When is the last time a Republican President or a Republican Congress actually lowered the debt?

[Yes_Minister]

Well, the argument usually ends up disguised as Federal responsibility against the State and/or charitable organizations but you are right in that when the rubber hits the road fiscal restraint or taxation discussion ends up discarded for massive deficits and debt.

My challenge, that I’ll throw at anyone, is the economic reasoning for doing anything fiscal, trade, and/or by monetary policy.

In this case, what you collide with is political goals absent any economic reasoning. Republicans may be more guilty of this than Democrats but none are immune from the pitfalls of politics at the expense of economics.

Ultimately Republicans stand for wealth protection and less government watching big wealth and big business. Everything else is a secondary goal or afterthought. It comes off as cruel but even their core goal harms sound economics.

Now, I am not fisical conservative, but I think you look at certain waste and inefficiencies you look at. Is there ways to improve services and make them more efficient.

For example, why do social democracies like Sweden have a lower debt rate than the US?

How Did Sweden's National Debt Get So Low? Hint: Retirement Funds - Commodity.com

ContentsThe National Debt Of SwedenHow Is National Government Debt Calculated & Reported?Facts About Sweden’s National DebtHow Did Sweden’s National Debt Get So Low?What Is Sweden’s Credit Rating?Who Manages Sweden’s National Debt?Types Of Swedish Government SecuritiesForeign Investors In The...

commodity.com

Do these upper tax pay cuts pay themselves or not? If they don't, maybe they are a luxury you can't afford. Why does the US spend more percentage i of GDP of its healthcare costs then Canada? Is 800 billion dollars necessary for defense and is there waste than can be cut out of that budget? Why does the US have the biggest prison population in the world and how much does that cost?

Those are some minor suggestions, I think the law and order, pro military, the free market conservatives would go for this.

I am neither a fisical conservative nor an economic expert, I am more into social sciences than hard math or accounting, I have only taken one accounting course in my life and I have Turbo Tax do my taxes. I used to work as a civil servant involved with pay roll and I hated the job and got another in 5 months, that's how much I am not a math/economic guy.


But even I can see conservatives who say they want to reduce the debt, but insists massive tax cuts pay themselves or have huge carve outs for military spending and their law and order agenda are full of it. This goes against basic accounting, debits and credits.


Conservatives who propose austerity ( massive tax raises and massive spending cuts) to deal with the debt would more honest than conservatives saying we can solve this through the same failed voodoo economics that Reagan introduced. I don't support austerity, but that would actually be an honest solution proposal.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Now, I am not fisical conservative, but I think you look at certain waste and inefficiencies you look at. Is there ways to improve services and make them more efficient.

For example, why do social democracies like Sweden have a lower debt rate than the US?

How Did Sweden's National Debt Get So Low? Hint: Retirement Funds - Commodity.com

ContentsThe National Debt Of SwedenHow Is National Government Debt Calculated & Reported?Facts About Sweden’s National DebtHow Did Sweden’s National Debt Get So Low?What Is Sweden’s Credit Rating?Who Manages Sweden’s National Debt?Types Of Swedish Government SecuritiesForeign Investors In The...

commodity.com

Do these upper tax pay cuts pay themselves or not? If they don't, maybe they are a luxury you can't afford. Why does the US spend more percentage i of GDP of its healthcare costs then Canada? Is 800 billion dollars necessary for defense and is there waste than can be cut out of that budget? Why does the US have the biggest prison population in the world and how much does that cost?

Those are some minor suggestions, I think the law and order, pro military, the free market conservatives would go for this.

I am neither a fisical conservative nor an economic expert, I am more into social sciences than hard math or accounting, I have only taken one accounting course in my life and I have Turbo Tax do my taxes. I used to work as a civil servant involved with pay roll and I hated the job and got another in 5 months, that's how much I am not a math/economic guy.


But even I can see conservatives who say they want to reduce the debt, but insists massive tax cuts pay themselves or have huge carve outs for military spending and their law and order agenda are full of it. This goes against basic accounting, debits and credits.


Conservatives who propose austerity ( massive tax raises and massive spending cuts) to deal with the debt would more honest than conservatives saying we can solve this through the same failed voodoo economics that Reagan introduced. I don't support austerity, but that would actually be an honest solution proposal.

