Why Did Joe Biden Stop Talking About the Deficit?
The federal budget deficit has exploded under Biden's watch, and he can no longer pretend otherwise.

At times last summer, it seemed like the only thing President Joe Biden wanted to talk about was the federal budget deficit.
"We're on track to cut the federal deficit by another $1.5 trillion by the end of this fiscal year. The biggest decline ever in a single year, ever, in American history," Biden claimed during a May 2022 press conference. Later that same month, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed touting his economic program, Biden wrote that the deficit would fall by $1.7 trillion and repeated the "largest reduction in history" claim. That talking point was still getting heavy rotation in September when the president bragged on 60 Minutes about his deficit-cutting powers.
And this wasn't Biden shooting from the hip. It was a clear messaging strategy from the White House's communications apparatus, which pushed out "fact sheets" to reporters and shareable graphics on social media emphasizing the apparently falling budget deficit.
Today's Congressional Budget Office report projects that this year, the deficit will fall by $1.7 trillion — the single largest reduction in the federal deficit in U.S. history. pic.twitter.com/o3UjYwOKZt
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) May 25, 2022
Of course, as Reason (and other outlets) clarified, the falling deficit was not the result of anything the president had done. There had been an unprecedented amount of federal spending in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that spending drove the budget deficit to record highs: over $3.1 trillion in 2020 and more than $2.7 trillion in 2021.
Compare this chart, from the Treasury Department, with the misleading one the White House shared on Twitter, to understand the subterfuge:
As the pandemic passed and federal spending returned to more normal levels, so did the annual budget deficit. (In fact, the deficit would have fallen further last year if not for Biden's policies, thanks to things like the infrastructure bill and last year's federal budget.)
Anyone knowledgeable about the federal budget or capable of reading a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report could have told you that last year's $1.38 trillion deficit—the largest in more than a decade, if you ignore the two pandemic years—was not actually an indication that the federal deficit was shrinking. The White House has lots of people like that working for it, but the Biden administration chose for political reasons to push a different narrative, a false one, that ignored important context and relied on misleading statistics.
So how's the budget deficit looking after the first three quarters of the current fiscal year? "The federal budget deficit was $1.4 trillion in the first nine months of fiscal year 2023," the CBO reported last week. That's "$875 billion more than the shortfall recorded during the same period last year." The CBO projects that the deficit will ring in around $1.5 trillion when the current fiscal year wraps up on September 30.
Funny that Biden doesn't want to talk about that.
It's less funny that he's also ignoring the trajectory of the federal deficit in future years. Rather than shrinking, the gap between federal revenue and federal spending is on course to widen dramatically in the coming decades. That means the federal government will have to take on more debt, and the rising cost of that debt will "slow economic growth, drive up interest payments to foreign holders of U.S. debt, elevate the risk of a fiscal crisis, increase the likelihood of other adverse effects that could occur more gradually, and make the nation's fiscal position more vulnerable to an increase in interest rates," the CBO warned last month.
Tellingly, Biden has opposed the two small steps that have been taken toward shrinking the deficit so far this year.
First was the passage of the debt ceiling deal, which included some discretionary spending caps that will marginally reduce future budget deficits. Biden successfully blocked a House Republican attempt to impose stricter spending caps as part of that deal and refused to include entitlement spending—the real driver of long-term deficit growth—in the negotiations.
Then came the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Biden's expensive student loan forgiveness plan. That ruling will reduce the 2023 deficit by about $400 billion, according to estimates by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit that advocates for reducing deficits.
Strangely enough, the collapse of Biden's student loan forgiveness scheme might cause this year's budget deficit to fall slightly lower than last year's, which Biden had been so eager to brag about. (In last week's update on the deficit, the CBO said it was unsure about that because the administration is still trying to push through another expensive student loan policy that will allow borrowers to make smaller payments.)
That ought to prove that all the talk about deficit reduction was merely political opportunism for the president. Biden was eager to take credit for a falling federal deficit that had nothing to do with his policies, but he has no apparent interest in the difficult tradeoffs that will be necessary to actually curb the federal government's addiction to debt.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fuck Joe Biden!
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
I am making really good money (80$ to 100$ / hr. )online from my laptop. I was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $100 however I see the way it works now. sd370 I experience mass freedom now that I’m my non-public boss.
Everybody should start earning money online by
using this website……. https://www.join.salary49.com
On that not, the IRS whistleblowers are testifying today. One of whom is a gay married male democrat. I can’t wait to see how the democrats smear him.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,700 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,700 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Fuck Joe Biden!
Not even with YOUR dick!
