” isn’t a real debt. It is the total of deposits into Treasury Security accounts (T-bills, T-notes, T-bonds).

      1. Even if federal tax collections were zero, the federal government could pay its bills, forever.

        Why don’t we do that, then?

        1. Here are FOUR main reasons:

          1. To control the economy. The government taxes heavily those activities it wishes to discourage (alcohol, tobacco), and offers tax breaks for those activities it wishes to encourage (home ownership vs. renting, deductions for health care, charitable deductions, IRAs, etc.).
          2. To increase demand for the U.S. dollar, by requiring that taxes and other debts to the government be paid in U.S. dollars.
          3. To please rich political donors. By taxing all forms of income, while providing the rich with shelters from those taxes that the rest of us must pay, the federal government appeals to the Gap Psychology (make rich richer and more powerful-rest of us the opposite) desires of the rich and powerful.
          4. To hide the truth. If the federal government didn’t collect taxes, you would begin to understand that not only are federal taxes unnecessary, but more importantly, you would learn that federal spending is not dependent on federal income and to make sure the masses don’t get carried away with getting “free stuff.”

          1. Total econ bullshit, combined with conspiracy theory and the politics of envy!
            Why, oh, why did your mom let you out of the basement?

      2. LOL… I cannot believe these quotes can come from “chairman”‘s of anything. There are so many examples of fiat currency printing itself into worthlessness such idiotic thinking is humorous.

        Just because the government can print paper USD certainly doesn’t void it from having to find a way to back that print with some type of goods. In the big picture – printing money does nothing but devalues EVERYONE’S wealth holdings (its a theft – just like a tax) because the over-stock of USD’s makes everyone’s USD purchase less goods.

    3. you seem to be confusing the annual budget deficit with the trade deficit for some reason.

  21. It is important to note the effect of a rising value of the US Dollar. During the last six years, the value of the dollar has risen significantly. That reduces our exports and has a serious effect on the balance of payments and therefore the deficit. Although this does not account for all of the increase in the deficit, it does act as a factor in its rise.

    1. Your looking at the equation *ss-Backwards. The dollar is nothing more than a representation of goods and/or service. When the dollar is strong it means U.S. goods and services are worth more.

      Unless of course we have some “bookie” in a closet manipulating and cheating the general supply and demand end-game. Which with a fiat currency is entirely plausible. But cheats don’t last forever and always self-correct.

  22. “When Congress passed a bipartisan budget plan in March 2017 that annihilated Obama-era spending caps, Trump begrudgingly signed the bill while promising that he’d never agree to another spending hike like that. Earlier this year, when Congress passed another budget-busting spending bill, Trump signed it without so much as expressing a second thought.” Trump has increased the deficit…by signing the budgets he was given by Congress.

    1. Spending caps… hahhaha

      Yeah veto proof bills that Trump should not have signed but still would have become federal budgets.

  23. Makes no difference at this point. This fiscal trainwreck is on its way to crash and burn. I can’t wait for the great reset…hopefully starting from scratch we will get a new govt. and a better system.

    1. I wouldn’t count on it. People will be screaming for solutions from the people who caused it. “Starting from scratch” will be the furthest thing from people’s minds.

  24. Silly, when Republicans are in power, deficits don’t matter. Republicans give business confidence, and that makes up for any frivolous fiscal imprudence. As we have seen, you can put a shit-flinging orangutan in the Oval Office, and none of this fucking matters as long as said orangutan has an (R) after his name.

    –Freethinking nonpartisan rationalist libertarians

    1. Silly, when Republicans are in power, deficits don’t matter.

      Democrats must believe that as well, I suppose, given all the talk at the debates.

      I suppose the difference is Democrats never think deficits matter?

      1. Name the last program Democrats passed that they didn’t pay for. I’ll wait.

            1. Tony
              October.25.2019 at 11:37 pm
              “Nope.”

              Yep.
              You are both a liar and a fucking ignoramus.

        1. Name the last program Democrats passed that they didn’t pay for. I’ll wait.

          Um, all of them? You saw those deficit numbers, right?

          You need to keep up with where your party is. “Deficits Don’t Matter” was most recently championed by AOC in defending the Green New Deal.

          So when Republicans are in power, deficits don’t matter to either Republicans or Democrats. When Democrats are in power, they only don’t matter to Democrats.

