What's causing rising debt?

Oneuli

Verified User
The Republicans are engaged in their usual two-step swindle. Step one, they give massive tax handouts to the rich and spending increases for their buddies in the military industries. Step two, they say the resulting run-up in debt requires austerity measures to be taken when it comes to programs that regular Americans rely on, like Social Security and Medicare. Mitch McConnell insists that cuts to those things are needed, because they're what's causing the problem. Let's test that rhetoric.

Here's what the budget projections looked like the day Trump took office:

https://web.archive.org/web/2017012...hitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Here they are now:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/

As you can see, when Trump was coming in, the anticipated gross federal debt, as of FY 2019 (the fiscal year we're currently in) was 103.2% of GDP and falling. But now it's 108.1% and rising. Clearly, things have taken a turn for the worse. But why?

Well, dig into the numbers and you'll see it isn't Medicare. When Obama left office, Medicare spending for FY 2019 was projected to be $663 billion. Now it's estimated at $631 billion. Medicare has actually wound up being about 5% cheaper than we were expecting it would be, back when we thought debt would now be lower as a share of GDP (and dropping).

It's not Social Security, either. Back when Trump was sworn in, we were projecting that Social Security would cost us $1.095 trillion this year, where now it looks like it'll cost $1.052 trillion. Again, Social Security is proving to be about 4% cheaper than we thought it would be, back when we thought debt would now be lower and falling.

It's not other social spending, either. For example, back when Trump first took office, the projection was that in FY 2019 we'd spend $127.9 billion on "education, training, employment, and social services." Now it looks like we'll spend $100.6 billion. That part of the budget is expected to be about 21% less expensive than previously anticipated. We're also on track to spend a lot less than we anticipated on income security, energy, natural resources and the environment, transportation, agriculture, and just about every other area of domestic spending.

So, why is it that debt is significantly higher than expected, and rising, when previously we thought by now we'd have a manageable and improving situation? Well, there are a couple reasons, neither of which have anything to do with the stuff Republicans want to talk about.

One is that our military spending -- which was already anticipated to be preposterous high -- has risen still higher. We're on track to spend about 15% more on "national defense" this year than we had anticipated (despite having anticipated a budget that would already have more than doubled the spending of all our potential adversaries combined). Veterans spending is also up a bit.

The big change, though, was from the tax cuts. Back when Trump came to office, we were projecting $4.095 trillion in receipts for FY 2019. Now we're on track for $3.422 trillion. That $673 billion shortfall more than accounts for the difference between where we thought our debt situation would be and where it is. Even as the government has become stingier and stingier when it comes to middle-class American needs, deficits have sky-rocketed, because of the tax changes.

Specifically, individual income tax receipts are down by a little over 15% compared to where they were projected to be (with the VAST majority of the change impacting the very wealthy), and corporate income tax receipts are down by a little over 57% compared to projections. Excise taxes have also plummeted, relative to projections, by about 29%. That last category includes a drop in taxes collected in relation to Obamacare (e.g., taxes on tanning services and medical devices), as well as a huge (56%) drop in excise taxes on tobacco, relative to the earlier 2019 projections.

So, don't fall for the Republican bullshit. The reason our debt is rising isn't because of Social Security and Medicare, much less other social spending programs. We're spending considerably less on those things than was projected, and yet we've moved from debt being a falling share of GDP, to it rising rapidly. That's about Republican-backed changes: higher military expenditures and lower taxes, especially for corporations and the wealthy.

Unfortunately, most political and budget reporters are innumerate. They didn't learn basic math in j-school, so they'll take the lazy way out and report this as a he-said, she-said thing. Effectively, they'll just be transcriptionists for the party leaders' respective talking points. But the budget numbers and history are available at the links I provided. You can follow up on your own and confirm what I've said. Medicare and Social Security are even more affordable now than we thought they'd be, but reckless upper-class tax cutting and obscene military overspend have broken the budget.
 
"What's causing rising debt?"


"The Republicans are engaged in their usual two-step swindle. Step one, they give massive tax handouts to the rich and spending increases for their buddies in the military industries. Step two, they say the resulting run-up in debt requires austerity measures to be taken when it comes to programs that regular Americans rely on, like Social Security and Medicare. Mitch McConnell insists that cuts to those things are needed, because they're what's causing the problem."


