• 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!

Biden Increased the Deficit, Not Reduced It

A hostile congress...but try and ignore that...Trump continues to live in your head rent free.

Exploding deficits whenever you cut taxes has been on the wealthy has been the pattern from the Gilded age, to Reagan, to Trump, and most recently Truss. When will conservatives let go of their beloved trickle down economics? Economists have known it doesn’t work for decades now.
 
A hostile congress...but try and ignore that...Trump continues to live in your head rent free.
Huh? So you don't understand how bills become law?
 
It's interesting reading threads like this, but what's more interesting is noticing who, as far as which political faction, starts threads like this one. It's never liberals/progressives who question the debt or the deficit or attempt to place blame for it at a Republican president's feet, that is not until who's truly to blame for the increase and why is made part of the debate. Nonetheless, my assessment is every time this topic comes up it's always a conservative Republican who does it.

OOOH, one flaw in your theory. Im not a conservative Republican.
 
OOOH, one flaw in your theory. Im not a conservative Republican.
I didn't point you out specifically, but if you as a Libertarian take the same criticism of Democrats were the deficit is concerned, then consider yourself lumped into that bunch.
 
Its not a feat at all. Spending only goes up. Bidens own proposed budget spends 25 trillion in his 4 years. Thats 6 trillion MORE than during the last President. So long as no one does anything about out of control social spending, which is all mandatory, itll just keep going up.

It's a real dilemma. Our social programs are really good at extending the lives of older Americans. Which means over time they yield more and more old people, putting ever-growing demands on those very programs. "Victims" of their own success!

share-of-old-age-population-in-the-total-us-population.jpg
 
I didn't point you out specifically, but if you as a Libertarian take the same criticism of Democrats were the deficit is concerned, then consider yourself lumped into that bunch.

No, but you said these threads are ALWAYS started by conservative Republicans. Which is not relevant in any case. Biden increased the deficit, what are your thoughts on THAT?
 
Exploding deficits whenever you cut taxes has been on the wealthy has been the pattern from the Gilded age, to Reagan, to Trump, and most recently Truss. When will conservatives let go of their beloved trickle down economics? Economists have known it doesn’t work for decades now.
Except revenue went up. So taxes have little to do with it.
 
Except revenue went up. So taxes have little to do with it.

No it didn’t.


And, as usual, no trickle down. Just made the wealthy wealthier.

This is all just propaganda propagated by the Koch brothers. Not sure where you’re getting your info from.
 
No, but you said these threads are ALWAYS started by conservative Republicans. Which is not relevant in any case. Biden increased the deficit, what are your thoughts on THAT?
Why do you keep repeating this objectively false claim? Biden cut the deficit in half.
 
No it didn’t.



And, as usual, no trickle down. Just made the wealthy wealthier.

This is all just propaganda propagated by the Koch brothers. Not sure where you’re getting your info from.

CBO

Revenue pre tax cuts, 3.3T
Revenue today - 4T

Tax rates up or down, it never moves much. Govt gets about the same amount of income relatively. The deficit is caused by outlays.

1666965224736.png
 
CBO

Revenue pre tax cuts, 3.3T
Revenue today - 4T

Tax rates up or down, it never moves much. Govt gets about the same amount of income relatively. The deficit is caused by outlays.

View attachment 67420329
you literally made his point lol. See where revenue fell after the tax cuts, and then remained completely flat after? When you cut the rate at which you collect something, you will as a matter of mathematical certainty, collect less of that something because...................math.
 
2020 -3,132.4
2021 -2,775.3

Biden reduced the deficit. Literally.

You're struggling with the idea of systemic deficit, and you're on the right track distinguishing mandatory spending from discretionary spending.

But you're not looking realistically at the future: the next time Republicans get elected they won't have the tax cut lever to pull (firstly because it never worked that well, secondly because only taxes on the poor remain to be cut) so to stimulate the economy and make some pretense of trying for 3-4% GDP growth instead of 2-3%, they will spend. I don't even care what populist argument they will make for it, but they will likely concentrate on Defense and subsidies for high tech.