          See?

        2. I’ll give you some of the first and the ones that are completely driving the debt/deficit/unfunded liabilities: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Without those programs the US is solvent. With them we’re bankrupt.

        3. “Name the last program Democrats passed that they didn’t pay for. I’ll wait.”

          Didn’t take long to prove you’re not only an ignoramus, but a liar besides, shitbag.

        4. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

  25. And, yet, there are millions of idiots that support DemocratMarxistSocialists who want to borrow 10X money to pay for their utopic fantasies. If you think Trump is doing a poor job with the national debt, watch what happens under ANY of the Democrats as President.

    1. The deficit shrank dramatically only under Obama and Clinton and exploded with the Bush’s, Reagan, and the Con Man.

      You retard.

      1. Keep picking those cherries and lying, you pathetic piece of shit. You got nothing else.

      2. The deficit shrank dramatically only under Gingrich and Boehner.

        FTFY

      3. The national debt doubled during Obama’s tenure

      4. There is an argument that deficit spending can be good in the short termin a recession. The insane thing is massive deficit spending when times are good. I guess we have to accept that every politician will spend like a drunken sailor until debt interest is higher than gdp

        1. Debt interest payments are an economic STIMULUS. Federal govt pays for the debt by simply crediting accounts-no taxes or borrowing necessary.

          1. “Debt interest payments are an economic STIMULUS.”

            I guess we should borrow three or four times what we owe now to keep ‘stimulating’ the economy to where a sandwich costs what a car does now?
            Man, you are one STOOOPID piece of shit.

  26. (Though Bush did have the advantage of starting out with a budget surplus in his first year.)

    I see Reason likes to continue spreading that lie. The US was cash flow positive but that’s only because it was recording receipts from trust funds that it was obligated to pay out (with interest) in the future. The last time the US had a real budget surplus was 1957. But Reason isn’t very good on facts these days.

    1. I see Reason likes to continue spreading that lie.

      You should be thanking them. How else would you have the context to try to distract attention from how much the deficit jumped when Team Red had control of all three branches of government?

      Theirs, I believe, is an innocent mistake of youth and inexperience, most of their writers and editors being under 40.

      What’s your excuse?

      1. Carry that water, boy!

        1. What is it you believe me to be saying?

          Oh, wait – you don’t care.

          Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!

  27. The deficit numbers are meaningless since they are so easily manipulated; look at the annual increase in the national debt, that’s what matters. Furthermore, what matters is the debt to GDP ratio, not the absolute debt.

    1. Debt/GDP ratio is meaningless. The debt is not paid for with GDP. For instance: Japan(a currency sovereign, just like the USA) has spent the past decade at a rate exceeding 200%. Japan has no problem at all paying its bills.
      The so-called “Federal Debt” isn’t even “debt” in the usual sense. It is the word describing the current total of open deposits — similar to bank savings deposits — into Treasury security accounts held at the Fed, made for the past 30 years.

      By contrast, GDP is the total of Spending and Net Exports this year. Putting these two, unrelated measures into one fraction yields a classic apples/oranges ratio, measuring nothing.

      Today, the ratio is about 103% and we are entering our 9th year of economic growth, with low inflation. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

      1. I assume you’re here to prove how stupid smeone can be? You’re doing great!
        “Debt/GDP ratio is meaningless.”
        No, it is not; It is a measure of the size of the debt to the available income to pay it off, and if anyone who ever walked in to a bank to borrow money didn’t know that before hand, they did by the time they left.

        “…The debt is not paid for with GDP…”
        No one said it was.
        Bzzt! Thanks for playing; here’s your $2 watch.

  28. In three years in office, Trump has added more to the national debt than President George W. Bush did in his entire two terms.

    What about Obama?

    1. Also, I have to wonder how *Trump* – or Bush or Obama – added *anything* to the national debt since its Congress that controls the budget.

      1. While Congress controls the purse, the President can veto the budget.

        Trump did make a huge mistake by not vetoing the federal budget because they were likely veto proof anyway. Lefties can now pin additional national debt on Trump.

        Of course, we all know Lefties are liars and will never admit that applies to Obama too, under that logic. Lefties just want to deflect so the debt increases no matter what.