I've been told the Biden economy is so amazing, its strengths so numerous, that it's difficult to list them all. Not enough hours in the day.
Consider these mindblowing metrics:
RIG COUNT is up.
Inflation is a non-issue.
The TSCPI (Taylor Swift Concert Profitability Index) is off the charts.
The 20 richest people on the planet (except Charles Koch) are rapidly getting richer.
Any one of these would make an effective TV ad for Biden 2024.
#DefendBidenAtAllCosts
I earn 200 dollars per hour working from home on an online job. I never thought I could accomplish it, but my best friend makes $10,000 per month doing this profession and that I learn more about it.
Here’s how she did it…………… https://Www.Coins71.Com
They should use Jamie Raskin to narrate the ads.
Brandon is actually an undercover agent working against Big Government, a 50 year mole who still has not broken cover. His mission was to be such an over-the-top example of Spendy that the public and even politicians could not avoid waking up and coming to their senses.
Alas, his handlers overestimated the public and politicians, and by now Brandon is as senile as Slim Picken's B-52, and cannot be recalled from its mission. We will soon find out if rumors of the Doom$day Machine are true!
So he can’t be recalled from his mission because he doesn’t recall his mission?
Financial accounting, with, like, numbers, is racist. And challenging the government on what the deficit means is heresy. Now shut up and vote for higher taxes.
He's just continuing in the Reagan tradition of doubling the debt every four years.
Who the fuck do you think you're kidding Mingo-Mango-Mongo, you would be one of the whiniest, most hysterical blue-haired lipstick lesbian cunts in America of your Social Security benefits got reduced even a single dollar.
Thanks for providing more evidence that half the people you meet are of below average intelligence.
Fuck off pussy. You’re done.
So no criticism of his programs, executive orders, or policies. Just more deflection whenever a Biden criticism is given. Interesting.
Ideas!
You competing with RC for the title of dumbest person in the commentariat?
^ Ideas!
I'll take that as an emphatic affirmative.
So many ideas.
IDEAS!!!
"How long 'till we get to the zoo?"
https://colt45maltliquor.com/
You call jeff and Mike seal lions while you throw fish at JA and ML. To funny.
Mike the Sea Lion will be a best seller if a rainbow or Ukraine flag make it onto the cover. Iirc, I once implied that fat and groomer-adjacent jeff was engaging in Sea Lion like behavior but haven’t gone all-in on that. I can’t say I’d apply that monicker to others but you can do as you please. If I had fish, I’d compost them into fertilizer and not use them in the comments section. The idea of food independence is important.
Add Sea Lion to the ever growing list of terms sarc doesn’t understand.
Andre the Seal was non-fiction and infinitely more entertaining, as well as being close to home.
Agree. A lot of work will be needed to transition Mike the Sea Lion into something other than the inspiration’s boorish, rube existence. The challenge is great but so will be the rewards: introducing children to logical fallacies will help them better maneuver through life and should fill gap that currently exists.
Sounds like you give that other book your seal of approval.
Sarc doesn't know what sea lion means lol.
Using Mike's posts to point out the logical fallacies in what he is rebutting would be a good show.
If you want to do a book of fallacy fellating, contrasting Tony with JesseAz would be an interesting comparison of how the left vs the right gags on strawman cock. NTTAWWT
Please give an example of one of my fallacies sarc. Difficulty. You have to know what the fallacy actually means.
The major difference as I see it would be that Tony is a homosexual puffer while JesseAz is a heterosexual ass-fucker.
Tony is all “Stick it in my mouth” while JesseAz is like “I’m gonna stick it in your ass.”
Neither are good company.
And no, master baiter, you are wrong when you say I don't have you on mute. The fact that I am not responding to your masterful baiting is prima facie that you're muted.
Can see that you are carrying the HO2 for the Sea Lion. They should stay hydrated. Your good deed for the day.
Your back must be tired from portraying poor, innocent JesseAz and ML as the protagonists in this play.
I only now figured that ML could mean Mother's Lament or Mike Laursen, though I think everyone knows I mean the Canadian Cunt.
There are stretch goals to expand Mike the Sea Lion into a Broadway play but only if the life story of Pluggo does well - Diddler on the Roof. Any musical that portrays Pluggo is bound to win a tony award.
Man that is a lot of hate from sarc who just this morning claimed he didn't hate anyone. Even started randomly attacking Tony.
Rage drinking sarc? Sorry for pointing out your idiocy below. Didn't know you care so deeply about your idiotic statements.
Given that it's Diddler on the Roof, it'll definitely win Tony's award.
You’re competing with Jeffy for ‘biggest pussy’. Now run away, like you have for the last 5 months.
