For the last 30 years I have only voted for Presidents who reduce the deficit...

As I said in last 8 presidential election, 7 times majority Americans voted for Democrats.

But you keep fixated on Trump got more vote then G.W. Bush ( 16 years later) , conservatism must be expanding.

 

That was the highest deficit in many years. Nearly three quarters of it was Obama. It would have been nearly impossible for Bush to have made much of a contribution in just over three months.

 

Dude thats wishfully thinking at best. Democrat would have spent that three hundred billion and another 700 billion besides it is what Democrats have done since WWII.

 

Running are ye

LMFAO

 

I get it, honesty is hard for right wingers


(93 budget bill not a single GOPer supported) OBRA, which mainly raised taxes on wealthy people but also raised the gas tax, extended limits on discretionary spending and cut back on some mandatory spending, was signed into law on August 10, 1993. Just five months prior, the Congressional Budget Office projected a 1998 deficit of $360 billion. One month after the bill passed, the CBO’s new estimate of the 1988 deficit was down to $200 billion. The CBO explained the dramatic improvement this way: “For the first time in two and one-half years, the deficit projections have taken a decided turn for the better… The reconciliation act deserves most of the credit for the improvement over the long run.” Indeed, of the $160 billion improvement from March to September of that year, CBO directly credited OBRA with $143 billion.

In fact, OBRA turns out to have been the single largest contributor to the 1998 surplus.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/Eb01-97.pdf



https://www.google.com/books/editio...+in+1996+and+1997&pg=PA32&printsec=frontcover

 

Yet it's the GOP who keeps gutting paygo rules to gut revenues, BJ BILL AND OBAMA BOTH GOT NEW REVENUES AND LOWERED THE DEFICITS!

 

Weird

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009


WHO WAS IN OFFICE THEN? Care to point to laws that Obama passed that caused the deficits? lol

 

Yeah it wasn't a WORLDWIDE BANKSTER PONZI scheme where they were able to bundle loans and sell them off, cheered on by Dubya in the USA. It was poor people


lol

Jun 16, 2005 — The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops

NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?

According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.

https://www.economist.com/special-report/2005/06/16/in-come-the-waves


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

https://archive.ph/H62Rh

 

Should've asked Ronnie or Dubya right? Maybe they have a plan?

"Starve the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending[1][2][3] by cutting taxes, to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending. The term "the beast", in this context, refers to the United States federal government and the programs it funds, using mainly American taxpayer dollars, particularly social programs such as education, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.


On July 14, 1978, economist and future Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan testified to the Senate Finance Committee: "Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today's environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast




Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

 

Sure ignore history

The first shutdown occurred after Clinton vetoed the spending bill the Republican-controlled Congress sent him, as Clinton opposed the budget cuts favored by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and other Republicans. The first budget shutdown ended after Congress passed a temporary budget bill, but the government shut down again after Republicans and Democrats were unable to agree on a long-term budget bill. The second shutdown ended with congressional Republicans accepting Clinton's budget proposal. The first of the two shutdowns caused the furlough of about 800,000 workers, while the second caused about 284,000 workers to be furloughed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995–1996_United_States_federal_government_shutdowns

 

You're not going to answer the question, are you

 

I did, just because YOU don't like it.


Does this help?

 

And that answers the question?

 

Yes shows how much discretionary spending has dropped since Reaganomics!

 

Always the wrong questions when it comes to deficit spending.
It's not so much "how much" as it is "what's it being spent on and is it an investment with possible returns or is it just an Albatros, that siphons more money"?

Spend money building 100 tanks and you just bought yourself a money pit that drains the treasury as they age.
Spend money building infrastructure to move goods and services around the country, and you have made an investment creating future wealth.

Eisenhower warned us about the "Military-Industrial Complex" decades ago because he understood what a money drain it would become at
the peril of not investing in income producing infrastructure.

But whatever. Conservatives have become all about the guns... so they'll continue to pump money into weapons industries. Liberals will waste money on
silly programs that benefit very few. And all of us in the middle will just be left supporting rich industrialist or non-workers.

