Do liberals care about the debt and deficit?

Tip: when someone only wants to only talk about revenue, that's a big red flag. I see it happen all of the time at work. So, let's say revenue really did go up under Trump before COVID . . . and? So did expenditure. So how did that revenue compare to expenditure? We needed consistent annual GDP growth over 4% to pay for Trump's policies, which he promised us, and we never got anywhere close to that.

 

The American Conservative, December 2, 2020:

Republicans: Suddenly We Care About the Deficit Again

Republicans are preparing to re-embrace their inner deficit hawks after green-lighting big spending bills under Trump.

GOP senators say they expect to refocus on curbing the nation’s debt and reforming entitlement programs starting
in 2021, as the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the debt has surpassed the size of the American economy.

Politics isn’t the problem here; the GOP has that down. It’s how gallingly, nakedly hypocritical the entire charade has become.
Republicans aren’t even trying to hide that they only care about deficits under Democratic presidents.


"I’m the king of debt!"

​

 

Yeah, it is actually difficult to think of a less fiscally conservative candidate than Trump. Even Bernie Sanders would probably beat him in that category.

 

Trump is a gross perversion of a conservative political philosophy in many respects beyond fiscal, eschewing even democracy and the rule of law.

 

Yep. He's a Pat Buchanan clone . . . except somehow worse than that idiot.

 

The automatic leftist assumption is that economic growth is a constant no matter how high the tax rates are. That is clearly false.

 

I'm probably to the right of you on economics. I definitely am if you are a Trump supporter. And I've never made any such assumption. You more accurately described Trump's idiocy than leftist idiocy.

 

In nominal dollars, Trump’s 2017/2018/2019 receipts have increased, and to the Trumpers, that’s a “Wow Factor”, however, excluding FY2009, receipts have fiscally increased since 1933, (in nominal dollars)….DUH!

 

Which doesn't negate the fact that he did it.

 

Quote; “wouldn’t have balanced the budget if they’d had a 23% revenue”

FALSE!

According to the Tax Foundation, Clinton’s FY1994 budget would have reduced spending from 20.8% to 19% of GDP by 1998, however, his proposed budget wouldn’t have balanced the budget by 1998.

Receipts/Outlays as a percentage of GDP

FY1993…..Oct 1st, 1992 to Sep 30th, 1993….Bush’s budget, however, several of Clinton’s tax increases were retroactive to Jan 1st, 1993.

Receipts; 17.0%
Outlays; 20.8%

FY 1994….Oct 1st, 1993 to Sep 30th, 1994….Clinton’s first budget

Receipts; 17.5%
Outlays; 20.4%

FY 1995……Oct 1st, 1994 to Sep 30th, 1995

Receipts; 17.9%
Outlays; 20.0%

 

In addition to above, here’s the honest truth;

A combination of Clinton’s tax increases, and spending cuts balanced FY’s 1997 budget.

Today’s reality; It would be nearly impossible to reduce spending to 18.9% of GDP, for the simple fact that compared to the 90’s, we currently have 4 expenditures that are growing faster than the economy.

Conservatively, we could reduce spending to 20% of GDP over X number of years, however, in an effort to balance the budget, we would also need to increase revenue at same rate, and the latter can’t be done without a tax increase.

 

Again that budget does not happen in a vacuum. The last six years of the clinton presidency began with budget negotiations with the Gingrich lead house And all of Clintons Budgets after that were shaped by that reality. Clinton was a realist to that extent.

 

Nonsense

 

Wrong as usual.

 

This argument might work better if the spending deficits during Republican controlled House and White House didn't raise deficit spending like kids in a candy store.

Clinton's last budgets actually called for even less spending than the Republican House passed. So what's the big difference? Democrats tax the rich and Republicans borrow from the rich and pay interest.

 

I hope that all the conservative Constitutional scholars who assert that Trump is ineligible, under the 14th Amendment, to serve in the presidency are not successful.

[https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/asa-hutchinson-trump-constitution/]

 

Failure to actually be able to respond. As usual.

 

Look at who is wrong.

 

Yes they would have had clinton not clinton held the whitehouse both sides budgets were shaped with and understanding of who held the the other position. Every budget between 1996 and 2000 was a compromise between more austere ideas from Gingrich, and more expensive ideas from clinton, with an end point somewhere in the middle.

 

All three of them. There are also three or for liberal constitutional scholars that say the idea behind it is bogus.

 

Sorry Bush had a smaller deficit than Obama who had a smaller deficit than trump who had a smaller deficit than Biden

 

Clinton wanted to balance the budget over 8 years, and although several of Clinton’s tax increases remained on the books throughout his presidency, fiscal responsibility mainly balanced the budget within 4 years, and excluding Clinton’s tax increases, Gingrich & Co. would have balanced the budget In 1999 versus 1997.

Also, I once created a thread that listed 50 growth/revenue boosting factors “Clinton inherited”, and are non-existent today, for example;

1. In the 90’s, we nearly had a trade surplus, thus, a higher GDP Growth rate due to the fact that “Net Exports” is a GDP component.

2. Gingrich & Co. also collected FICA excess contributions, (non-existent today). and said excess were actually used to lower the deficit. Bravo!

3. Clinton had NO costly wars/cold wars, thus, allowing Congress to reduce military spending.

Once again, Clinton inherited at least 50 growth/revenue boosting factors that are non-existent today, thus, “a lucky POTUS/Congress”

Last, Gingrich & Co. implemented a proven formula to balance the budget;

As as percentage of GDP, both Receipts and Outlays have to be “at par”.

Thus, today, and considering the fact we currently have 4 expenditures growing faster than the economy…..NOTE; Clinton/Gingrich & Co. had NO expenditures growing faster than the economy…..if Congress were to conservatively reduce spending to 21% of GDP, and without affecting growth, how would they increase revenue at same rate?

Answer; It can’t be done without a revenue generating legislation, Period!

 

Clinton never wanted to balance the budget. That was just a bullshit talking point. From 1932 to 1995, democrats held the house of representatives and most of the time the senate and as often as not the presidency during that time they did not ever pass a balanced budget and every year the government got bigger and spending grew larger and the deficit got bigger, By the time of the Carter administration the economy under those pressures had flat lined as had revenue. That changed with Reagan with Reagans tax cuts inflation and interest rates collapsed, the economy took off and revenue more than doubled.

What gingrich did was to limit increases in spending to less than the growth of the economy proving indeed that you don't have to raise taxes in order to balance the budget

 

Which doesn't negate the fact that he did.

 

Actually gingrich did.