Shrike is going to kick your ass if you take his title and try to give it to someone else. Especially just because you disagree with each other.
"There had been an unprecedented amount of federal spending in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic"
Why do Reason writers keep pushing this false narrative? Spending didn't rise dramatically because of the pandemic! Spending is what government does. The economic emergency that was caused by unprecedented lockdown orders - an unjustified and unjustifiable response to the trumped-up pandemic emergency - gave them an excuse to spend unprecedented amounts of fiat money to help recover from the disaster that government caused! And then government spent even more unprecedented amounts of fiat money in response to the disastrous inflation caused by the previous bout of unprecedented spending. COVID-19 caused an unusually high death rate temporarily and even that, we suspect, was caused by government sponsored gain of function virus research. You should be more careful what misinformation you casually spread on background comments!
"...The economic emergency that was caused by unprecedented lockdown orders – an unjustified and unjustifiable response to the trumped-up pandemic emergency – gave them an excuse to spend unprecedented amounts of fiat money to help recover from the disaster that government caused!..."
Cannot be repeated often enough.
It was predictable (and predicted) that the planned economy caused by the lockdowns would lead to systemic economic failures which would cause further government economic distortions and failures.
You cannot claim this was a surprise; we should have been rioting in the streets February 2000 instead of accepting the government take-over of the economy.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
I’m actually quite serious with that comment. We haven’t paid down the debt on an annualized basis since 1957. We’re clearly never going to pay down even a fraction of the debt we have now. If China or whomever else decides to call their notes in–and let’s get real, they won’t do this short of us actually acknowledging Taiwan as an independent state, and maybe not even then–what the fuck are they going to do about it? Go whine to the World Bank about it?
If the global creditors don’t give a shit and the Fed keeps printing funny money, there’s no reason for us or our politicians to care about it, either. This isn’t the 80s and 90s, when this whole question over the national debt was a lot more important than it is now, and it's a big reason fiscal conservatives really have no political clout anymore.
The debt doesn't matter as long as the economy is growing at a rate such that the government can keep on paying interest. The problem is that that's not what is happening, so debt maintenance keeps growing as a percentage of the budget. The math says that in a decade or two debt maintenance will start crowding out other parts of the budget and eventually exceed tax revenue.
That's when things are gonna get real.
They're just going to print money to cover any difference. People keep saying things are going to "get real", but the money printers have been running full blast since the 60s and anyone who shops at a grocery store on at least a semi-annual basis can see it plainly. The inflation isn't "coming". It's already here. Real actual inflation is already rocking at least 10%. I'm no economist with a ton of data and points to analyze, but that's the minimum number I would believe. If someone laid out a proof that real inflation is upwards of 15 or 20% I could be persuaded.
The inflation won't stop until interest rates exceed inflation. That's the rule. Maybe they'll raise the rates, maybe they won't, but there's no sense in endlessly speculating about what's really going to happen when the shit finally does hit the fan. We're already in the middle of the propeller-induced coprolite dissemination.
They could print money to monetize the debt, but unless interest rates keep up with inflation investors will start shunning bonds. That's when the shit really hits the fan because the government will have to make do with what it takes in tax revenue while still maintaining existing debt.
but the money printers have been running full blast since the 60s and anyone who shops at a grocery store on at least a semi-annual basis can see it plainly.
It's notable that, prior to the Great Depression, inflation and deflation rates could swing wildly, but the overall price of goods and services tended to stay pretty static. One tended to balance out the other. Since the end of WW2, save for the Great Recession, we've only had inflation take place. Even a 2% inflation rate still jacks up the cost of goods at an exponential rate, and a 10% rate is an absolute disaster.
I was watching "Saturday Night Fever" the other day, and laughed my ass off when Tony had to put a $25 shirt on layaway because his job at the hardware store didn't pay him enough to get it right away. Talk about a different time.
Recessions were also deeper but shorter. The main thing monetary policy has seemingly done is protect normal industry that would fail during a recession (a needed part of free markets) and lengthen recessionary periods.
I watched that movie for the first time recently and I couldn’t help but wonder about an era where that little guy that ran the dance studio scored with 65% of the chicks he met.
It must have been really easy back then.
Well this is a bookmark.
Take a look at what payments on the debt are.
I figured I'd unmute for a moment because I couldn't figure out how you could make a personal attack on me from that comment, and of course I was wrong.
Look at what the payments are as a percentage of the federal budget and you'll see that the percentage keeps rising. Anyone with a basic understanding of math (that obviously leaves you out) can see that if that percentage keeps increasing, it will crowd out other spending and eventually take over the entire budget.
