Nikki Haley Burned Trump and Her Fellow Republicans for Blowing Up the Debt. She's Right.
"Donald Trump added $8 trillion to our debt," Haley said during the opening moments of Wednesday's first Republican primary debate.

When it comes to runaway federal spending, unsustainable levels of borrowing, and the inflation that those first two things have helped unleash, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said Wednesday that Republicans better look in the mirror.
"The truth is that Biden didn't do this to us, our Republicans did this to us too," Haley said during the early moments of Wednesday's Republican primary debate. She pointed specifically to Republican support in Congress for COVID stimulus bills and other recent spending packages. "They need to stop the spending, they need to stop the borrowing, they need to eliminate the earmarks that Republicans brought back in," she said.
Then she delivered the hammer blow: "And Donald Trump added $8 trillion to our debt, and our kids are never going to forgive us for this," Haley said.
She nailed it.
Nikki Haley: "The truth is that Biden didn't do this to us. Our Republicans did this to us too…You have Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott, Mike Pence, they all voted to raise the debt. Donald Trump added $8 trillion to our debt." pic.twitter.com/xHYiKkyt7s
— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) August 24, 2023
Trump promised to pay off the national debt within eight years when he was running for office in 2016. When he got to the White House, the national debt was a little less than $20 trillion. He, uh, didn't pay it off. Instead, federal spending climbed each of the first three years that Trump was in office—from $3.98 trillion in fiscal year 2017 to $4.45 trillion in 2019—then exploded in 2020 due to emergency COVID-19 spending. (For the first two years of Trump's term, Republicans also had full control of Congress, so there is a lot of blame to go around.)
When he left, the national debt was nearing $28 trillion. Today, it stands at $32.7 trillion.
Republicans have predictably swung back to a message of fiscal restraint during President Joe Biden's time in office, seemingly forgetting that the fiscal years of 2017 and 2018 ever existed.
Haley shining a spotlight on the bipartisan role of borrowing and spending in recent years was a welcome moment—and a powerful one for Haley, who stood out during Wednesday's sometimes chaotic debate. And it's critical for whoever wins next year's presidential election to be clear-eyed about the seriousness of the debt problem facing the federal government.
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
Thanks to Brown-envelope Boehm we now know which candidate our silver-spoon billionaire patron thinks will best serve his financial interests.
Haley (who I admit is otherwise detestable) rightly points out republicans' biggest hypocrisy--even if the whole thing was packaged in a brown envelope.
To be fair, it’s been that way for a long time. Clinton and Gingrich were the only politicians in the last 60 years that even bothered to try and balance the budgets, and they were only successful in that the surplus ended up going in Social Security, anyway. We still haven’t paid down the national debt on an annualized basis since Eisenhower.
Haley can talk all the shit she wants here, but she wouldn't be any different in office, either.
Yeah, I agree with everything you said there.
Couldn't she put out a red light and charge $1T per?
Maybe bring "yachting" into the mainstream and tell Hollywood actors they can help pay down the deficit by banging random sugar daddies and cougars.
Totally agree.
Sure, it's a "Republican" hypocrisy, but a Trump one?
Trump's first year in office he proposed a budget with cuts. Congress responded with a bipartisan veto proof vote to raise spending instead. And that was with Republicans in the majority.
You think Trump was going to be able to put the brakes on spending once the Democrats took over in Congress?
"The truth is that Biden didn't do this to us, our Republicans did this to us too,"
The truth is Pelosi and the Democrat controlled house, Fauci, the globalists and the corporate financial interests you're suckholing did this to us, Nikki.
Where were Trump's vetoes?
All in with symbolism, are you? Fuck off.
It might have actually worked, and it certainly would have laid the blame entirely on Congress.
Here...
Trump vetoes colossal $740 billion defense bill, breaking with Republican-led Senate
It's okay though. The Senate overrode him.
A defense bill? Meaningless. I'm not going to look that one up, but it undoubtedly passed a short while later with a few cosmetic cuts.