  29. And yet, the Democrats want to focus on a request to Ukraine to reopen a criminal investigation.

    I wonder why.

    1. And the debate moderators never ask about the deficit or the debt.

  30. As Ross Perot used to say, “when you’re in a hole, stop digging”.

    Just think how much bigger the deficit will be when interest rates go back up to normal levels. 23 trillion at 2 percent is “only” 460 billion a year for the debt service. At 5 percent it goes up to 1.15 trillion, before anything else can be spent.

  31. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ
    pop over to this website …….. Read More

    1. ╔════╗───────────────╔═══╦═══╦═══╦═══╗─╔╗╔╗╔╗
      ╚═╗╔═╝───────────────╚══╗║╔═╗╠══╗║╔═╗║─║║║║║║
      ──║║─╔══╦╗╔╦════╦══╗─╔══╝║║─║╠══╝║║─║║─║║║║║║
      ──║║─║╔═╣║║║╔╗╔╗║╔╗║─║╔══╣║─║║╔══╣║─║║─╚╝╚╝╚╝
      ──║║─║║─║╚╝║║║║║║╚╝║─║╚══╣╚═╝║╚══╣╚═╝║─╔╗╔╗╔╗
      ──╚╝─╚╝─╚══╩╝╚╝╚╣╔═╝─╚═══╩═══╩═══╩═══╝─╚╝╚╝╚╝
      ────────────────║║
      ────────────────╚╝
      ____________________________________________________

    2. If you weren’t a malicious piece of shit progressive, eric, you’d simply kill yourself instead of wishing destruction upon everyone and everything.
      You’re resentful trash

  32. “Trump’s defenders will point out that he’s not solely responsible for setting the government’s budget.”

    or anybody born before 1990, who isn’t being a disingenuous asshole.

  33. Yawn. Presents deficit spend. If you really don’t like that elect Rand or Ron Paul

    Flash forward to more interesting stuff
    Obama judge rules that crazed Democrats running the impeachment witch hunt should get redacted grand jury material
    I mean what could go wrong?
    The reason this material is redacted is to keep it out of partisan media leaking political hacks

    1. Then you must be really pissed about Republicans storming of the SCIF. At least the judge is following the rules.

      1. Grand Jury testimony is secret you fucking moron which is why it was redacted

        So the judge is not following the rules he is a political hack but he is an Obama judge and that’s what they do

        1. It’s secret unless there’s a good reason for it not to be, a reason spelled out in the decision, if you are capable of reading primary sources.

          Since the impeachment inquiry process is analogous to a grand-jury process, you must surely feel that private meetings are legitimate, especially when they’re taking place in rooms specifically designed for classified information.

          1. “…Since the impeachment inquiry process is analogous to a grand-jury process, you must surely feel that private meetings are legitimate,..”

            You
            Are
            Full
            Of
            Shit.

            1. You are full of Hannity farts.

              1. “You are full of Hannity farts.”

                Called on your bullshit claim.
                Poor, poor shitbag. Always the victim of someone smarter than he; the world is so unfair!
                Well, since you are a fucking lefty ignoramus, get used to it. It’s going to be that way until you die.
                And we’re laughing.

                1. Two way street, asshole.

                  1. “Two way street, asshole.”

                    Unfortunately, shitstain, that’s but one more of your lies. You and shitbag get to whine until they plug your sorry ass in the ground.
                    You
                    Are
                    Full
                    of
                    Shit,
                    just like shitbag.

  34. So, increased Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and interest on the debt drove the increased deficits? Unfortunately, three out of the four reasons are on auto-pilot and are not subject to cuts under current law. Unfortunately, we have a situation where no politician will be elected who either promises cuts in mandatory spending or across the board increases in tax rates. It’s the foretold bane of democracy, with ever-increasing promises of new freebies. I will agree that the Trump tax cuts on personal income were not really needed and have added to the deficits.

  35. Reason should change its name to Reliably Lefty or maybe just Orange Man Bad

    Haven’t seen the article regarding the two guys who got arrested in CT for saying the N word,

    But let’s repeat Orange Man Bad
    Free Weed and open borders every day

  36. I know I’m shovel ready!

  37. This is absolutely the laziest way to assign blame for deficit spending and probably the most inaccurate. In a very informative and much more balanced (reasoned) article titled national-debt-under-obama-3306293 in “TheBalance” at three w’s, thebalance, a dot and ‘com’ https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293 there are three formulas that are common to use and this article uses the one that employs the LEAST “reason”.