I think you answered your own question. Seems obvious. (Kinda' like, 'who killed Khashoggi')
 
omg you have got to be kidding me Oneuli,

a liberal suddenly worrying about debt,

trump could start setting 100 dollar bills on fire for the rest of his term and not put us in the amount of further debt Obama put us in.

And stop with the tax cuts for the rich, anything new?

We all got tax cuts, what is your policy idea? "You get a tax cut unless you are successful"
This is America, join us
 
What are these austerity measures that Republicans supposedly implemented? Out of one side of your mouth you say they blow up the debt and then you say they implement austerity measures. Republicans don't actually cut spending. Once every blue moon they may reduce the growth in something but they don't actually cut spending.

Democrats don't have a problem with government spending (see Bernie Sanders and MMT) they just don't like how Republicans spend. It's not on their interest groups. And of course the attempted denial of the cost of entitlements. Everything else pales in comparison
 
all my life this has been the dance

republicans catterwalling about debt

then getting elected and rewarding the wealthy with tax cuts then when the tax cuts DONT produce the great economy they claimed and begin making piles of debt the assholes say they need to cut services to the needy.


then they pretend they are all Jesusy and say helping people in need is evil EXCEPT when the church helps them.


its insane and needs to removed from our dialog on government function

IT NEVER WORKS LIKE THEY CLAIM


how do they get away with these fucking lies?


FOX "NEWS"
 
"What's causing rising debt?"


"The Republicans are engaged in their usual two-step swindle. Step one, they give massive tax handouts to the rich and spending increases for their buddies in the military industries. Step two, they say the resulting run-up in debt requires austerity measures to be taken when it comes to programs that regular Americans rely on, like Social Security and Medicare. Mitch McConnell insists that cuts to those things are needed, because they're what's causing the problem."


I think you answered your own question. Seems obvious. (Kinda' like, 'who killed Khashoggi')

Yes. It should be obvious -- and, in fact, it's something that people should have been able to anticipate would happen once the Republicans had power. The record, when it comes to debt, is quite clear. Between 1946 and 1981, debt fell as a share of GDP by over 73%. But then we got Reaganomics and an orgy of peace-time military spending, and by the early 1990s, debt as a share of GDP had more then doubled. Then it came down again, as a result of Clinton's policies, only to start spiking again when Bush pushed through another set of upper-class tax cuts and military spending hikes. So, of course, when projections showed debt again falling as a share of GDP, it was obvious what would happen if Trump became president. Yet the dummies on the right are going to continue to act as if this has nothing to do with their long-debunked policies.
 
The Republicans are engaged in their usual two-step swindle. Step one, they give massive tax handouts to the rich and spending increases for their buddies in the military industries. Step two, they say the resulting run-up in debt requires austerity measures to be taken when it comes to programs that regular Americans rely on, like Social Security and Medicare. Mitch McConnell insists that cuts to those things are needed, because they're what's causing the problem. Let's test that rhetoric.

Here's what the budget projections looked like the day Trump took office:

https://web.archive.org/web/2017012...hitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Here they are now:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/

As you can see, when Trump was coming in, the anticipated gross federal debt, as of FY 2019 (the fiscal year we're currently in) was 103.2% of GDP and falling. But now it's 108.1% and rising. Clearly, things have taken a turn for the worse. But why?

Well, dig into the numbers and you'll see it isn't Medicare. When Obama left office, Medicare spending for FY 2019 was projected to be $663 billion. Now it's estimated at $631 billion. Medicare has actually wound up being about 5% cheaper than we were expecting it would be, back when we thought debt would now be lower as a share of GDP (and dropping).

It's not Social Security, either. Back when Trump was sworn in, we were projecting that Social Security would cost us $1.095 trillion this year, where now it looks like it'll cost $1.052 trillion. Again, Social Security is proving to be about 4% cheaper than we thought it would be, back when we thought debt would now be lower and falling.

It's not other social spending, either. For example, back when Trump first took office, the projection was that in FY 2019 we'd spend $127.9 billion on "education, training, employment, and social services." Now it looks like we'll spend $100.6 billion. That part of the budget is expected to be about 21% less expensive than previously anticipated. We're also on track to spend a lot less than we anticipated on income security, energy, natural resources and the environment, transportation, agriculture, and just about every other area of domestic spending.

So, why is it that debt is significantly higher than expected, and rising, when previously we thought by now we'd have a manageable and improving situation? Well, there are a couple reasons, neither of which have anything to do with the stuff Republicans want to talk about.

