Time to bust the big Washington myth.

[Perotista]

View attachment 67216884

Although during Clinton it the amount of debt as a % GDP fell, it should be noted at no time did the deficit actually go down. The rate at which is has grown has fluctuated, but we've never ended a year with less total debt than we started.

Actually, we did twice under Eisenhower.
At the end of FY 1955 the national debt stood at 274,376,000
At the end of FY 1956 the national debt stood at 272,750,000, it dropped 1,623,000
At the end of FY 1957 the national debt stood at 270,527,000, another drop in the debt of 2,223,000

Every year since the national debt has risen each year. Those were the last two years where the national debt actually went down. Truman also lowered the national debt in three of his years as president. IKE and Harry, the buck stops here president proved it could be down, lowering the national debt. Perhaps for only two or three years, but each left the office of the presidency with a higher national debt than when they first entered. But one has to give them credit for trying and succeeding in actually bringing down the national in 5 of the 16 years those two served.

 

[Ikari]

Actually, we did twice under Eisenhower.
At the end of FY 1955 the national debt stood at 274,376,000
At the end of FY 1956 the national debt stood at 272,750,000, it dropped 1,623,000
At the end of FY 1957 the national debt stood at 270,527,000, another drop in the debt of 2,223,000

Every year since the national debt has risen each year. Those were the last two years where the national debt actually went down. Truman also lowered the national debt in three of his years as president. IKE and Harry, the buck stops here president proved it could be down, lowering the national debt. Perhaps for only two or three years, but each left the office of the presidency with a higher national debt than when they first entered. But one has to give them credit for trying and succeeding in actually bringing down the national in 5 of the 16 years those two served.

OK, true, I should have said for the modern Presidents. There have been a few, even going further back that Eisenhower did produce actual decreases in the aggregate deficit. And there was a time when we really tried to bring down the growth of debt too after WW II. But starting with Reagan, all that turned around, and ever since it's been essentially a spending free-for-all. Even Clinton, who by comparison seems to be the most fiscally responsible, grew the overall deficit.

 

[Master PO]

The ONLY time, let me repeat: The ONLY time that any party in Washington ACTUALLY cares about the deficit is when one party wants to use it as political ammo against the other. "Deficit reduction" in DC is simply an oxymoron. Consider it the legislative equivalent of the literary term: "Sanitary landfill".

the federal government is about, give me, give me, give me

 

[jonny5]

View attachment 67216884

Although during Clinton it the amount of debt as a % GDP fell, it should be noted at no time did the deficit actually go down. The rate at which is has grown has fluctuated, but we've never ended a year with less total debt than we started.

Youre confusing debt with deficit.

Deficit had indeed gone down thanks to Republicans using it as ammo and implementing some spending controls in 2011.

2009 -1,412.7
2010 -1,294.4
2011 -1,299.6
2012 -1,087.0
2013 -679.5
2014 -484.6
2015 -438.5

If what you meant was when has the DEBT gone down, Im not sure thats happened in a long time.
https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#2

 

[Fishking]

The ONLY time, let me repeat: The ONLY time that any party in Washington ACTUALLY cares about the deficit is when one party wants to use it as political ammo against the other. "Deficit reduction" in DC is simply an oxymoron. Consider it the legislative equivalent of the literary term: "Sanitary landfill".

Well, yeah...they want to be reelected and actually being fiscally responsible tends to result in less imaginary money coming in and people might lose their jobs. That's usually not a very good recipe for gaining votes for the next election.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

The ONLY party, let me repeat; The ONLY party, with ideas that have any hope of dealing with the deficit, is the party that seeks to unburden business and expand the tax base by providing the opportunity to increase the number of citizens who actually pay federal income taxes.

As a hint to which party that would be, it would not be any party that would be defined as belonging on the "left side of the aisle".

Yeah, we know. Tax the people that live paycheck to paycheck. "broaden the base." Brought to you the the Faux libertarians who get paid 6 figures by the Koch network and the trust fund baby foundations to write up nonsense for Cato, Heritage, et al.

 

[Exquisitor]

Yeah, we know. Tax the people that live paycheck to paycheck. "broaden the base." Brought to you the the Faux libertarians who get paid 6 figures by the Koch network and the trust fund baby foundations to write up nonsense for Cato, Heritage, et al.

I'd say no tax cut until we pay the debt and then filibuster if I had to hopefully the won't have the votes for their madness.

If they pass it we'll see how we do in three years. Growth fell a bunch last Quarter from December already for the Trumpets, just keep going.

And he comes out there, "Oh, we've got so much done."

 

[independentusa]

Actually the only president in the past forty years to even get close to a balanced budget was Bill Clinton. And he did it even though he increased taxes. And the prblem with your suggestion that we "unburden" business is that yoou are still thinking that Businesses are American or French or German or some other country. Businesses today are multinational and the idea that our country can do somethig that can unborden business by ourselves no longer works in todays world.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I'd say no tax cut until we pay the debt and then filibuster if I had to hopefully the won't have the votes for their madness.

If they pass it we'll see how we do in three years. Growth fell a bunch last Quarter from December already for the Trumpets, just keep going.

And he comes out there, "Oh, we've got so much done."

If they want to balance the budget, it's really not terribly hard.

Dealing with the debt is a much more complicated matter, and would require some economic engineering the right and left would both reflexively oppose.

 

[ocean515]

Yeah, we know. Tax the people that live paycheck to paycheck. "broaden the base." Brought to you the the Faux libertarians who get paid 6 figures by the Koch network and the trust fund baby foundations to write up nonsense for Cato, Heritage, et al.

Wow. What an original thought. Never seen anything like it before. Good thing it isn't taken verbatim from the never ending memes people on the left repeat over and over. (Sarcasm off)

The fact is, the only way the deficit, and the debt, can be addressed is by having more people contributing to the tax revenue base. That doesn't mean raising taxes on people with marginal incomes. That means helping to create an economy that raises incomes, and lowers the number of people earning marginal incomes.

To follow the spirit of your meme, perhaps you could detach from the liberal/socialist progressive mantra created by Soro's and Friends, and show some enthusiasm for policies and efforts to improve job opportunities and pay for everyone.