What really counts is those damned COVID bills. I don't recall any vetoes there. He also kept Fauci and Birx on instead of firing them.
Not firing Fauci or Brix was far worse than him not symbolically vetoing Covid spending.
What if Trump HAD vetoed the COVID relief? The veto would have been easily overridden, and most of the people blaming him for not vetoing it would have savaged him for vetoing it.
They just want to destroy him. No matter what.
“Look, it was quaint that he actively opposed the Military Industrial Complex, but we need to focus on the dignity of the office that Donald J Trump violated while POTUS” - pundit
And the symbolism of a veto would have been greater than the symbolism of you telling everybody to fuck off.
I don’t disagree that Trump could have done a symbolic veto (I wish more presidents would veto shit that’s flagrantly ridiculous or unconstitutional), but I really wish we could shift the blame back to the people responsible for spending: Congress.
It’s a neat bit of propaganda/narrative building that they’ve been able to slough off their culpability for at least the last 40 years.
Reality Nate? If a Republican is President, he gets the blame for shutting down the government. If a Democrat is President, Congress gets the blame. It's a lose-lose for Republicans. That being said, it's still frustrating when Republicans raise spending under a Republican President when there would be no shut down no matter what.
Found the single Haley supporter. Reason can't help but cheer for the GOPe.
On X (twitter) the Tucker interview with Trump popped up in my feed. 74 million views as of the time that I saw it.
The SuperBowl did 113 million. The next best TV show was an NFL game at about 50 million.
Over 80 million now.
Things have definitely changed in political and news media.
If Fox wanted to silence Tucker, they sure did a bad job of it.
Interesting - I put "How many people watched the debate on Fox" in a google search box a moment ago.
The top 2 links were to ABC news and CNN video updates about the Fox debate. The first article was from PBS, talking about how Trump was not at the debate, and nobody was talking about him (so he must not be as relevant as polling seems to indicate)
NBC, MSNBC, NPR, NYT, Politico all come up high on the list. Notably absent? Fox and Fox news.
It literally is in the name I used as a search term, and it didn't come up. Also absent, anything about ratings. Which is odd, since that was the question asked.
You can't in good conscience refer people to a disinformation site.
"Trump was not at the debate, and nobody was talking about him"
I'm surprised the moderators didn't do what every left wing news organization has been doing for the past two years, namely ask interminable "gotcha" questions about Trump rather than focus on the issues. That said, I didn't watch either the debate or the interview.
LOL…
Lets see the figures here…. $3.98 trillion in fiscal year 2017 to $4.45 trillion in 2019 = Ewhh.. A whopping 470B.
Then Democrats won the House and wrote/pitched that COVID stimulus … then exploded in 2020 … nearing $28 trillion = $8T.
Then Democrats stole a trifecta and BOOM $28T to $33T = $5T.
Oh; but sure, sure – It was all Republicans, not Biden’s and his parties, fault for not STOPPING the Democratic pitched/written massive spending spree.
Granite. Republicans should’ve STOPPED it and not actually supported it – but to pretend it wasn’t entirely Democratic pitched and Democratic passed with MORE support is entirely deceptive.
And full praise to Rand Paul and Thomas Massie for actually speaking out against it; both Republicans.
And it is ignoring the political climate at the time. You had government at all levels ordering large parts of the economy shut down (and this being applauded in the media), not supporting the COVID relief legislation was characterized as being a heartless accountant pinching pennies in the face of an emergency. You do not have enough ideologically committed fiscal conservatives in politics at all to effectively resist that type of political climate. The politicians like that who do exist and hold any power are almost exclusively Republicans, but Republicans are the only party that catches criticism for not effectively opposing fiscal irresponsibility.
Especially when being fiscally conservative while Republican gets you attacked as evil across the media, including at Reason.
"but Republicans are the only party that catches criticism for not effectively opposing fiscal irresponsibility."