Deficit spending is one thing the two parties agree on. Pretending Democrats are qualitatively worse, overlooks that Republicans do lasting damage to revenues, while Democrats only try to do lasting damage to spending.

Trumpists simply don't care. They like tax cuts, they like spending increases, they don't give a damn about deficit. If they ever control the Senate they will abolish the filibuster, and free themselves from the Byrd Rule so they can commission Space Battleships or whatever. I can't even exaggerate on how profligate a Trump Presidency with today's "Republican" party in control of Congress would be. Inconvenient rules like "the validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned" will be slight impediment to them buying more votes. And their Supreme Court might just let them get away with it.
Now you made me afraid of the future.
Here I am getting excited about DeSantis becoming more popular and you warn me about Trumpists taking over and building Space Battleships.
Yours is a rather apocalyptic view of the future. I prefer Ronald Reagan's view of the 'shining city on the hill'.
I believe you feel comfortable with Uncle Joe pandering to the Progressive crowd and driving our economy into the ground with needless spending on climate change programs that will do nothing to keep our country strong.
 
A hostile congress...but try and ignore that...Trump continues to live in your head rent free.

Republicans in Congress voted for the record deficit too.

Consolidated Appropriations (Budget): passed Senate 81-11 with 5 of the Nays being Democrats.
Consolidated Appropriations (Budget): previously passed House 280-138. Yea's 150 Dems, 130 Reps. Nays 75 Dems, 62 Reps.

That's really quite bipartisan.

But there was another bill, Further Consolidated Appropriations. It also was not closely contested ...
Senate 71-23. 2 Democrats voted Nay, and a further 5 chose not to vote.
In the House, the bill got 297-120. 7 Dems voted Nay and another 7 did not vote. 79 Republicans voted Yea.

All this information is available here and here. It's not as simple as "hostile Congress" but you knew that right?
 
Now you made me afraid of the future.
Here I am getting excited about DeSantis becoming more popular and you warn me about Trumpists taking over and building Space Battleships.
Yours is a rather apocalyptic view of the future. I prefer Ronald Reagan's view of the 'shining city on the hill'.

The shining city on a hill isn't a great metaphor, when you consider immigration. Hiding America's light might be a smarter strategy.

And even within the US, there are obvious and ever-growing problems of wealth inequality. That's not a new problem of course, but modern media makes it inescapable for the working poor that others who do less work than they do, are filthy stinking rich. So what's a shining city on the hill worth, if you need a wall around it and guards who shoot to kill?

The dubious bliss of 1950's families will never happen again. The US will never be so privileged in trade as it was then, nor will wages be as fair now that the workforce includes so many women. Women will not be biased by low earnings prospects to be housekeepers and child-minders, the only way forward on that front is for men to do their share of the previously unpaid work. I'm not headed off on a tangent there: the far greater supply of labor there is now, compounds the effects of mechanization and foreign labor markets, to keep the working poor of America relatively poor.

The only sense in which I would countenance "going back to the 50's" is in trade tariffs. The US is still exceptional in having the biggest consumer market (middle class with discretionary spending) and reserving this source of wealth for American businesses could perhaps create some jobs and keep some wealth on-shore. But it would not address the main driver of inequality, which is the vast suction of wealth from all other sectors into the financial sector. This can only be addressed with new taxes.

I believe you feel comfortable with Uncle Joe pandering to the Progressive crowd and driving our economy into the ground with needless spending on climate change programs that will do nothing to keep our country strong.

Climate change programs are long term investment. If President Carter had succeeded in commercializing US Navy expertise in nuclear reactors, and building a US photovoltaic solar industry, you wouldn't be squealing like a stuck pig about electric cars. You'd be driving one, with a smug expression on your face when you heard about Europe's problems getting enough oil.

It's a question of long term perspective. Anyone who baulks at investment, will never be successful. And so for the US.

Maybe it's too late to get in the PV solar market, though I think it's still possible to have a share (particularly with tariff protection.) But it's definitely not too late to get into Nuclear. Even India is building more advanced reactors than the US. Underwriting and subsidies have been tried, it's time for the Federal government to step up and just build the damn things.
 
