Excuse me. What I posted is important. When the rich were heavily taxed the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) declined. Since Republican tax cuts for the rich it has grown. Now Republican politicians want to cut popular domestic spending programs, and they oppose tax increases for the rich that are popular. I have documented each of those assertions. what is "cherry picked" about those facts?

 

For starters using percentage of GDP.
But you already knew that. We've discussed it before.

Since you want to double down, care to show us a single tax cut that only deplorables voted for?
Or a single spending cut that only deplorables voted for?
And define "rich" for us, so we know who you want to pay for your government bullshit, since clearly you aren't willing to pay for any of it.

 

Key GOP economic talking point destroyed by new analysis

Matthew Chapman
June 24, 2024 9:37AM ET




U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) gives a thumbs down during President Joe Biden's State of the Union address during a joint meeting of Congress in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 7, 2023, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)




National debt has for decades been a go-to issue Republicans try to use to persuade voters against supporting social programs — an issue that has crept back to the forefront with new reports that annual interest payments serving the national debt now exceed what the U.S. spends on its military.

But a new analysis reported by Axios makes it clear Republicans have their blame in the wrong place.

According to the report, former President Donald Trump's contribution to the national debt "was significantly higher, according to the fiscal watchdogs at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, thanks to both tax cuts and spending deals struck in his four years in the White House," reported Neil Irwin. In fact, Trump added almost double the amount President Joe Biden did: "Trump added $8.4 trillion in borrowing over a ten-year window, CRFB finds in a report out this morning. Biden's figure clocks in at $4.3 trillion with seven months remaining in his term."

ALSO READ: Rep. Byron Donalds, his gigantic Jim Crow myth and a forgotten fact about Black voters

In fairness, both presidents had to contend with a massively expensive and short-notice public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic, making both spend far in excess of what they would have otherwise. However, Irwin continued, "If you exclude COVID relief spending from the tally, the numbers are $4.8 trillion for Trump and $2.2 trillion for Biden."

A large portion of Trump's responsibility for the national debt comes from his 2017 legislation slashing taxes, which cut rates across the board and are projected to accrue almost entirely to corporations and the wealthiest earners.

Biden, meanwhile, spent trillions of dollars on a bipartisan infrastructure package and the climate and health care expansion called the Inflation Reduction Act, but these programs were largely offset by tax increases and some of them even paid for themselves. Other expenses under Biden include changes to how food stamp and Medicaid benefits are calculated, and student loan forgiveness for over 4 million people.

Because the U.S. is in charge of the money supply its debt is denoted in, a concept known as "monetary sovereignty," it in theory has wide latitude to issue new debt without defaulting, assuming Congress continues to raise the debt ceiling. Excessive debt, however, can transfer money to consumers to spend faster than the supply of goods and services increases, causing higher levels of inflation. So while the U.S. doesn't necessarily need to pay down debt faster than issuing it, policymakers try to prevent it growing faster than the size of the overall economy.

"Deficit politics may return to the forefront of U.S. policy debates next year," noted the report. "Much of Trump's tax law is set to expire at the end of 2025, and the CBO has estimated that fully extending it would increase deficits by $4.6 trillion over the next decade."


https://www.rawstory.com/republicans-economy/

 

So,....according to a Trump hater,.....Trump Bad

 

The interest on the nation's debt is now greater than the annual cost of every other government program except social security.

Understand?
We spend more to pay INTEREST on the debt than we do for defense, border security, welfare or transportation.

And the politicians continue to point fingers while spending like drunken sailors.

They aren't taking care of our business. They're taking care of their business.

And we're paying for it.

TWAT

 

It's ok,....Biden wants to jack up everyone's taxes

 

Years ago George Will, who has more integrity than most Republican politicians and commentators, wrote a column I wish I had saved.

He argued that Republican tax cuts for the rich and the near rich do not benefit those who are not affluent, but they do benefit the Republican Party.

A large and growing national debt makes it difficult for the Democrats to introduce programs designed to help their natural constituents in the working class.

The Republican Party benefits when white blue collar workers think, "The Democrats never did me any good. At least the Republicans won't take my guns."