Well Said... +100000
Yeah. All together (still hopefully well said):
Republicans alone couldn't effectively prevent spending and that was *before* they wanted to kill grandma; but now that grandma's alive and vaccinated, it's their fault we overspent.
Full disclosure: This "criticism" is summarized and recognized as absurd/satire by someone unvaccinated because Trump paid for the vaccines up front.
Where were Trump's vetoes?
He saved them for the indictments!
Yes; It was a huge mistake for Trump and a ton of Republican politicians to support and vote for a Democrat written bill.
Now; Care to name the one's who would've vetoed it and how more of that kind can get elected or are you just here to say anything less than absolute perfection is the worst thing of all?
Thanks for reminding us. Republicans (such as Bush and Trump) pass one-time national emergency budget hikes, and their Democrat successors (Obama and Biden) make it the new baseline. Just say no next time.
Excellent analysis. This literally happened... twice.
The best one was Obama who just didn't present a budget at all. They just "continuing resolution"ed their way to an extra trillion in spending.
Government revenues and outlays in constant 2012 dollars - source OMB:
1980 1,394.6 1,593.7 -199.1
1981 1,455.3 1,647.0 -191.8
1982 1,393.2 1,681.9 -288.6
1983 1,291.0 1,737.7 -446.7
1984 1,367.1 1,747.3 -380.2
1985 1,452.4 1,872.5 -420.1
1986 1,490.3 1,919.0 -428.7
1987 1,609.4 1,891.5 -282.1
1988 1,655.9 1,938.5 -282.6
1989 1,736.0 2,003.4 -267.4
1990 1,756.8 2,133.1 -376.3
1991 1,719.1 2,157.8 -438.7
1992 1,709.0 2,163.7 -454.7
1993 1,755.9 2,143.9 -388.0
1994 1,881.3 2,185.0 -303.7
1995 1,962.2 2,200.2 -238.0
1996 2,065.8 2,218.5 -152.7
1997 2,199.2 2,229.7 -30.5
1998 2,377.7 2,282.1 95.7
1999 2,493.8 2,322.4 171.4
2000 2,694.5 2,380.2 314.3
2001 2,580.5 2,414.3 166.2
2002 2,364.9 2,566.2 -201.3
2003 2,210.2 2,678.4 -468.2
2004 2,271.2 2,769.8 -498.6
2005 2,515.3 2,887.1 -371.8
2006 2,715.6 2,995.7 -280.0
2007 2,818.9 2,995.3 -176.4
2008 2,677.4 3,163.8 -486.4
2009 2,236.3 3,737.0 -1,500.8
2010 2,257.1 3,607.9 -1,350.8
2011 2,348.3 3,673.2 -1,324.9
2012 2,450.0 3,526.6 -1,076.6
2013 2,736.3 3,406.5 -670.3
2014 2,932.3 3,402.8 -470.5
2015 3,137.3 3,563.9 -426.6
2016 3,135.0 3,695.9 -560.9
2017 3,128.5 3,756.3 -627.8
2018 3,071.3 3,789.9 -718.6
2019 3,138.5 4,029.9 -891.3
2020 3,042.7 5,828.5 -2,785.9
2021 3,500.4 5,900.8 -2,400.4
2022 4,000.8 5,124.8 -1,124.0
Doesn't quite fit your neat little narrative.
Rows of numbers supposed by the obnoxiously arrogant piece of shit to explain something or other.
Except the debt never went down. Oopsies.
Never claimed it did and you're moving the goalposts.
Where are these supposed one-time budget hikes? Look what happened to spending before Covid?
And how about some recognition that after the hikes, the deficit declined under Obama before rising again under Trump?
As I said, doesn't fit that narrative
My apologies, whenever shrike trots out this list, it’s usually to “show” how Clinton got us a surplus.
The original claim was that Democrats take a one time spending item (like with Bush and Trump) and use that for their baseline of government spending. Which your list shows they absolutely do. Not even you are so stupid that you can’t see that in 2009 and 2020 there was a significant jump in the outlays vs. a normal year of 100-200BB increase. And then that presiding democrat congress continues on instead of immediately returning to the previous levels of outlays.