The shining city on a hill isn't a great metaphor, when you consider immigration. Hiding America's light might be a smarter strategy.

And even within the US, there are obvious and ever-growing problems of wealth inequality. That's not a new problem of course, but modern media makes it inescapable for the working poor that others who do less work than they do, are filthy stinking rich. So what's a shining city on the hill worth, if you need a wall around it and guards who shoot to kill?

The dubious bliss of 1950's families will never happen again. The US will never be so privileged in trade as it was then, nor will wages be as fair now that the workforce includes so many women. Women will not be biased by low earnings prospects to be housekeepers and child-minders, the only way forward on that front is for men to do their share of the previously unpaid work. I'm not headed off on a tangent there: the far greater supply of labor there is now, compounds the effects of mechanization and foreign labor markets, to keep the working poor of America relatively poor.

The only sense in which I would countenance "going back to the 50's" is in trade tariffs. The US is still exceptional in having the biggest consumer market (middle class with discretionary spending) and reserving this source of wealth for American businesses could perhaps create some jobs and keep some wealth on-shore. But it would not address the main driver of inequality, which is the vast suction of wealth from all other sectors into the financial sector. This can only be addressed with new taxes.



Climate change programs are long term investment. If President Carter had succeeded in commercializing US Navy expertise in nuclear reactors, and building a US photovoltaic solar industry, you wouldn't be squealing like a stuck pig about electric cars. You'd be driving one, with a smug expression on your face when you heard about Europe's problems getting enough oil.

It's a question of long term perspective. Anyone who baulks at investment, will never be successful. And so for the US.

Maybe it's too late to get in the PV solar market, though I think it's still possible to have a share (particularly with tariff protection.) But it's definitely not too late to get into Nuclear. Even India is building more advanced reactors than the US. Underwriting and subsidies have been tried, it's time for the Federal government to step up and just build the damn things.
Great screed, Ugh
Some points right on target. Some points conspiritorial. Like "the far greater supply of labor there is now, compounds the effects of mechanization and foreign labor markets, to keep the working poor of America relatively poor."
Or "modern media makes it inescapable for the working poor that others who do less work than they do, are filthy stinking rich." Do you really believe that?
Is there a conspiracy by rich people to keep the working poor of America relatively poor?
 
Great screed, Ugh
Some points right on target. Some points conspiritorial. Like "the far greater supply of labor there is now, compounds the effects of mechanization and foreign labor markets, to keep the working poor of America relatively poor."
Or "modern media makes it inescapable for the working poor that others who do less work than they do, are filthy stinking rich." Do you really believe that?
Is there a conspiracy by rich people to keep the working poor of America relatively poor?

Most of the rich people were relatively poor, so that doesnt make sense. 70% of the richest 400 are self made.
 
You couldnt tell that it was a contraction without the apostrophe? But whats confusing about my demographic tidbit?
You wrote: "Most of the rich people were relatively poor, so that doesnt make sense. 70% of the richest 400 are self made"

Most of which rich people were relatively poor.? Relatively poor compared to which group of rich people?.
How would you know that 70 percent of the richest 400 were self made?
What is 'self made'? They made it on their own? As opposed to inheriting their wealth?
Your demographic data is not supported by anything.
How could you make the conclusions that you made?
You offered a broad opinion about rich people and you expect people to accept it as factual?
 
You wrote: "Most of the rich people were relatively poor, so that doesnt make sense. 70% of the richest 400 are self made"

Most of which rich people were relatively poor.? Relatively poor compared to which group of rich people?.
How would you know that 70 percent of the richest 400 were self made?
What is 'self made'? They made it on their own? As opposed to inheriting their wealth?
Your demographic data is not supported by anything.
How could you make the conclusions that you made?
You offered a broad opinion about rich people and you expect people to accept it as factual?


You could have just asked in the first place.
 
deficits are deceitful

additions to the national debt is the real ruler on which to gauge how an administration is spending
 
Back
Top Bottom