Back on mute you go. Enjoy circle-jerking to bookmarks with your troll buddies, mister master baiter.
What personal attack buddy? I already know you don’t mute me. Why you raged when I said I would bookmark it.
Youre also using the wrong metric when you say payment as a percentage of a budget because that percent will remain low if they just spend more. It is a retarded metric. You want to look at percentage of payment on the debt as aligned with GDP, not spending.
If spending growth increases by say 100% in a budget, the percentage if the budget for debt would decrease. Yet your analysis would commend it. Because you dont actually understand the issue.
I see you didnt look at how the payments to the debt are increasing as a percent of GDP or you would know that.
I already know you don’t mute me.
No, you just flatter yourself.
Youre also using the wrong metric when you say payment as a percentage of a budget because that percent will remain low if they just spend more.
If they spend more then they borrow more which increases debt which increases debt maintenance.
Just admit that you are math-challenged and stop trying to have conversations with people who are smarter than you.
I mean you literally just said back on mute yet responded. Lol.
You truly don't understand math do you.
Budget is 1000, debt is 100. 10% debt.
Next year budget goes up to 2000, debt is 150. Debt goes down to 7.5% of budget despite increasing by 50%. This is why debt as a % of spending is dumb.
Hey look at that. Actual math.
Oh hey, another dummy who thinks math must involve numbers. You and Dlam should hang out.
Well this was a response.
And a bookmark.
Um, Sarc, that's kind of how math works. It uses numbers or variable stand-ins for numbers. You might want to take a remedial pre-algebra class sometime as you're not even ready for middle school algebra.
I mean you literally just said back on mute yet responded. Lol.
Yeah. I thought I'd entertain your stupidity for a few minutes. Shame on me.
POST THE LIST!
So you don't mute me. As I said and you lied about.
Crawl back to your garbage can, pussy.
It was condemned as a hazmat scene.
As a percentage of income, your mortgage payment decreases over time. Correct?
Let’s say you don’t even bother with paying on the principle. You only pay interest. The payment will still decrease as a percentage of income. Correct?
Now let’s say you’re a government with no interest (no pun intended) on paying back the principle. Nobody cares. Your debt is their income. You just keep making interest payments. If your debt was static your interest payments as a percentage of your total budget would decrease.
If your borrowing kept pace with your income, you could theoretically maintain your debt as a constant percentage of income without ever paying any principle.
This is when you start calling me names because what I said is more than your feeble brain can comprehend. The alternative would be giving me credit for teaching you something, and you'd lose face with your trollios if you ever admitted to that.
^^ a post JesseAZ will never bookmark because he's interested in scoring points, not learning things.
I already responded but why would I bookmark your response that basically undoes your original argument i criticized? You switched from % of spending to % of income, it GDP as that is what influences tax revenue.
You just basically confirmed your original posy was idiotic. Lol.
Youre doing a lot of rationalization as to why tour first post was idiotic despite me giving you an easy and simple explanation a child can understand as to why it was idiotic. Why?
You can continue to make excuses for making your idiotic claim that debt as a percentage of government spending is a good metric but it was still an idiotic claim.
You even seem to admitnit here as you try to change the subject but that doesn't change your initial claim as not being idiotic.
Ironically what you tried to switch your argument to is debt on income instead of debt on outlays. Which is the opposite of what you actually idiotically initially said. Income in your follow up would be akin to GDP growth as tax revenues increase due to increased GDP. Which is literally what I said the important metric was in my non idiotic post.
So it is funny that you switched to MY argument after I pointed out your idiotic point.
The math says that in a decade or two debt maintenance will start crowding out other parts of the budget and eventually exceed tax revenue.
This is why the "government will default" talking point is so dishonest--the government only defaults if it can't pay the note on its debts. It doesn't default if the debt ceiling isn't raised. The problem, as you stated, is that the interest on our debts keeps increasing the more debt we accumulate, and even all these years of ZIRP can't hold that off forever.
The problem, as you stated, is that the interest on our debts keeps increasing the more debt we accumulate, and even all these years of ZIRP can’t hold that off forever.
If government borrowing kept pace with economic growth, then revenue would increase at the same rate as the debt. In that case the debt wouldn’t really matter because debt maintenance as a percentage of the budget would in theory remain steady. The problem is that that percentage keeps increasing because government spending and borrowing grows faster than the economy.
Edit: speaking of interest rates, one percentage point equals hundreds of billions of dollars in increased debt maintenance for the federal government.
Percentage of the budget is meaningless. You were so close to correcting yourself but your bull like stubbornness refuses to let go.