Oh, and thanks for showing that the only time any meaningful cuts in spending have been achieved, it was because of Republicans (usually as a fuck you to the democrat president, but I’ll take it).
I didn't watch, but I'm pretty sure Tim Scott won. He's the only one who sounds reasonable.
“it’s critical for whoever wins next year’s presidential election to be clear-eyed about the seriousness of the debt problem facing the federal government.”
I’ve been hearing the word “critical” a lot lately in Reason articles. In fact, I seem to recall hearing it a lot in Reason articles over the last two decades. I don’t think that word you’ve been using – “critical” – means what you think it means! Critical means – or used to mean – that something devastating will follow immediately after, and as a result of, the critical factor. Recent examples include the end of “Our Democracy (TM)” after the Jan Six Riot; the election of Donald Trump as President; and nuclear winter, er – global warming, er – climate change – yeah, that’s right “Climate Change (TM)” – none of which has turned out to fit the definition of the overused, overcharged hype word “critical.” When a mass of U-235 goes “critical” bad stuff happens like radiation burns and sickness ending in death. When Nikki Haley is critical of xer political competitors, nothing bad happens immediately after. The two-party system continues to hollow out the Constitution, the full faith and credit of the United States and trust in governmental, news and educational institutions. While all of those things may – probably will eventually – reach a tipping point and chaos will quite suddenly strike American lemming society, crying “Wolf!” constantly is probably not having the desired effect. Give it a rest already!
The same terminology and flowery language (unsustainable, "our kids will never forgive us") is used to describe both national debt and global climate change.
Those who worry more about national debt tend to think that all of the global climate change stuff is fake or overblown.
Those who worry more about global climate change tend to think that all of the national debt stuff is fake or overblown.
Are either right? Probably not. National debt is not any sort of binding obligation on any one individual or other. It can be escaped, just by leaving the nation state that holds the debt. It can cause pain for those who hold any sort of asset backed by the nation state. The folks who worry are usually major funders of republican politics, and they are the ones who might stand to lose the most by any devaluation of US currency/bonds/debt.
Global climate change, on the other hand, to the extent that it is any problem at all (even if it is overblown), does have a binding impact on every individual or other that inhabits this particular planet. There will be no escape of its effects. It will effect the rich and the poor. It will effect the value of currency and assets. Moving to higher ground or another nation state will have limited benefit.
If the national debt is not sustainable, it eventually won't be sustained, and the spending will stop because there won't be any lenders. That will be the sign that it is over, when the US government wants to sell bonds and there are no buyers, regardless of the rate offered.
Nikki Haley did well. I don't expect her to be the nominee as the Republicans party base is old white men.
So, if Republican primary voters pick someone other than the candidate you like, it must be because they're racist & sexist? You're so full of shit...
She's not going to be the nominee because she's an empty suit that has nothing to actually offer the party's voters. I could at least see Christie being competitive in the northeast and maybe even picking up some of the Rust Belt states, but he's too autistically focused on litigating Trump instead of offering up what he'd actually do in office. Ramasway's doing well because he understands better than anyone on that stage how modern media reach works, even if he is mostly a fruit loop.
The NeverTrumpers, of course, badly want Hutchison, which is why he's at the bottom of the heap. These people really need to just drop the pretense and come out as Blue Dog Democrats at this point--you know, the ones who supposedly came in after the 2006 wave as "moderates" and were immediately marginalized by Pelosi and Reid unless they became party-line voters.
The debate also confirmed that Tim Scott is a nice dude, but he's not ready for primetime. The best thing about him being in office would have been watching him laugh off all the racist slurs against him by Democrats like our resident hicklib pederast. But he doesn't have a forceful enough personality to push any kind of agenda.
Pence is trying to have it both ways instead of taking a hard stand on principle as to why he didn't follow Trump's team's directions about stonewalling the electoral college vote, and then going back to his VP debates where he presented a "Trumpism without Trump" personality and whipped his counterparts' asses in the process.
