• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump promised Bob Woodward he would pay off the national debt in two terms.

SmartCat said:
Obama was digging out of the Great Recession Bush II left him with. The time to borrow money is during a recession. The time to pay off the debt is during a recovery. During the 2016 primary Trump said he would raise taxes on the rich. What became of that promise?
Click to expand...

Why don't you post the legislation that Obama generated that brought us out of recession in June 2009? It is so easy to make liberals look like idiotic as the Democratic Elite have it mastered
 
Conservative said:
Typical liberal spin where percentage change trumps actual dollars. Do we pay debt service on the percentage change or the dollars? Is 1.7 trillion Reagan debt worse than the 9.3 Obama debt because the percentage change is worse?
Click to expand...

Yes it is


Typical Conservative Spin

The ability of a country to pay the debt is vastly more important than the size of the debt. Debt to GDP is used to determine that. A 2 trillion dollar debt to a 4 trillion dollar economy is not bad, a 2 trillion dollar debt to a 2 trillion dollar economy is much worse, a 2 trillion dollar deb to a 1 trillion dollar economy is a nightmare

To quote James972

Do you understand now
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Please show me the APPROVED Budget for 2009 and then the line items Bush spent since apparently the 2009 deficit belongs to Bush and then liberal logic, the 2017 deficit belongs to Trump, LOL
Click to expand...

Obama can only be held responsible for 8 years, the same as Bush, the same as Clinton
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Yes it is


Typical Conservative Spin

The ability of a country to pay the debt is vastly more important than the size of the debt. Debt to GDP is used to determine that. A 2 trillion dollar debt to a 4 trillion dollar economy is not bad, a 2 trillion dollar debt to a 2 trillion dollar economy is much worse, a 2 trillion dollar deb to a 1 trillion dollar economy is a nightmare

To quote James972

Do you understand now
Click to expand...

No, we pay debt service on the dollars not the percentage and that is your problem. It is a lot easier paying the 2.6 trillion dollar debt, the amount Reagan left the country with, 900 billion Carter, 1.7 trillion Reagan than the 9.3 trillion Obama debt
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Obama can only be held responsible for 8 years, the same as Bush, the same as Clinton
Click to expand...

2009 to 2016 is 8 years but you want to blame Bush for the 2009 deficit. In order for Bush to be responsible there has to be a approved spending authority which he didn't have
 
Conservative said:
Why don't you post the legislation that Obama generated that brought us out of recession in June 2009? It is so easy to make liberals look like idiotic as the Democratic Elite have it mastered
Click to expand...

Obama did get the United States out of the recession. The reason it did not happen sooner was because he did not raise taxes on the well to do as much as he should have, and he did not begin government hiring programs.
 
SmartCat said:
MarketWatch Feb 9, 2018

What to do about all this debt? The fact is even if he cares, and I don't think he does, Trump hasn't a clue. He actually said back in 2016 that he could wipe out the debt simply by negotiating better trade deals. Here's an excerpt from a March 31, 2016 interview with Bob Woodward of the Washington Post:

Woodward: "Would you ever be open to tax increases as part of that, to solve the problem?"

Trump: "I don't think I'll need to. The power is trade. Our deals are so bad."

Woodward: "That would be $2 trillion a year."

Trump: "No, but I'm renegotiating all of our deals, Bob. The big trade deals that we're doing so badly on. With China, $505 billion this year in trade. We're losing with everybody."

It's impossible to overstate Trump's fiscal and economic ignorance here. The trade deficit with China when Trump spoke with Woodward was $366 billion, and the entire U.S. trade deficit with all countries, was $531 billion, according to Census Bureau data. That's a drop in the bucket compared to $20 trillion.

This was Trump’s craziest promise yet - MarketWatch

------------

Aol Jul 27th 2019

Once President Trump signs the budget deal that was passed by the House on Thursday and is expected to be approved by the Senate in a few days, he will have added $4.1 trillion to the national debt, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The total national debt surpassed $22 trillion in February...