You mean percent of GDP. LOL. Which would be the correct measurement.
Dems would prefer your metric as it makes debt look meaningless during covid spending sprees. Lol.
So far, it seems like the plan for when the cost of servicing existing debt exceeds incoming tax revenue is to just swat potential creditors on the nose with a rolled-up copy of the 14th Amendment and pretend that the "validitiy of the public debt" clause somehow makes it illegal to decide that a government with no intention of ever returning to fiscal viability (and at that point, probably little ability to do so) is no longer a wise place to lend more money into.
Biden won't address this eventuality while in office because he has no need to. With a MSM (and most major tech platforms making up the "new media" infrastructure) staffed by eager collaborators and a constituency who will consider anyone they've voted for to have accomplished a feat once an intention has been said out loud twice in public, the DNC machine will simply pivot to suppression of any mention of increasing debt or rising deficits as "foreign misinformation". When the lack of willing creditors forces the Fed to go back to runnning the presses Weimar-style (or Congress swings to an ideological leftist mix ignorant enough to "mint the coin" and pay off the debt with literal pocket change), the "progressive" faithful have already brainwashed themselves to believe that the resulting hyperinflation (and its first cousin, soaring levels of inequality) were actually caused by "corporate greed", and the pushback against those of their "prepper" neighbors willing to use private firearms to prevent their milk/egg producing goats and chickens from being slaughtered en masse to throw a single barbecue "for the greater good"
It makes a difference because at some point the global creditors are going to give a shit. They won't suddenly call our notes due but they will stop buying our notes and we will gradually cease to be the world's default Reserve Currency. We're already sliding down that path and it will get seriously bad when we are replaced. Just look at the economic performance of other countries who were, then stopped being, the default Reserve Currency.
Reference Pound Sterling.
While true the fact is this requires a viable alternative that others have more trust in and I can't name one in the short or mid term.
When our government can't pay interest on its debt, an alternative to the dollar will be found. Just look at the history of the Pound Sterling. It was the currency for a very long time. Then Britain had to sell off most of the empire to pay for war debt while embracing socialist policies, and waddayaknow the currency tanked. That's when the dollar took over. But it won't last forever. Nothing does.
The black market for Russian oil and NatGas that'd been building through China and India since the people behind Brandon's curtain imposed sanctions as part of the slow-motion ethnic cleansing we're funding in Ukraine might be allowing the Yuan to make some inroads as a potential new "reserve" (although they'd have to uncouple from the USD and probably be more honest with their economic data to get all the way there). The bigger worry there is that forcing increased cooperation between Putin and Xi could possibly lead to the formation of a new ready-to-roll "Axis" pairing to square off against when whoever is running US Foreign policy decides it's time to escalate into the direct shooting war between NATO and Russia.
At that point, I guess my Dem-faithful friends who scoff at the idea that "Make Orwell Fiction Again" is a shot at both major parties will believe they're vindicated, since we'll be at war with both "Eurasia" and "Eastasia" simultaneously, and the two minutes each day they spend shouting and throwing things at pictures of the "Bad Orange Man" will be vindicated because in their minds we'd never have had to get into the war at all if it hadn't been for the tape of him getting peed on by prostitutes in the Moscow 4 Seasons...
I'm almost finished with Robert Skidelsky's biography of Keynes and the third volume outlines Keynes trying with all of his might to keep the dollar from becoming the world's reserve currency. He would rather have had the IMF invent a new supranational currency than replace sterling with the dollar.
It makes a difference because deficit spending has unintended, mostly invisible, consequences that pervert the market. Things may look prosperous and it might be tempting to say, "well we're doing very well so why not keep doing what we're doing that seems to be working well now?" But you can only get away with that approach because it's impossible to compare the current situation and trends with what would have happened without the massive deficit spending!
In the fever dream of MMT we just turn the printers on faster and tax out inflation.
First it was "We are all Keynesians now."
Soon it will be "We are all Keltonites now."
Joe Biden says what he’s told to say by his handlers. He has dementia, or something similar.
Are “journalists” not allowed to talk about this Eric?
Eric, didn't you reluctantly vote for this shit? I guess it beats mean tweets or some such thing.
When you voted for Trump did you agree with all of his policies and actions?
If not, why do you accuse those who voted for Biden of agreeing with all of his policies and actions?
Seems rather dishonest.
But what of Biden's stated policy intentions or actions, besides not being Trump, were worth voting for for anyone who is the least bit libertarian?
I have a lot more respect for not voting than for picking one piece of shit you hate over another.