One is that our military spending -- which was already anticipated to be preposterous high -- has risen still higher. We're on track to spend about 15% more on "national defense" this year than we had anticipated (despite having anticipated a budget that would already have more than doubled the spending of all our potential adversaries combined). Veterans spending is also up a bit.

The big change, though, was from the tax cuts. Back when Trump came to office, we were projecting $4.095 trillion in receipts for FY 2019. Now we're on track for $3.422 trillion. That $673 billion shortfall more than accounts for the difference between where we thought our debt situation would be and where it is. Even as the government has become stingier and stingier when it comes to middle-class American needs, deficits have sky-rocketed, because of the tax changes.

Specifically, individual income tax receipts are down by a little over 15% compared to where they were projected to be (with the VAST majority of the change impacting the very wealthy), and corporate income tax receipts are down by a little over 57% compared to projections. Excise taxes have also plummeted, relative to projections, by about 29%. That last category includes a drop in taxes collected in relation to Obamacare (e.g., taxes on tanning services and medical devices), as well as a huge (56%) drop in excise taxes on tobacco, relative to the earlier 2019 projections.

So, don't fall for the Republican bullshit. The reason our debt is rising isn't because of Social Security and Medicare, much less other social spending programs. We're spending considerably less on those things than was projected, and yet we've moved from debt being a falling share of GDP, to it rising rapidly. That's about Republican-backed changes: higher military expenditures and lower taxes, especially for corporations and the wealthy.

Unfortunately, most political and budget reporters are innumerate. They didn't learn basic math in j-school, so they'll take the lazy way out and report this as a he-said, she-said thing. Effectively, they'll just be transcriptionists for the party leaders' respective talking points. But the budget numbers and history are available at the links I provided. You can follow up on your own and confirm what I've said. Medicare and Social Security are even more affordable now than we thought they'd be, but reckless upper-class tax cutting and obscene military overspend have broken the budget.

There is nothing more costly and yet more worthless than a second rate military. Democrats have constantly been opposed to military spending. Now we are paying the price to rebuild our military, after years of neglect. So who is really responsible for this deficit?
 
a liberal suddenly worrying about debt
As you know, it's ONLY liberals who worry about debt. Conservatives like to pretend they care about fiscal responsibility when they see that as a BS argument that will support further gutting social spending.

trump could start setting 100 dollar bills on fire for the rest of his term and not put us in the amount of further debt Obama put us in.

Between Obama's first budget year and his last one, we averaged a little under a $817 billion deficit. Right now, the projection for FY 2019 is over $984 billion, and it's predicted to go still higher next year ($987 billion). That's despite the fact Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, whereas Trump inherited a growing economy. If Trump gets eight years, the nation will almost certainly have added more debt on his watch than Obama's. Were you honestly ignorant of that?

And stop with the tax cuts for the rich

You're preaching to the choir. I wish we'd stop with the tax cuts for the rich, but every time a Republican gets into the White House, there's another big push to help the rich pull away from the rest of the country, and we get yet another round of upper-class tax cuts.

We all got tax cuts

What makes you think that?

what is your policy idea?

My policy idea is to emulate policies that have proven to be successful in the past, rather than to repeat the errors of the Reagan and Bush years and pray things work out differently this time. How about you?
 
Yes. It should be obvious -- and, in fact, it's something that people should have been able to anticipate would happen once the Republicans had power. The record, when it comes to debt, is quite clear. Between 1946 and 1981, debt fell as a share of GDP by over 73%. But then we got Reaganomics and an orgy of peace-time military spending, and by the early 1990s, debt as a share of GDP had more then doubled. Then it came down again, as a result of Clinton's policies, only to start spiking again when Bush pushed through another set of upper-class tax cuts and military spending hikes. So, of course, when projections showed debt again falling as a share of GDP, it was obvious what would happen if Trump became president. Yet the dummies on the right are going to continue to act as if this has nothing to do with their long-debunked policies.

You are very eloquent stating the obvious.

1. Republicans do this 'Tax cut' on purpose so they can turn around and 'Scream Bloody Murder' about the Deficeit/Debt. They then bring their Carving Knives to the Table to dissect the Social Programs.
2. Republicans would rather 'loan' (buy Treasury Bills/Bonds/Notes) the US Treasury money than 'give' (pay Taxes) the US Treasury money. See the difference?

This is so routine and obvious, I wonder why it is even brought up and discussed anymore? I'm pretty sure this is a fundamental policy of the Republican Party.
 
What are these austerity measures that Republicans supposedly implemented?