These threads are silly-assed chest thumping about which skunk smells better.

 

Yep! We've had many Republican Presidents since 1960. Maybe TOO many.

Nope! Judging by the numbers mentioned on the OP, it just made the rich richer when Republicans increased it by providing welfare for the donor class. It's the ONLY thing increasing the debt has accomplished. Decreasing it in the last 30 years, on the other hand HAS meant improving roads, education, reducing crime, ....

 

Newt? When was he President?

Yes, a GOOD President understands how to get the opposition on board to carry out their agenda. Look at Biden! He just did the same with McCarthy. Outlook is good. Who in their right mind would expect a Divider in Chief like Trump or DeSantis would EVER accomplish anything like that?

 

The national debt ceiling, when the present limit-raising bill is signed into law, is $US31.4T. That comes to about $US94,000 for every person in the US.

There is a relatively effective way of dealing with this. It requires that our legislators adjust our taxes to cover the deficit each year. That will at least stabilize the national debt. Then, taxes can be increased further to slowly reduce the national debt over a number of years.

The debt is where it is because of the actions of the legislators whom we voted into office. We can pressure them to raise our taxes and solve* this problem. It's called 'taking responsibility'. It does no good to castigate our legislators when we ourselves are ultimately responsible.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

* Note the word 'solve'. It differs significantly from 'Ole!' words such as 'address' and 'consider'.

 

That's the point. It's not about spending. It's about the deficit. Spending in the right things: education, infrastructure, research, social equality, climate change mitigation,... REDUCES the deficit. It would have been better to have spent money 20 years ago in researching alternative energy sources, even when some of them didn't pan out, than the expense for droughts, hurricanes, floods, .... that we are having to deal with now. Of course, that's a long term investment. Shorter term investments include more roads, more bridges, a more educated workforce, reducing crime through inclusiveness and social mobility.... ALL the things that Republicans DON'T do anymore.

 

I'm not talking about spending. Read the OP! I'm talking about the DEFICIT. Who cares how much we spend if spending reduces the deficit. And, as it turns out, when we have a Republican President the deficit increases.

But just in case you are fixated on spending, THAT goes up too, when a Republican is in power regardless of WHO controls Congress. Even though it's worse when Democrats DON'T control Congress. So your hypothesis is completely demolished by facts. Spending not the topic, but if you insist on that, after reading the OP, don't forget to read my sig!

 

Are they? Probably equivalent to the discrepancy between facts and lies. Which is not something I would never expect anybody who believes that what they get from Tucker, Trump, Breitbart, ... is "facts". I don't bother with those...

 

Revenue minus spending equals deficit. You cannot talk intelligently about the deficit without including spending.

Spending can reduce the deficit only if it results in more revenue. That almost never happens.

We have a government, republican and democrat, who spends too much. It needs to stop. We cannot afford to continue down this road.

 

Sometimes it does happen. For example we have lot of potential money in uncollected tax receipts (taxes that are owed, but not collected), so to invest $4.5B per year to collect it was estimated to net over $200 billion per year. Some estimates said up to $600B.

Conservative argument for UHC argues it would lift the 2nd largest business expense (providing for health insurance) off of corporations shoulder which would increase their profits and hence boost tax receipts.

Also, government investments which boost economic activity produce more tax revenue. Even aid to other countries can boost economic activity in US as long as the aid has conditions that the recipient invests in US in return. Europeans are buying military gear like crazy from US because we have encouraged them to donate their old gear to Ukraine. In the meanwhile Russian share of global arms share has nosedived (which was happening already before the war in Ukraine). The investment of marketing US gear paid off.

 

Are you on crack? The deficit is completely dependent on spending. Spending cannot ever reduce the deficit. Spending can only increase the deficit. Spending can only reduce the surplus. It's not a difficult concept. Do you think that your credit card balance has nothing to do with your spending?

 

Funny how that DOESN'T happen when the President is a Republican. Regardless of WHO controls Congress. I think there is something to be learnt from that. Maybe somebody who is REALLY concerned about the deficit can help us out and explain what that is.