I would not use the word sexist as I think misogynistic is a better description. I don't know how many times I have seen Nikki Haley's performance described with the B-word.
LOL... "old white men" bad!
Your ageism, sexism and racism on full display.
You think a butt-load of self-projection is going to hide that?
No projection, I am an old white man. In a country that is 50% women there was one woman on that stage yesterday, that is 12.5% of the candidates. And how was performance characterized, she was a B.
B? Online sources have her as a ‘C’. And visual evidence supports that.
So, what do you want to do, conscript women to run for office? They're a small minority of office holders because they're a small minority of candidates. When they actually bother running they do well, they just don't want to run for office.
Have you ever asked yourself why they don't run? Perhaps the way the Republican base treats women. NIkki Haley did a good job on Wednesday night why not just say that. Why is the Republican party not recruiting women to run? Maybe because women feel like their issue and concerns are not addressed by the Republican party. When they bring their issue and viewpoints to the public they are put down?
I don't care if Nikki Haley has a vagina or not. Any sex of person who claims the 'climate change hoax' is real lives in a land of delusion.
Unlike the Democratic party who worships the crotch like a god as they do with various other races. They are after all the party of slavery. The party in full support of the Nazi ideology. Everything about them is categorizing and empower this sex or race against the 'icky' ones. Day in and day out; JUST LIKE YOUR DOING RIGHT NOW.
There are plenty of Republican women in office. You’re ignorant of that because you’re a Marxist who thinks what your Marxist masters order you to think.
How did Nikki Haley do well?
She has a vagina don’t you know.. That’s how. /s 🙂
She is correct.
Trump is running scared and he has the early lead.
He is not willing to debate because there isn't much upside for him.
He is acting like Biden.
For Trump it isn't about ideas, it only about him.
Even if he was correct on everything (which is not possible), his personality causes more of a reaction and he will NEVER be able to do what he claims.
An honest assessment makes you wonder if he is a "Deep Cover" Democrat. It kinda like Trump is a hacker using a phishing scheme to destroy the Republican party. I don't understand the draw and why so many Republicans are allowing themselves to be duped.
Or perhaps he looked at the format and refused to be part of the also-rans. Or he looked at how the moderators treated him last cycle and their baseless attacks since and decided "fuck those lying cunts".
Exactly. He had to debate the "moderators" more than he did the other candidates.
It was a joke.
The dude is leading the pack by 50 points and is going to be the presumptive nominee. As far as presentation goes, he doesn't have to make his case to GOP voters, it's the other ones that do. And to be honest, they mostly failed to do that last night because these people all came up in a neocon-controlled environment, and this political realignment doesn't have much use for that faction anymore.
No he doesn’t. He already has a four year track record as president to make his case. The others don’t. Especially not Pence. As much as he tried to make it sound like any of the policy decisions were his, except for when he wanted to trash Trump.
The concept of “Republican” is very vague in American politics. Membership in political parties is fluid here and one’s voter registration card in some states will get stamped with your party affiliation only if you participate in an official party primary process. One might be a Republican one year, a Democrat the next year, a Socialist the third year and a Libertarian the fourth year by that standard. The firm support for Trump consisted of disaffected former working-class Democrats who felt abandoned by the Democratic party’s anti-industrial policies wiping out mining, manufacturing and steel jobs. Some of his supporters stay loyal to him because he runs rings around the establishment politicians with outrageous statements and bizarre behavior.
So where is Halley's plan to lower spending? Is she drastically reducing SS, Medicare and military spending or just importantly whining?
I for one recall all the media cheering for the lockdowns and applauding the helicoptering of cash onto the populace. Then Demoxrats turn that into base spend and there are crickets until it's time for the next Republicans bad refrain.
I see Charles Koch has his chosen candidate there, Eric "I Reluctantly Voted For Biden" Boehm.
Nancy Pelosi had nothing to do with this!