But what of Biden’s stated policy intentions or actions, besides not being Trump, were worth voting for for anyone who is the least bit libertarian?
I have no fucking clue. It's why I stopped voting.
Yet you felt the need to defend Eric for voting for Biden. Your hypocrisy is amazing.
He’s a huge pussy too. I’ve been calling him out for 5 months for his drunken violent threats, and the weak, cowardly little bitch runs and hides every time.
The other guy was worse:
over $3.1 trillion in 2020 and more than $2.7 trillion in 2021.
I voted for gridlock (Biden) because Fatass was worse. Period.
You think Trump could have stopped the insane Covid spending? 2020 is a totally dishonest benchmark. Not to say that Trump was any good when it comes to fiscal restraint.
You think Trump could have stopped the insane Covid spending?
McConnell and Trump controlled 2/3 of government. The myth of the "rock-ribbed conservative" has been shattered forever.
Hey faggot pedophile, McConnell and Trump didn’t do chit together. So stop with your bullshit.
Did you know the only upshot to your presence here is that it leaves you less time to rape small children? Although a better solution is for you to simply commit suicide.
"The other guy was worse"
"I voted for gridlock (Biden)"
That is so funny; because Democrats don't do 'grid-lock' when it comes to spending. They don't care which party is in charge if the word 'spending' is written they ALWAYS support it.
2020 CARES ACT (written and sponsored by DEMOCRATS)
Democrats = 230 YEA; 3 NAY
Republicans = 189 YEA; 2 NAY
Final vote roll-call was FRAUDED by Democrat House speaker
[R] Thomas Massie objected loudly against it.
[R] Rand Paul objected loudly against it.
2021 ARPA Bill (written and sponsored by DEMOCRATS)
Democrats = 220 YES; 1 NAY
Republicans = 0 YES; 210 NAY
Democrats final objection to spending 4.
Republicans final objection to spending 214.
BOTH bills pitched, written and supported by Democrats.
I fail to see anything but BS in your conclusion that the Trump administration and R's objecting to spending 3/4 of the time is "worse" than the Biden Administration and D's who NEVER objection to spending.... UR F.O.S.
Joe Biden first took federal office in 1973 when the federal debt was $458B.
Absent if a four year hiatus, Biden has helped grow the federal debt to $32,500B.
No wonder Joe isn’t talking about this.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
The "deficit is shrinking" narrative was in part put together to counteract the "deficits/spending cause inflation" dogma.
If, in fact, massive spending causes inflation then Biden can blame the other guy.
I know that the MAGAs want to forget 2020 ever happened though or blame Biden for 2020.
It is similar to the 40% or so who wrongly blame Obama for the Bushpig's bank bailout (TARP).
Soros’ Pedo Bushpig 2 has spoken.
TARP was deficit neutral. What Obama did, along with Reid and Pelosi, was set the increased TARP spending, a one time expenditure, to the budget baseline. The same thing Joe did with covid spending.
Pesky facts and all.
Baseline? What bullshit.
TARP was supplemental spending.
Obama voted for it.
Is your keyboard sticky from spanking it to underage porn?
If the keyboard does stick, you must convict.
Obama even signed FY09. Bush refused.
Yes. Added to the baseline budget. Just like Joe just did.
Thank you for confirming my point.
TARP was supplemental spending, but when it came time for Obama to claim credit for "deficit reduction" he did the math as if it wasn't so he could take credit (with an assist from his allies in the MSM who would crawl over a field of broken glass to avoid asking him anything like a challenging question until after the 2014 mid-terms when he was into the lame-duck phase) for not having spent a similar amount again the following year.
That kind of magical bookkeeping was completely orthodox compared to some of the tricks that were used to pretend that the Gov't was eventually "made whole" on stunts like the GM bailout (where the Treasury tried to book it as "profit" when the company used bailout funds to buy back the equity share the government had taken as part of the scheme).
Now Biden is running the same page from that playbook, by pretending that the extra $6Trillion in "emergency" spending, which largely went to enable Dem governors in lockdown states to try to keep their local economies on some kind of artificial life support rather than allowing people to even attempt to continue their livelihoods for 2 years, would otherwise have needed to be made permanent if not for his brilliant leadership. So extraordinary in fact that the DNC put up billboards in leftist stronghold cities thanking him by name in the early summer of 2021 (kind of weird passing the giant propaganda mural praising Biden for "getting us back to normal in 100 days" when Newsom still had half of the businesses and all of the public schools in the state closed at that point because we were only 17 months into the "six weeks to flatten the curve" that were supposed to have been the key to beating Covid; between the giant signs praising our "beloved leader" and the razor-wire fortress around the Capitol building, the same folks who spent 6 years calling the bad orange man an "existential threat to democracy" sure had the US looking like some cross between Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea on short order once they re-took the reins of power....