Reread. The reference to austerity was not to measures that have been implemented.

Once every blue moon they may reduce the growth in something but they don't actually cut spending.

If you cut the growth of something in the face of rising population and inflation, that's a real per capita cut. Austerity can take the form of nominal cuts, but usually is about holding spending down to a level where less and less real value is available per person. That's still austerity. For example, if you have a program that spends $10,000 per day feeding 1000 poor children, and then the population of poor children rises to 2000, while the value of the dollar falls 10%, then the same $10,000 per day that might once have left the kids adequately nourished is going to leave them hungry. Obviously.

Democrats don't have a problem with government spending (see Bernie Sanders and MMT) they just don't like how Republicans spend.

Agreed. Democrats tend to support spending designed to raise the quality of life for most Americans, while Republicans support spending that's designed to destroy their perceived enemies abroad, and to enforce their social and religious taboos at home.

And of course the attempted denial of the cost of entitlements.

Who is it that you imagine attempts to deny the cost of entitlements? The point of my argument is that the difference between where we were projected to be in FY 2019 (lower debt, with debt falling as a share of GDP), and where we are going to be (higher debt, with debt rising as a share of GDP), is despite entitlement spending being considerably lower than we thought it would be. The big change was in taxes, especially for the wealthy and corporations, as well as spending levels for the military.
 
omg you have got to be kidding me Oneuli,

a liberal suddenly worrying about debt,

trump could start setting 100 dollar bills on fire for the rest of his term and not put us in the amount of further debt Obama put us in.

And stop with the tax cuts for the rich, anything new?

We all got tax cuts, what is your policy idea? "You get a tax cut unless you are successful"
This is America, join us

You are joking, right? the Dems are always better at bringing down the debt. You have history confused with right-wing memes. Dems fiX Repub messes over and over. Since Reagan, the Repubs have been on a plan to jack up debt so they can gut social programs. ryan admitted it . YOU DON'T KNOW THAT? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-and-social-security/?utm_term=.0d5a0d09bbf3
 
all my life this has been the dance

republicans catterwalling about debt

then getting elected and rewarding the wealthy with tax cuts then when the tax cuts DONT produce the great economy they claimed and begin making piles of debt the assholes say they need to cut services to the needy.


then they pretend they are all Jesusy and say helping people in need is evil EXCEPT when the church helps them.


its insane and needs to removed from our dialog on government function

IT NEVER WORKS LIKE THEY CLAIM


how do they get away with these fucking lies?


FOX "NEWS"

There isn't an honest person among them.
 
Yes. It should be obvious -- and, in fact, it's something that people should have been able to anticipate would happen once the Republicans had power. The record, when it comes to debt, is quite clear. Between 1946 and 1981, debt fell as a share of GDP by over 73%. But then we got Reaganomics and an orgy of peace-time military spending, and by the early 1990s, debt as a share of GDP had more then doubled. Then it came down again, as a result of Clinton's policies, only to start spiking again when Bush pushed through another set of upper-class tax cuts and military spending hikes. So, of course, when projections showed debt again falling as a share of GDP, it was obvious what would happen if Trump became president. Yet the dummies on the right are going to continue to act as if this has nothing to do with their long-debunked policies.

Why did debt fall after 1946? Because WWII ended. And yeah, we won the Cold War without firing a direct shot and that was in part to the build up of our military.

As far as the 90's you don't think Congress played a role? It was strictly Clinton? All the GOP legislation passed that Clinton signed was all legislation he requested?

Military spending dropped after the end of the Cold War and then spiked after 9/11. You conveniently leave world events out as if they play no role in how our country spends money.

Clinton and Obama were both Democrats but had very different policies. Clinton reformed welfare, cut capital gains taxes and deregulated the financial industry. Are those failed ideas? Or are they great ideas when a Democrat does them and failed ones when a Republican does?
 
There is nothing more costly and yet more worthless than a second rate military

Do you imagine someone is arguing in favor of a second-rate military? Obviously, that's not what's being discussed. As of the end of Obama's presidency, the military spending for FY 2019 was projected at $600.221 billion. To put that in perspective, it would be almost exactly four times the spending of the next-closest country (using IISS figures), and just under three times as much as China and Russia combined. That wouldn't be a second-rate military by any sane analysis.