Apples to oranges, in just about every regard from fiscal and trade policy motivations to the basis and means of monetary policy.

But most important why today’s Republicans and Democrats divorce their political decisions from sound economic reasoning is largely momentum driven.

The US will not make decisions with the same motives as the political spectrum in Sweden (or really any other European nation.) At this point it is borderline cannot more than will not.

Can reasonable changes in increment be made? Of course, but political goals and duopoly level complications in the US make even minor changes unlikely. All evidence supporting.

And again, economic reasoning is simply not in our political space. Our tax policy being the best example of that reality even more so than spending reasons, all with efficiency concepts never entering these discussions.

You give modern Republicans and Democrats too much credit in capacity for being reasonable or even purposeful.

 

[eman623]

No, Clinton was key to balancing the budget and erasing the deficit. The GOP fought tooth and nail about everything, even having their tax-cut scheme vetoed. Newt Gingrich even opposed the Bill that helped lead to balanced budgets. But Bush later ran with that tax-cut scheme while starting two wars!

LOL. What is it they say? Success has a thousand fathers while failure is an orphan.

Calling it the "Clinton Surplus" doesn't make it so. Clinton did do the "triangulation" thing to end lifetime welfare. He was fought in this not by the GOP, but his own party.

The biggest factor in the balanced budgets was of course the dot-com boom. But the fact remains that a Dem president and GOP congress were in power at that time.

 

[mrjurrs]

Neither side does anything about it except complain about it when they're not in power. However there is little point in actually paying down the debt if the following year they will over spend by another trillion dollars or more. I'm in favor of mandating a balanced budget unless over ridden by 3/4 of congress in time of dire emergency. Initially it would be a shock to the system but eventually the economy would rebound as the US is addressing the hemorrhaging.

I'm in favor of a fair tax system that drives economic growth.

 

[DrewPaul]

I'm in favor of a fair tax system that drives economic growth.

I imagine we have different ideas of what is fair and what drives economic growth. I like the flat tax or the POS tax but it won't happen in my life time.

 

[MSgt]

LOL. What is it they say? Success has a thousand fathers while failure is an orphan.

Calling it the "Clinton Surplus" doesn't make it so. Clinton did do the "triangulation" thing to end lifetime welfare. He was fought in this not by the GOP, but his own party.

The biggest factor in the balanced budgets was of course the dot-com boom. But the fact remains that a Dem president and GOP congress were in power at that time.

I didn't call it a "Clinton Surplus," but it is apt. And you are wrong about how helpful Republicans were. Clinton vetoed the Republican budget schemes in 1995 and in 1999, forcing them to play ball. I gave you the more summarized facts and a link from FactCheck.org. I'll expand and offer the context.

1) The very Republicans you refer to, rejected George H.W. Bush because he talked of having to raise taxes to fix Reagan's debt. In other words, Republicans were fine with debt if fixing it meant raising taxes on their wealthy donors. This is how Clinton was elected in 1992. The Republicans split their votes (not for Clinton) and Bush became the very last Republican fiscal conservative in the White House. He was rejected for it.

2) Before Clinton took office in Jan 1993, Bush signed the 1993 appropriations bill, which raised the income tax rate from 31% to 39.6%, increased corporate income tax rate, raised fuel taxes, and raised various other taxes. The 102nd Congress (Jan 1991 ~ Jan 1993) was Democrat, not Republican. Then Clinton pushed through the Tax reform Act of 1993, which increased taxes on upper-income taxpayers in his first year to further attack this debt. But it also cut taxes in appropriate places, which helped to produce that dot.com boom. How did he do this? Because the 103rd Congress (Jan 1993 ~ Jan 1995) was not Republican. It was Democrat. Clinton's later fiscal 1994 budget also contained spending restraints. It proposed a 34% increase in federal revenue and a 21% increase in federal spending over the next five years. So, by the time that Republicans took Congress back the following year (1995), the seeds were planted.