 

Democrat "Programs" only serve to buy votes from stupid people incapable of seeing through the democrats lies.

 

10% for the big guy, eh?

 

The deplorables are finally beginning to at least give more than lip service to getting the debt under control. And of course, the despicables will fight them every step of the way.​

House Republicans unite on spending cuts to non-defense programs, but Senate roadblock awaits
Story by KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press
• 11h •

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are off to a quicker, more united start this year when it comes to funding the federal government, passing four of 12 annual appropriations bills before the end of June compared to zero at this time last year when the new majority got off to a rocky start.

But there is no denying the spending fights to come.

All four bills that passed the House so far generated veto threats from President Joe Biden 's administration and drew widespread Democratic opposition and they have no chance of passing the Senate in their current form. That means a protracted, months-long battle that will likely require one or more stopgap spending bills to keep the federal government fully open when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1.

Here's a snapshot of where things stand in the appropriations process and the likely flashpoints.

Plowing ahead
House Republicans are intent on passing the dozen appropriations bills one at a time rather than combining them into one, massive catchall bill known as an omnibus, which they say leads to excessive spending and faulty government policies because such massive bills are harder to amend or stop without risking a government shutdown.

Earlier this year, Speaker Mike Johnson broke up the discretionary spending into two bills. Congress ended up passing them in March nearly halfway through the fiscal year. Now, House Republicans are intent on moving more quickly for the fiscal year 2025 spending bills. Johnson bragged that the House has passed four of next year's spending bills compared to zero in the Senate.

“House Republicans have committed to building that muscle memory back and go through with regular order,” Johnson said.

Non-defense spending cuts
The House GOP's momentum is likely temporary. They decided to go their own way rather than work with Democrats in crafting the bills. GOP leadership jettisoned key aspects of an agreement then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy worked out with Biden that put in place strict spending limits as part of a deal to avoid a crippling default.

The agreement called for defense and non-defense spending to increase 1% during the next fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. But House Republicans have decided that they'll pursue a course where only defense will go up that amount. Non-defense spending will be cut by about 6%, spurning adjustments McCarthy and the White House agreed to that would allow for more non-defense spending than was specified in the debt ceiling legislation.

The difference between the two paths is significant. If House Republicans stayed with the McCarthy-Biden agreement, non-defense spending would rise from nearly $773 billion this year to more than $780 billion in the next fiscal year. Instead, they are working toward roughly $725 billion in non-defense spending.

Rep. Tom Cole, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, argued that House Republicans are going by what was in the debt ceiling bill. Not all of the Biden-McCarthy agreement was in it. The negotiators had agreed to claw back funding approved outside the appropriations process to shore up non-defense spending and keep it relatively flat. For example, negotiators agreed to trim $20 billion from the IRS and apply that money elsewhere.

The White House says that “rather than respecting their agreement” and engaging in a bipartisan process, “House Republicans are again wasting time with partisan bills that would result in deep cuts" to law enforcement, education, housing and other programs.

Cole argues that Democrats have brought the GOP's course of action on by voting with eight Republicans to oust McCarthy.

“Democrats need to understand that they participated in getting rid of the speaker. It was their choice. They had every right to do it. But if you think you can get rid of the person you cut the deal with, and the deal's going to stay the same, maybe you need to rethink it," Cole said.

Meanwhile, House Republicans are adding scores of policy mandates to the spending bills that are dead on arrival with a Democratic-led Senate and White House. For example, the House defense spending bill would not allow the Pentagon to reimburse servicemembers for travel expenses related to getting an abortion. Many troops and their dependents are based in states where abortion is now illegal so they must travel to get abortion care.

Democrats see the House GOP's action as failing to learn the lessons of last year. Any spending bills passed into law will need bipartisan support. They described the House floor action on the spending bills as a waste of time since the bills have no chance in the Senate.

“Extreme MAGA Republicans are marching us toward a government shutdown,” warned Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Where things stand in the Senate
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray and the committee's lead Republican, Sen. Susan Collins, have been in talks behind the scenes negotiating topline spending totals for defense and non-defense programs.

Both are looking to go above the 1% increase slated for defense and non-defense under the agreement that Biden and McCarthy reached.