In fact, to put it in perspective, perform the following thought experiment. Ask yourself what country, in the whole history of human civilization, EVER spent four times as much as the next-closest contemporary nation, other than the US in the current era. Britain at the height of its empire? No way -- France always gave it a run for its money. Spain in its golden age? Nah -- France was also a close second fiddle to them. Ancient Rome? No. At any period in their history you could find at least one other superpower in the world with a military spend in their same ballpark, either locally (Hannibal's Carthage, Mithridates' Persia), or farther afield (the Han Dynasty). The level of military spending we were projected to do, even based on the trend-line Obama left us on, was UNPRECEDENTED, in all of human history, prior to the current age of American history.

This was never about whether we should have a second-rate military. It was about the mindless right-wing reflex, when asked how much we should spend on our military, to always answer "more," no matter how much we're spending. For them, military budgets are not an attempt to address concrete national objectives, but rather about signalling cultural alignment with other right-wingers. It's a kind of virtue signalling.

Democrats have constantly been opposed to military spending

Incorrect. I have met many Democrats in my day, and have yet to meet a single one who is opposed to spending money on the military. It's a question of how much we should spend. Democrats don't suffer from that same right-wing disorder of reflexively answering "more," regardless of context.

Now we are paying the price to rebuild our military, after years of neglect.

There was never any neglect. In every single year of the Obama presidency, we spent between $590 billion and $706 billion on the military (just counting the part that shows up in the "Defense" budget -- not even counting the veteran's benefits and other spending that shows up elsewhere, much less state spending on the National Guard). By comparison, the second-highest-spending nation, during that same time, ranged from about $92 billion to $266 billion, so that their very highest was still far less than half our very lowest.

Facts are a hard thing for right-wingers to grapple with, but give it a shot.
 
ok=aP4JC0Qv
Firstly the most recent reporting showed a record high in tax revenue. Obviously tax cuts which promote economic growth DO work.

Secondly look at a graph showing what the government spends and note that entitlements are the greatest percentage. We spend more on them than defense.

And the trend is up. Way up. Unsustainably up.

If you dont do something to bend that curve then no reasonable amout of growth will offset it.

This is not news they have been talking about it for decades but just dont take action.

Oh and a great swath of TAXPAYERS benefitted from the cuts. If people wjo paid more in taxes get a greater number of dollars back thats how percentages work. If you half the country are NOT TAXPAYERS then yeah they had no taxes to cut.
Last edited by Celticguy; Today at 03:33 PM.
 
You are very eloquent stating the obvious.

1. Republicans do this 'Tax cut' on purpose so they can turn around and 'Scream Bloody Murder' about the Deficeit/Debt. They then bring their Carving Knives to the Table to dissect the Social Programs.
2. Republicans would rather 'loan' (buy Treasury Bills/Bonds/Notes) the US Treasury money than 'give' (pay Taxes) the US Treasury money. See the difference?

This is so routine and obvious, I wonder why it is even brought up and discussed anymore? I'm pretty sure this is a fundamental policy of the Republican Party.

In that long run, that borrowing is going to have to be repaid, with interest. Another part of the Republican swindle, at least under Trump, is to try to shift from income taxes (which tend to be progressive) to other revenue sources like tariffs (which function similarly to flat sales taxes) or heightened payroll taxes (also flat). That will tend to mean faster wealth stratification, as more burden falls on the poor and middle class.
 
In that long run, that borrowing is going to have to be repaid, with interest. Another part of the Republican swindle, at least under Trump, is to try to shift from income taxes (which tend to be progressive) to other revenue sources like tariffs (which function similarly to flat sales taxes) or heightened payroll taxes (also flat). That will tend to mean faster wealth stratification, as more burden falls on the poor and middle class.

The $10 TRILLION Obama added to our debt is going to also have to be repaid by future generations.
 
In that long run, that borrowing is going to have to be repaid, with interest. Another part of the Republican swindle, at least under Trump, is to try to shift from income taxes (which tend to be progressive) to other revenue sources like tariffs (which function similarly to flat sales taxes) or heightened payroll taxes (also flat). That will tend to mean faster wealth stratification, as more burden falls on the poor and middle class.

Yeah. It's easier to pay down the Debt with low interest costs rather than high interest costs. And interest costs are now rising, so it will get worse as we move forward.

Here, this should make you feel better:

"The never-sleeping folk at the not-yet-failed New York Times on the Trump tax beat are at it again, this time with a lengthy expose on how Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, likely paid no taxes from 2009 until 2016, at least."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/opinions/trump-kushner-taxes-paid-by-others-mccaffery/index.html
 
Back
Top