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
You’re a liar and a moron.
Which Obama voted for.
By the way, is your keyboard sticky from spanking it to underage porn?
It's not the spending that causes inflation, it's the Fed printing new money by the $Trillions to fund that spending which causes inflation.
Mailing half the population $1200/month to spend at the exact time that global supply chains are crippled by left-wing statist authoritarians like Newsom, Cuomo, and Treudeau trying to imitate the brutality of the CCP (in an attempt to replicate a reduction to zero new cases which they now claim they never actually believed) will exacerbate price increases in the same myopic non-solution manner that most other "progressive" and crypto-Marxist policies tend to play out even in good circumstances, but that's different than the kind of inflation which comes from wholesale debasing of the currency.
The Federal Reserve increased the US base "money supply" by an amount proportionally bigger than Weimar Germany in order to fund the deficits run up from 2008-2019, and then in 2020-2022 they did it again. Now the DNC "machine" media as well as the leftist portions of the "alternative" commentariat are pushing the idea that the inflation which is manifesting as a result is actually the result of corporate "price gouging" (a popular data point being the increase in the Starbucks "Oat milk surcharge", which to milleneials is apparently a significant macroeconomic indicator?). Left-thinking folks, being apparently incapable of processing rising dollar-value profits being the result of small margin businesses seeing all of the numbers in their ledgers (costs, revenues, taxes, and profits) rising as a result of doing business in units of money which are losing value individually, so to them the correlation reads as only possibly being causation.
"It is similar to the 40% or so who wrongly blame Obama for the Bushpig’s bank bailout (TARP)."
By subtraction, does that mean that 60% falsely blame Bush for the bursting of the housing bubble which was made possible, along with the formation of "Too Big To Fail" financial operations, by the 1999 "Banking modernization" legislation that passed through both houses of Congress with 70%+ support from each party in each House of Congress and was signed by Bill Clinton at the urging of his pals Bob Rubin and Larry Summers (in fairness to Bill, a veto wouldn't seem likely to have held up anyway)?
Virtually every Dem in Congress cheerled the inflation of the housing "bubble" (not to mention the State Dem party here in CA where the whole thing was epicentered) all the way up. There was no attribution of involvement/responsibility on the part of the administration at the time until the inevitable (or as Dems from the local to Federal levels as well as in the media described it, the unforseeable) happened and the bubble popped just like every other asset bubble going back to Dutch Tulip bulbs; then it was all "Bush's Fault". Same goes for the TARP itself, which passed Congress with about 2/3 of its support coming from Dems and 2/3 of its opposition coming from the GOP ( https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml ); Pelosi even made a point of going on TV ahead of the vote to excoriate the opposing party for "playing politics with the economy" because so many Republicans opposed bailing out the banks at all (ironically the founding idea behind the "Tea Party" and OWS was basically the same for both sides). That part of history was pretty quick to go down the partisan "memory hole" among the most faithful apostles of St Barack the Infallible, though.
If only we could get back to the "good old days" when $700Billion was considered to be a huge package of spending on its own and the out-of-power party would pretend to get ripshit angry over annual deficits in the 11 or 12 figure range instead of accepting $1Trillion plus as simply the "new normal"....
One of the many downsides to a society that no longer has children is that over time you have fewer and fewer long term taxpayers funding tge system at the same time you have more and more tax benefit recipients (the aging population problem).
This Bismarck/Roosevelt modern welfare state absolutely HAS to have a constant and steady supply of young skilled people entering the workforce to be able to be even remotely viable long term. And don't give me this BS that the illiterate third world immigrants make adequate stand-ins, most of them pay nowhere even remotely close to the amount of taxes that Americans who can read, write, and speak English do.
Why Did Joe Biden Stop Talking About the Deficit?
Because he's senile and they didn't put it on his note cards.
At this point, a steadily worsening profile is a fait accompli. And as much as Reason staffers want to feign the vapors over the whole matter, their only proposed solution will be to insist Republicans need to commit political suicide by proposing an end to Social Security. Of course, if they actually do that we'll see how quickly they turn on a dime to condemn those Republicans for not having "an alternative plan in place" (which kind of defeats the claim of cutting spending).
Social Security contributes Zero to the deficit.
The fact that SS will be depleted by 2034 is not a current problem.
Money is fungible.
See the example of we can't not spend to oblivion on homelessness. I agree it's not contributing to it now directly but it's affecting other welfare appropriations plannings and if the homeless funding is any example then it is indirectly/will be.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Why Did Joe Biden Stop Talking About the Deficit?