Boosting the defense budget is a top priority of some Republicans, but Murray is insisting on parity.

“Parity is the order of the day,” she said. “Because investments in our families, in our economy, in communities’ safety and success are no less important than investments at the Pentagon.”

The committee is scheduled to take up its first three spending bills on Thursday and the topline amount of money to be allocated for each of the 12 spending bills.

If the Senate goes beyond the 1% increase, that could complicate passage in the House, where many Republicans viewed the spending caps as too generous. A few months after those caps were approved as part of the debt ceiling bill, eight Republicans sided with Democrats to oust then-Speaker McCarthy from his job.

Lame-duck or wait until next president is sworn into office?
Nobody expects Congress to finish its work on spending before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, meaning that lawmakers in both chambers will have to agree to a stopgap spending bill to keep government agencies operating for a few more weeks while they work out their differences.

Congress is not expected to be in session in October, so lawmakers can be at home on the campaign trail. That means spending legislation will be pushed into November and possibly December or it will be pushed off for a new president and Congress to handle. Some Republicans believe they have a good chance of winning the Senate and the White House, so they should wait until next year to pass the spending bills.

But leadership is pushing to deal with spending this year, saying that if Republicans do take the Senate and the White House, they'll want to focus on other priorities, including tax policy and the border.

“Whether we win the Senate or not, the filibuster is still there, and that's the real leverage for either side in the Senate,” Cole said. “So why stick a new president, who hasn't even gotten his people into place, with dealing with it?”

Lets be crystal clear on one thing; the current level of government spending is not sustainable. We cannot tax our way out of debt, we must cut spending significantly.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time (usdebtclock.org)

Current debt; $34.8 TRILLION
Debt per taxpayer; $266,784
Current Federal spending; $6.8 TRILLION
Current Federal Tax Revenue; $4.9 TRILLION

The most appropriate course is for Congress to take a meat axe to Government spending and cut ALL government spending by 25%. The only exception is benefits for Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment. These programs are funded by dedicated payroll taxes and are designed to be self sustaining. However, administrative spending for these programs should also be cut by 25%.

Congress should also be required to pass only balanced budgets in a timely fashion. If they fail to do so the President should veto the bill and mandate a special session of Congress, including both the house and the senate, until a balanced bill is passed and put on his desk.

Any new spending would require a dedicated funding source, not including existing tax revenues. Those revenues are already spent. If someone wants a new bridge, they have to include how they intend to pay for it.

Any new revenue sources would first go to the debt; once the debt is under control a new bridge could be built. But not before.​

 

It was not supposed to be this way. In his debate with President Carter in 1980 Reagan promised that he could cut taxes, raise military spending, and balance the budget by 1983 without cutting popular domestic spending programs.

It did not happen, and it has not happened since, but Republicans have not learned. They hand out tax cuts like candy, and blame the resulting growth in the national debt on the Democrats.

 

Predictably the dog shows up with his "It's all Reagans fault" bullshit.
Try this dog;
Reagan was president from 1981 to 1989. Reagan left office well over 30 years ago. Since then both parties have had control of both the white house and Congress long enough that they could, had they wanted to, enforce a balanced budget and controlled spending.

Neither party has even tried.

When you get your head sufficiently out of liberal anal orifices and realize that the debt is a SPENDING problem and not a political problem we can talk.

Until then kindly take your same old bullshit and go sit in the corner.
Everyone is tired of your same old bullshit.

 

And the dog doubles down.
@Distant Lover
Please explain your understanding of the difference between the Federal Debt and the Federal deficit.
Then please explain how the deficit has any relevance to a discussion of long term Federal debt.
And finally, please, going forward, try not to sell us your particular brand of diversion.
It wastes time and detracts from the adult discussion.

Bonus points;
Remember when Clinton PROMISED America would be debt free by 2013?
Clinton contends US will be free of debt by 2013 – The Irish Times


Was that Reagan's fault as well?