Yes, along the way the dot.com boom greatly assisted. But it was this early action that resonated down through the years that Republicans fought against. Once Republicans got back Congress in 1995, Clinton had to wheel-and-deal, even repealing Glass-Steagall for them in 1999(?), to keep focusing on removing Reagan's debt. But throughout, the Republican idea to fix the budget was to simply keep attacking social programs while cutting taxes. Yes, even then, Republicans were attacking Social Security and Medicare. Why? Because one of Reagan's expressed goals was to continue the fight and see an end to the New Deal. This is where Glass-Seagal became a victim and about a decade later Republicans gave us the bank-caused 2007 Great Recession (while Clinton's dumb-ass defended repealing it). Clinton's way to get Republicans to play ball was to offer incentives within their obnoxious tax-cut schemes and to court wealthy conservative donors.

So, "Clinton-Surplus?" Maybe.

 

[mrjurrs]

I imagine we have different ideas of what is fair and what drives economic growth. I like the flat tax or the POS tax but it won't happen in my life time.

I prefer a 1950's style bracketing with almost no taxes paid by the people who don't earn enough to make use of the tax breaks included in the system.

Poor people are unable to save, because they have to spend all of their income on life. Increasing their income will directly impact economic activity.

 

[eman623]

So, "Clinton-Surplus?" Maybe.

Maybe not. At best it should be called the "Clinton-GOP Congress surplus". But realistically it's the "dot-com surplus". Without that, the deficits would have rolled merrily along.

 

[DrewPaul]

I prefer a 1950's style bracketing with almost no taxes paid by the people who don't earn enough to make use of the tax breaks included in the system.

Poor people are unable to save, because they have to spend all of their income on life. Increasing their income will directly impact economic activity.

Even more true under Biden's economy. Life is 17.9 % more expensive since he's been in office.

 

[MSgt]

Maybe not. At best it should be called the "Clinton-GOP Congress surplus". But realistically it's the "dot-com surplus". Without that, the deficits would have rolled merrily along.

Even with the GOP being on record for fighting against all of it? As I showed you, Clinton vetoed two of their budget schemes to force them to on the band wagon. Any ways...

I think you are absolutely right about the dot-com. It greatly helped the effort. The next market to take advantage of, to reduce debt, is A.I. Now all we need is to find an American smart enough to see that and to run for President.

 

[mrjurrs]

Even more true under Biden's economy. Life is 17.9 % more expensive since he's been in office.

Source for that claim?
What did the former President do for the economy that wasn't just an extension of the recovery and economy under President Obama?

Just one economic metric that his administration improved on the trend that was already improving. Just one.

 

[Nickyjo]

When is the last time a Republican President or a Republican Congress actually lowered the debt?​

Nobody in the Uniparty wants to lower the debt.

If they did, they would start with reducing spending.

Ah, but where? The bottom line is that democrats can be accused of tax and spend, republicans of spend but don’t tax.

 

[Mycroft]

Ah, but where? The bottom line is that democrats can be accused of tax and spend, republicans of spend but don’t tax.

Doesn't matter. They are both spending. And Democrats never tax enough to counteract their spending.

 

[slavablueberryjam]

When is the last time a Republican President or a Republican Congress actually lowered the debt?

The Republicans had the Congress and the White House from 2017 to 2019 and from 2003 to 2007, why didn't they lower the debt in either of those periods?

You fool. You're Canadian. Also, do you not realize the limbo that is going on? The two-party system is secretly working together. The Republicans cut taxes for their lovers, and raise the national debt. The Democrats 'lower' the debt to what it projection was suppose to be. Then, after that, there is a limbo of sorts that refers to the stalling of the american citizen. We don't look for the benefit of the people. It's just the state for the state. We have accepted that, we are not going to ever change that.

 

[Nickyjo]

Doesn't matter. They are both spending. And Democrats never tax enough to counteract their spending.

Last (almost?) balanced budget I believe was under Clinton. But this back and forth is meaningless in some ways unless we talk about who would cut what.

 

[Kushinator]

Maybe the federal government simply overreacts to recessions.

Under reacts. Recessions suck. We want less and with less duration.

Do you agree?

 

[ScrambledEggs]

When is the last time a Republican President or a Republican Congress actually lowered the debt?