Because he's a big cause of it?
Gee, I wonder...
Oh, maybe that's why.
He doesn't need to pretend to.
The editorial staff at NYT, WaPo, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and corporate leadership at Facebook, Apple, Google, Youtube, and Instagram will pretend for him, and any questioning of the idea that the deficit is going down (and the chocolate ration is going up) will be suppressed as "dangerous misinformation" or "russian psyops"
On a related topic, when is Reason gonna cover the whistleblowers alleging Biden took bribes? I mean, Reason was all over the Russiaprobe and the Kavanaugh accusations, not to mention both impeachments, so it's strange that Reason is covering it.
Ot will likely be some bullshit ‘Boaf sidez’ article by…….. maybe Robbie?
Hey, Eric! Who got your vote, TDS-addled shit pile?
Reluctantly, Biden.
Not nearly ‘reluctantly’ enough; it’s not like droolin’ Joe’s actions weren't predictable, and Trump remains the best POTUS we’ve had in a century.
Up yours, Eric.
Are you kidding? Biden has been a serial, pathological liar for his entire life. Now he has the power of the entire executive branch behind him.
Biden will tell you with a straight face that the deficit is lower than it has ever been, and then he will have his "disinformation board" persecute anybody who contradicts him.
Maybe he finally realized that talking about the Deficit is a really dumb thing to do; so he stopped,
As the pandemic passed and federal spending returned to more normal levels, so did the annual budget deficit. (In fact, the deficit would have fallen further last year if not for Biden's policies,
Why would Biden want to talk about something that exposes his bad policies and budget lies?
The one chart there more clearly shows the effects of Congress control as probably the leading force in spending. Perhaps the most frugal governments have been GOP Congress working to undercut every spending fantasy held by a Democrat President.
An R President can only veto spending that a D Congress passes, but then Congress can override the veto. D Congress will spend as much as they please.
A D President and a D Congress tends to ratchet spending up up up as they check off each dream-legislation list items plus all the pork spending they can imagine.
A R President and an R Congress tends to ratchet spending up, too, but not so much as D/D.
Why isn't Reason talking about Marsha Mainor, the GA state legislator, who defected the Demoratic party, and became Repulican?
Changing a D to an R after her name subjected Georgia lawmaker to vile racism.
…from Democrats, the party of anti-racism!
She seems to have handled the whole thing so far with aplomb and grace, answering each disgusting tweet with “Sorry you feel that way” and (mostly) redacting the offenders identifying info
Rep. Mesha Mainor (@MeshaMainor) / Twitter
I would like to help your retarded black a** by telling you. That saying you would support any candidate picked by the GOP during the primary is retarded. Not only is is retarded you live up to the word n****r by just following blindly. Remember you were a Democrat and “felt abandoned” to become a Republican, and now you’re going to follow blindly like you did with your party. You’re the stain on society that needs to be flushed. I wish you the absolute worst in your political history. You Uncle Tom b****.
You dumb** aunt Jemima mother f***ing traitor! I will be sure to take a good chunk of my retirement savings, which is substantial, and will donate it to whoever it is that will be running against you, you self-hating black negress b****.
Oh, yo’ll see come 2024 how I will help to make sure you are defeated! Go run in a Republican confederate district that loves self-hating n****rs lie you!
This b**** killing herself. Convincing conservatives and their dips*** children to commit suicide is the greatest service one can offer humanity.
You n****** b*****…get back on the plantation and stop eating your fried chicken and watermelon with Vernon Jones.
F*** you c**n, you monkey b****, you wanna be a party traitor and go under Brian Kemp’s whip because he offered you more yams and collards? You are despicable and poplar might serve you well.
And many more like this…she screenshotted them…just check her Twitter feed.
Here's a much more relevant question: Why has Reason never once mentioned the IRS whistleblowers in the Hunter Biden case? Search the Reason website for the name of the key whistleblower, senior IRS investigator Gary Shapley, and you get zero hits. Very strange.
You would think that giving attention to whistleblowers who are potentially revealing illegal activities of the government would be something that Reason, if it were truly libertarian, would be all over.
The US Government has stolen on Credit $199,599/per citizen.
STEALING stuff doesn’t make resources. Conquer and Consume doesn’t make resources … because nobody is going to want to work and produce resources for absolutely NOTHING but exercise. The only way to ensure survival is to ensure Liberty from armed-theft and Justice ( *earning* free-market value ). You cannot pretend food in your mouth even if you think ‘guns’ make sh*t (they really don’t).