    1. Boehm is a dick-sucking left liberal Block Yomommatard, just like his bosses Gillespie and Welchie Boy.

      1. Are you trying to match that infantile ranting idiot SQRLSY One?
        If so, you’re making it a real competition.

  38. Dear Author, do us a favor and give some links to real, verifiable sites that truly show what the expenditures are that have increased the deficit. Show us what is directly attributable to Trump as well as all of his predecessors. Otherwise, I think you should start writing for “Feeling” or “Emotion.”

    Thanks.

  39. “Higher outlays for Medicare, Social Security, Defense, and interest on the public debt” drove the deficit increase in fiscal year 2019, the Treasury Department says.

    So, all of those save Defense are structural debt issues that were created years and decades ago and were entirely predicted. They have not been addressed in all that time – and likely cannot be addressed by any one administration.

    The only attempt we have made at adressing any of these issues was the social security fix way back in the 80’s. And we “fixed” the issue of all the extra retirees coming online in the 20-teens and beyond by hiking the social security tax and creating a social security trust fund. Of course, we invested that “trust fund” in US treasuries, thereby immediately spending it and turning it into the interest on the debt problem. But at least an attempt was made.

    Back when the Trust Fund was created, they predicted that we’d go broke around 2024 because there wouldn’t be enough workers paying in to cover outlays – and we’d be paying 70% income taxes to cover the difference. Well, it’s getting close to that time…. and guess what? We don’t have the money.

  40. How many times do I have to remind people of the fact that the face value of the deficit is irrelevant; the deficit as a percentage of GDP is what is important.

    And adjusting US budget deficit for GDP, the $984 billion that Boehm is handwringing about is roughly 4.7% of 2018 GDP. Not the best number, but less than half of what it was was during the worst deficits of the Obama Administration (9.8%).

    In fact, Obama didn’t run a deficit of less than 6.7% GDP during his entire first term.

    But yeah, ORANGE MAN BAD!!!

    1. Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

      We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

      See The Atlantic article by using the below search-string in quotes:
      “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet”

      He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!

      All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

      Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

      Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!

      1. “He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!”

        This claims to be an adult; 35 going on 12 is my best guess.

        1. I see that you refute NOTHING that I had to say! Many-many Trump voters wanted to vote for Him, because He could pussy-grab on their behalf, for them, they thought.

          No one refutes what I say here!

          QED!

          1. “No one refutes what I say here!”

            True. No one is willing to engage an infantile ‘intelligence’.
            Fuck off and die where we can’t smell you.

            1. You win hands down in the grade-school-insults category! Congratulations!

              1. No, no!
                You win in the grade-school rant competition; I merely acknowledged your raging stupidity.
                You’re welcome.

          2. You do know he said that in a private conversation about how groupies ‘let you grab them by the pussy’. Doesn’t mean or prove he actually did it. He may very well but people act like he went out of his to grab a pussy and say, ‘see? She let me grab her by the pussy!’

            And to think Billy Bush got ensnared in this and lost his job merely for laughing.

            Crazy.

    2. Debt/GDP ratio is meaningless. The debt is not paid for with GDP. For instance: Japan(a currency sovereign, just like the USA) has spent the past decade at a rate exceeding 200%. Japan has no problem at all paying its bills.
      The so-called “Federal Debt” isn’t even “debt” in the usual sense. It is the word describing the current total of open deposits — similar to bank savings deposits — into Treasury security accounts held at the Fed, made for the past 30 years.

      By contrast, GDP is the total of Spending and Net Exports this year. Putting these two, unrelated measures into one fraction yields a classic apples/oranges ratio, measuring nothing.

      Today, the ratio is about 103% and we are entering our 9th year of economic growth, with low inflation. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

  41. Now getting this as a news-feed:
    “Trump backs shift in focus of Russia probe to criminal review”
    […]
    “WASHINGTON — Investigating the investigators, the Justice Department is now scrutinizing the government’s Russia probe as a criminal matter, raising Democrats’ concerns that President Trump may be using federal muscle to go after his opponents….”
    https://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Trump-backs-shift-in-focus-of-Russia-probe-to-14563156.php

    Uh, the hag, for instance? The one who funded the fake ‘hooker-pee’ BS and therefore began the 3-year ‘investigation’ which found nothing at all?
    Those ‘opponents’?
    It’s an AP feed, so it’s shit to begin with and then gets a load of Chron-manure as icing on the cake.