U.S. GDP growth fell to 2.1% in the second quarter.

Trump adds $4.1 trillion to national debt. Here's where the money went - AOL Finance
Click to expand...

Trump does not seem to understand the debt problem much better than democrats who also show little or no understanding. Trump talks about eliminating the debt in ways which will never be possible. Democrats don't even hint at wanting to eliminate the debt. Just about all the democrat presidential candidates are tripping over each other promising bigger and more devastating ways to sink the American economy under devastating unsustainable debt.
 
Mycroft said:
Last year, Trump successfully renegotiated one of those crappy trade deals he was talking about way back in 2016 and we have the creation of the USMCA. This new trade deal will be hugely beneficial to all three countries involved, but especially for the US. Such is the power of a good negotiator. So...what's the status of the USMCA? It requires Congress to sign off on it. That process starts with the House. So far, Nancy has been silent about the issue, while she does nothing to get the ratification process rolling. In this most recent spending legislation, Congress used the debt ceiling as the threat to get Trump to pass THEIR spending increases. And now...people blame Trump for it. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. These are examples of Congress scheming, maneuvering and putting up roadblocks to prevent Trump from doing the right thing for the US. All they care about is making Trump look bad...even if it hurts the People...even if it hurts the Country...even if it blows the spending deficit and the National Debt sky high. And the useful idiots? Well...we see how they are reacting here in this thread. "Trump!! Bad!!"
Click to expand...

Yes we see how the useful idiots react... rewriting history to blame a party that wasn't in control of ANY branch of government in 2016.... :shock:

What did tRump do for his first two years???? Work his 'magic' on trade, the 'dafiset' as oxcy Rush called it????

No Sir, he launched at a series of windmills- Muslims, South American Immigrants, hugging North Korean dictators, cutting taxes on the wealthy.... :doh

What did the Republicant Congress do???? More loser attacks on the ACA that didn't add up to a steaming pile of tRump…. :roll:

No the useful idiots line up to denounce the Party that wasn't in control of any branch of government and appauded the idiotic red meat rantings of a demi-goad...

Spare us the excuses... :peace
 
Conservative said:
No, we pay debt service on the dollars not the percentage and that is your problem. It is a lot easier paying the 2.6 trillion dollar debt, the amount Reagan left the country with, 900 billion Carter, 1.7 trillion Reagan than the 9.3 trillion Obama debt
Click to expand...

You have no financial sense at all. None absolutely zero

If you have a debt service of $400 billion, on an income of $1 Trillion, that is high

If you have a debt service of $400 billion, on an income of $2 Trillion, that is high but half the burden of the above

If you have a debt service of $400 billion, on an income of $4 Trillion, the burden is 25% of the top one.

Debt to GDP is used as a proxy for the debt burden a country has.
 
marke said:
Trump does not seem to understand the debt problem much better than democrats who also show little or no understanding. Trump talks about eliminating the debt in ways which will never be possible. Democrats don't even hint at wanting to eliminate the debt. Just about all the democrat presidential candidates are tripping over each other promising bigger and more devastating ways to sink the American economy under devastating unsustainable debt.
Click to expand...

Democrats want to pay down the national debt the way President Clinton did, by raising taxes on the rich.
 
SmartCat said:
Obama did get the United States out of the recession. The reason it did not happen sooner was because he did not raise taxes on the well to do as much as he should have, and he did not begin government hiring programs.
Click to expand...

LOL, yes, the answer to growing our economy is raising taxes? No wonder you people have zero credibility
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
You have no financial sense at all. None absolutely zero

If you have a debt service of $400 billion, on an income of $1 Trillion, that is high

If you have a debt service of $400 billion, on an income of $2 Trillion, that is high but half the burden of the above

If you have a debt service of $400 billion, on an income of $4 Trillion, the burden is 25% of the top one.