The Republicans had the Congress and the White House from 2017 to 2019 and from 2003 to 2007, why didn't they lower the debt in either of those periods?

Let's just start with the deficit. At least Democrats have lowered the deficit while holding the office of POTUS

 

[Perotista]

When is the last time a Republican President or a Republican Congress actually lowered the debt?

The Republicans had the Congress and the White House from 2017 to 2019 and from 2003 to 2007, why didn't they lower the debt in either of those periods?

The last time any president, any congress lowered the national debt was in 1956 and 1957. At the end of 1955 the national debt stood at 274 billion, IKE lowered it to 273 billion at the end of 1956 and lowered it again to 271 billion at the end of 1957. The national debt has risen every year since regardless of who was president or whichever party-controlled congress.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Let's just start with the deficit. At least Democrats have lowered the deficit while holding the office of POTUS

Not Biden, despite his claims to the contrary.

U.S. government - Budget surplus or deficit 2028 | Statista

In 2022, the U.S.

www.statista.com

 

[Bullseye]

When is the last time a Republican President or a Republican Congress actually lowered the debt?

The Republicans had the Congress and the White House from 2017 to 2019 and from 2003 to 2007, why didn't they lower the debt in either of those periods?

During the last two years (FY1999, FY2000) of Clinton Administration WITH GOP Congress small surpluses were recorded. Of course he had some help from SS surpluses.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

Not Biden, despite his claims to the contrary.

U.S. government - Budget surplus or deficit 2028 | Statista

In 2022, the U.S.

www.statista.com

Uhhhh Biden inherited a nearly $3 trillion deficit

cue: but but but but COVID

Sorry, facts and numbers are facts and numbers.

 

[ripvanstinkle]

Bill Clinton? Lol.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

I imagine we have different ideas of what is fair and what drives economic growth. I like the flat tax or the POS tax but it won't happen in my life time.

Fair tax is worth reviewing, flat tax is a horrible idea.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

Now, I am not fisical conservative, but I think you look at certain waste and inefficiencies you look at. Is there ways to improve services and make them more efficient.

For example, why do social democracies like Sweden have a lower debt rate than the US?

How Did Sweden's National Debt Get So Low? Hint: Retirement Funds - Commodity.com

ContentsThe National Debt Of SwedenHow Is National Government Debt Calculated & Reported?Facts About Sweden’s National DebtHow Did Sweden’s National Debt Get So Low?What Is Sweden’s Credit Rating?Who Manages Sweden’s National Debt?Types Of Swedish Government SecuritiesForeign Investors In The...

commodity.com

Do these upper tax pay cuts pay themselves or not? If they don't, maybe they are a luxury you can't afford. Why does the US spend more percentage i of GDP of its healthcare costs then Canada? Is 800 billion dollars necessary for defense and is there waste than can be cut out of that budget? Why does the US have the biggest prison population in the world and how much does that cost?

Those are some minor suggestions, I think the law and order, pro military, the free market conservatives would go for this.

I am neither a fisical conservative nor an economic expert, I am more into social sciences than hard math or accounting, I have only taken one accounting course in my life and I have Turbo Tax do my taxes. I used to work as a civil servant involved with pay roll and I hated the job and got another in 5 months, that's how much I am not a math/economic guy.


But even I can see conservatives who say they want to reduce the debt, but insists massive tax cuts pay themselves or have huge carve outs for military spending and their law and order agenda are full of it. This goes against basic accounting, debits and credits.


Conservatives who propose austerity ( massive tax raises and massive spending cuts) to deal with the debt would more honest than conservatives saying we can solve this through the same failed voodoo economics that Reagan introduced. I don't support austerity, but that would actually be an honest solution proposal.

Sweden taxes the hell out of everybody. There are no "rich people" there either. They have one of the most socialistic governments in the world. Heck, full blown communistic countries have wealth gaps bigger than Sweden. Many young Swedes have capitalistic tendencies and they leave their homeland for economic fruits.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Uhhhh Biden inherited a nearly $3 trillion deficit

cue: but but but but COVID

Sorry, facts and numbers are facts and numbers.

The (Biden) FY2022 and FY2023 federal deficits were both higher than that of FY2019 (Trump’s highest pre-pandemic annual deficit).