 

This is why we cannot tax our way out of debt.
No matter what, if there's money the politicos will find a way to spend it.
In fact, even if there isn't money they find a way to spend it.​

California Residents Outraged After State Approves Millions in Reparations While Battling $47 Billion State Deficit (msn.com)

California Residents Outraged After State Approves Millions in Reparations While Battling $47 Billion State Deficit

 

Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Biden.

Since President Joe Biden was inaugurated, the federal debt has increased by more than $7 trillion.

On Jan. 20, 2021, the day of Biden's inauguration, it was $27,751,896,236,414.77, according to data published by the U.S. Treasury Department. As of this Fourth of July, it was $34,847,568,990,054.13.

That is an increase of $7,095,672,753,639.36 -- in less than four years.

No other president has increased the debt that much between his inauguration and the Fourth of July in his fourth year in office.

When President Donald Trump was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2017, the debt was $19,947,304,555,212.49. On the Fourth of July in 2020 -- the year of the COVID pandemic -- it was $26,447,922,718,271.66.

That was an increase of $6,500,618,163,059.17.

When President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. On the Fourth of July in 2012, it was $15,880,986,464,325.29.

That was an increase of $5,254,109,415,412.21.

When President George W. Bush was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2001, the federal debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64. On the Fourth of July in 2004, it was $7,259,602,983,923.51.

That was an increase of $1,531,826,245,618.87.

According to the Treasury Department data, the total debt of the federal government first exceeded $7 trillion on Jan. 15, 2004.

So, what does that say about the more than $7 trillion increase in the debt that happened between Biden's inauguration and this Fourth of July? It says that in less than four years under Biden, the debt has increased more than it did under all American presidents from George Washington to Bill Clinton.

www.townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2024/07/10/debt-up-7-trillion-under-biden-n2641647

 

It's an election year and the debt has become a hot button item again.
We aren't optimistic that anything will happen, since no matter which party gains the oval office they will be part of the problem, not the solution.​

10 Reasons the US Debt Is So High (msn.com)

1. Economic Downturns: During economic recessions or crises, government spending often increases to stimulate the economy and provide support to individuals and businesses. This temporary increase in spending can contribute to higher debt levels.
2. Government Spending: The federal government consistently spends more money than it collects in revenue through taxes and other sources. This persistent gap leads to budget deficits, which are financed by borrowing.
3. Wars and Military Spending: Military expenditures, especially during times of war or global conflicts, require substantial funding. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, contributed significantly to the national debt.
4. Social Security and Medicare: Social Security and Medicare are large entitlement programs that provide benefits to retirees and healthcare for seniors. As the population ages and healthcare costs rise, these programs contribute increasingly to government spending.
5. Interest on Debt: The U.S. government pays interest on its debt, which has become a significant and growing portion of federal expenditures. As the debt grows, so does the interest burden, further increasing the deficit if not matched by revenue increases or spending cuts elsewhere.
6. Healthcare Costs: Healthcare costs in the U.S. are among the highest in the world. Government spending on healthcare programs such as Medicaid and subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) adds to the national debt.
7. Infrastructure and Public Investments: Investments in infrastructure, education, research, and development are essential for long-term economic growth but often require government funding. Funding these investments through borrowing can contribute to the national debt.
8. Demographic Trends: Demographic shifts, such as an aging population and declining birth rates, impact government finances. They affect programs like Social Security and Medicare, increasing government spending pressures and contributing to higher debt levels.
9. Political Gridlock: Political disagreements and gridlock over fiscal policy can hinder efforts to address the national debt. Lack of consensus on tax policy, spending priorities, and entitlement reform can delay necessary adjustments to reduce deficits and stabilize the debt.
10. Tax Cuts: Tax cuts, especially during periods of economic downturn or as part of stimulus packages, reduce government revenue. If not offset by corresponding spending reductions, tax cuts can exacerbate budget deficits and increase the national debt.

But really when we get right down to it, the problem is Government Spending more than it gets in revenue. Social Security and Medicare are dedicated funding programs that should be able to stand on their own, and should not be part of the problem. Ever.
​

Wars and the economy are short trends comparatively speaking, and should be absorbed relatively easy if we had a healthy government funding practice that didn't consistently spend beyond it's means.​

In any case we'll see what the next Congress does to further increase the debt.​

​