Debt to GDP is used as a proxy for the debt burden a country has.
Click to expand...

If you have debt of 1 trillion dollars doesn't make a bit of difference what the GDP is you pay the debt service on the 1 trillion dollars. Not sure where you got your education but it is scary to see comments like yours. Is 1.7 trillion in debt worse than 9.3 trillion in debt? the 1.7 trillion in debt added to the 900 billion inherited was 2.6 trillion on a 5.2 trillion dollar economy. Obama's 9.3 trillion in debt added to the 10.6 trillion he inherited was 19.9 trillion on an 18.9 trillion dollar economy, get it yet?
 
SmartCat said:
Democrats want to pay down the national debt the way President Clinton did, by raising taxes on the rich.
Click to expand...

Please explain to us all how Clinton paid down the debt by adding 1.4 trillion to it, Treasury.org
 
Conservative said:
If you have debt of 1 trillion dollars doesn't make a bit of difference what the GDP is you pay the debt service on the 1 trillion dollars. Not sure where you got your education but it is scary to see comments like yours. Is 1.7 trillion in debt worse than 9.3 trillion in debt? the 1.7 trillion in debt added to the 900 billion inherited was 2.6 trillion on a 5.2 trillion dollar economy. Obama's 9.3 trillion in debt added to the 10.6 trillion he inherited was 19.9 trillion on an 18.9 trillion dollar economy, get it yet?
Click to expand...


The ability to pay is vastly more important then the number itself.
 
Conservative said:
Please show me the APPROVED Budget for 2009 and then the line items Bush spent since apparently the 2009 deficit belongs to Bush and then liberal logic, the 2017 deficit belongs to Trump, LOL
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
2009 to 2016 is 8 years but you want to blame Bush for the 2009 deficit. In order for Bush to be responsible there has to be a approved spending authority which he didn't have
Click to expand...

So which years do you want to assign to Obama remember just 8 years, and they have to be in succession
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The ability to pay is vastly more important then the number itself.
Click to expand...

The U.S. will always have the ability to pay as the Gov't can print the money, you don't seem to grasp the reality that 1.7 trillion in debt is a lot better than 9.3 trillion in debt even though the 1.7 trillion is triple
 
SmartCat said:
Democrats want to pay down the national debt the way President Clinton did, by raising taxes on the rich.
Click to expand...

No, that cannot be done. Just do the math. Clinton didn't do it either. Have you ever tried to prove the debt was paid down during the Clinton years?
 
Conservative said:
LOL, yes, the answer to growing our economy is raising taxes? No wonder you people have zero credibility
Click to expand...

When we have had Democrat presidents with Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress the top tax rate has usually been higher than when we have had Republican presidents with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. The growth in the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) has also been greater.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP
 
marke said:
No, that cannot be done. Just do the math. Clinton didn't do it either. Have you ever tried to prove the debt was paid down during the Clinton years?
Click to expand...

ASK FACTCHECK
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
By Brooks Jackson

Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.

BudgetSurplus 2.jpg

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org

----------

The lie that President Clinton did not leave office with a growing budget surplus is a hijack from the opening comment of this thread, which is a comment on Trump's lie that he could pay off the national debt in two terms with "better trade deals." That may not have been a lie, however. Trump may have been delusional enough to believe that.
 
SmartCat said:
Democrats want to pay down the national debt the way President Clinton did, by raising taxes on the rich.
Click to expand...

President Clinton did not pay down the debt by taxing the rich. When Clinton came into office he was the first president EVER to have a retroactive tax increase. He increased the taxes to be paid on the previous years income. He did this almost his first day in office (violating one of his most basic campaign promises) claiming he didn't realize the state of the economy was so desperate. This retroactive tax increase was the largest in history at the time. After the 1994 midterm bloodbath Clinton stated, "Quite frankly I think I made a mistake raising taxes so much".