  42. When you guys want to undo the Bush and Trump tax cuts and return military spending to what it was in 1999, I’ll be waiting.

  43. Don’t listen to the lying fake libertarian Block Yomommatards of Reason when it comes to their messiah’s defcitis. Block Yomomma’s real deficit in his last year in office was a trillion dollars:

    https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=20&startYear=2016&endMonth=01&endDay=20&endYear=2017

    1. Are you trying to match that ranting idiot SQRLSY One?
      If so, you’re making it a real competition.

  44. You will never find anywhere, a graph like below, showing federal deficit decreases cause recessions, which are always cured by federal deficit increases.
    The reason for the absence of such data: They do not exist.
    A growing economy requires a growing supply of money, and federal deficit spending increases the money supply.
    The distasteful words “deficit,” and “debt,” are misleading, because they really represent SURPLUSES for the economy.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=plDl

    Substantial part of our booming current economy is directly the result of federal deficit spending.

    1. My goodness!
      Started and the bottom and worked up; have to admit I had no idea of the steaming pile of lies, bullshit and fantasy you’d posted beginning with responses to some very early posts. Astounding!
      Are you a parody account like OBL, or truly this stooopid?

  45. “The distasteful words “deficit,” and “debt,” are misleading, because they really represent SURPLUSES for the economy.”

    Yes, a surplus of money, which is never to be confused with wealth.

  46. Not surprising and disappointing for those of us on the ‘cut spending’ side.

    The Conservatives under Harper in Canada spent a lot too. I think it’s done to toe that ‘centrist’ line. The reality is conservatism is a minority.

    The sad fact is fiscal conservatives/libertarians know what needs to be done but it just isn’t feasible where votes are concerned I reckon.

    1. I’d like to see the Supreme Court fix this via Supreme Law (Constitution). “where votes are concerned I reckon” — goes right along with why “robbing Peter to pay Paul” always gets a majority support for Paul. I think the founders knew/addressed this “democracy” issue not only in financial aspects but also in civil rights issues such as “two coyotes voting to eat the sheep for dinner”.

      To summarize that – The standard democratic vote will not fix these problems and I’m sure that is why the founders insisted a 2/3rd majority and the same from State ratification.

      How to get Constitutional supreme court justices who actually honor their oath of office like Scalia into the justice department might be best solution for the USA. However; It might not be anymore feasible than finding honorable/honest politicians who honors their oath of office.

    2. I guess you could say — I look at the problems in US Government as politicians running around breaking the Supreme Law compulsively and with no regard. I believe it’s the Judicial branch’s job to be the enforcer of the supreme law over the Administration and Congress. (i.e. Politicians)

  47. From Yahoo today – Rick Newman

    Supporters of Medicare for All, the huge, single-payer government health plan backed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and several other Democratic presidential candidates, say it’s time to think big and move to a health plan that covers everyone. Getting there is a bit tricky, however. A variety of analyses estimate that Medicare for All would require at least $3 trillion in new spending. That’s about as much tax revenue as the government brings in now. So if paid for through new taxes, federal taxation would have to roughly double.

    The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has done voters a favor by spelling out what kinds of new taxes it would take to come up with that much money. Warren justifies many of her programs by saying all it would take is “two cents” from the wealthy. That’s a reference to her 2% wealth tax on ultra-millionaires. But Medicare for All would be so expensive that if you taxed top earners at 100%—that’s right, if you took all the income of couples earning more than $408,000 per year—you’d still fall far short. And everybody getting taxed at 100% would obviously stop working.

    Okay, that won’t do it. So what will? CRFB outlined a variety of options. A 42% national sales tax (known as a valued-added tax) would generate about $3 trillion in revenue. But it would destroy the consumer spending that’s the backbone of the U.S. economy. A tax of that magnitude would be like 42% inflation, wrecking consumer budgets and the many companies that depend on them, from Walmart and Amazon to your local car dealer.

    Vote Dem!

Please to post comments