It is important to understand after the 1994 bloodbath The GOP was in COMPLETE control of the government with a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress. It has since been learned Clinton wasn't even calling the shots in the Executive branch for most part (Read Stephanopoulos "All Too Human" and Dick Morris and B. Clinton "My Life"). During this time Dick Morris was enacting his legendary triangulation strategy. Not just some, but ALL of credit for balancing the budget rests with the GOP under Newt Gingrich. Furthermore, the GOP didn't do it by raising taxes on the rich or anyone else.
 
Conservative said:
2009-2016. This is a game, right?
Click to expand...

Both of you are engaged in a ridiculous argument. It isn't quite as simple as what years are attributed to what President. First of all, congress has a more important role than the president or at least as important. It is beyond clear there is a correlation between debt reduction and GOP control of Congress.

It is also important to recognize most years neither party is in control of Congress. This often results in a continuation of monetary policy from the last controlled Congress. It is exceedingly difficult for either party to reduce spending regardless of the level of control they enjoy. Under our current political system it just can't happen. Once an expenditure is in place it remains almost in perpetuity for several reasons. No representative or senator wishes to cut appropriations to their district. Cuts must be brought up for vote and it is therefore all too easy to avoid the political penalty for spending when all you have to do is NOT ADDRESS it. The appropriations get lost among 5 trillion dollars worth of other appropriations and representatives aren't held accountable for something no one has the time or wherewithal to bring to light. The best the GOP (the Dems have no interest in cutting spending) can do is hold spending fixed.

In addition the lack of understanding of basic economics enjoyed by the average voter does nothing to hold our government accountable. It's all too easy to twist the numbers and point out obscure economic data in a manner which supports whatever position one has. In the confusion the voters pick up on whatever dribble of data spouted by their preconceived candidate. Most voters vote the party line because it is easier than actually thinking and understanding the economics. They vote based on emotion. This is certainly the case among the Democratic voter. Often the case among the GOP supporters. The small percentage of the population who do understand the economics tend to vote GOP.

If you can't reduce spending the only remaining alternative to affect debt is to raise or lower taxes. To the uneducated it might seem at first glance this must be done by raising taxes. Under our current monetary policy this cannot work. Growing the economy and inflating the debt away are two other alternatives. Cutting taxes is only possible if one has both the desire to reduce the debt through economic growth and control of the government. With a split government it isn't possible and one must resort to holding spending fixed and inflating the debt away (unless tax cuts from previous governments controlled by the GOP are still in effect). Gridlock keeps things as they are.

Trump has developed a revolutionary strategy only possible due to the incompetence of previous governments. He also achieved tax cuts for every income bracket, especially the middle class, during his first 2 years. These tax cuts will remain in place and continue to bring benefits until the unlikely event the DNC achieves a veto-proof majority in both houses, or a successful 2020 bid in the House, Senate, and Executive. Elimination of excess regulation is the third leg of Trump's strategy and shouldn't be ignored.

I predict Trump will achieve a resounding victory in 2020. If I am correct he will go down in history as having the most successful sustained economic expansion in US history. This policy can be sustained not just through 8 years of Trump but 16 years out before the windfalls are exhausted.
 
SmartCat said:
ASK FACTCHECK
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
By Brooks Jackson

Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.

View attachment 67260947

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org

----------

The lie that President Clinton did not leave office with a growing budget surplus is a hijack from the opening comment of this thread, which is a comment on Trump's lie that he could pay off the national debt in two terms with "better trade deals." That may not have been a lie, however. Trump may have been delusional enough to believe that.
Click to expand...

Again, Clinton may have presided over a balanced budget, but he did not pay down the debt. The deficit may have been lowered under Clinton just like it was under Obama, but the debt had to soar under Obama in order to lower the deficit. The deficit will never be the real problem but the debt will always be the problem that threatens to sink the US into bankruptcy hell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom