'Yeah, but I won't be here': Trump lays bare the GOP's hypocritical double standard around mounting

[JasperL]

The original post was about how republicans don't seem to care about DEFICITS and how they were going to get bigger. I addressed that assertion. And thanks to you I was able to point out that Clinton's surpluses came under republican Congresses.

Obama's deficits came under Republican Congresses...

 

[JasperL]

Gosh. If only someone had been pointing this out, waaaayyyy back during the 2015/2016 primary season. Like, repeatedly. For a year.

But it's entertaining to see Trump spout the Keynesian "In the future, we're all dead" mentality. Wonder who has defended that who will attack him, and visa versa.

Well, Trump is doing nothing different than any of the Republicans running in 2016. Every one of them proposed multi-$Trillion tax cuts, and anyone an adult at this point who believes the GOP as a party, or GOP leadership, actually cares about the deficit is willfully ignorant, believing in myths and fairy tales.

Trump signed what the GOP House and Senate sent to his desk. If we want to blame anyone, blame Mr. Serious Policy Wonk and Deficit Scold (aka Mr. Magic Asterisk) Ryan whose House pushed through the tax cut nonsense, and McConnell who jammed it through the Senate, then promised "cuts to be named later" which of course never came, which should surprise no one not an idiot. All the GOP and the Serious Deficit Worrying Conservatives needed to do was pass some serious spending cuts and Trump would have dutifully signed them, but the GOP don't care about deficits.

 

[JasperL]

Good point. It's not like he's in a position of national leadership, where he might feel responsible for the future well-being of the country.



Well, there was a party back in the 2009-2015 era who was pretty concerned about the Deficit. They ran on it, ran on ways to solve it, so on and so forth, as I recall. Can't remember what that party was called.

And it's Decade*. Decade to come.

Medicare now projected to become insolvent in 2026.

But, as Trump points out, as long as you plan on dying in the next 8 years, and don't give a **** about the country after that, it's all gravy!

I can't believe you're this naive. Of course the Republican party 'ran on' solving deficits, because it works politically. The test of whether they were serious was asked and answered with the last Congress, and they don't, which of course is obvious at this point. The GOP spent enormous political capital to get their tax cuts through, which is all that mattered to the GOP. The end.

You mention Medicare. A party that's called the Republican party had years to come up with solutions to cut Medicare when out of power, and when they got the House, Senate and WH, didn't even bother to put forward a serious effort. The last effort to actually slow Medicare spending was by Obama as part of ACA, and the GOP ran against that with fear campaigns targeted to seniors about death panels.

So what evidence can you show that the GOP cares about deficits or Medicare spending, except for sound bites for the next campaign?

 

[Lovebug]

If he really said it, poopoo on him. If he didn't, DB and echo chamber msn will have to correct their stories. I would like some context and a more credible source.

“Yeah, but I won’t be here,” Mr Trump remarked, a source who had been in the room at the time told The Daily Beast.
“I never once heard him talk about the debt,” a former senior White House official also told the news website.
“He understands the messaging of it, but he isn’t a doctrinaire conservative who deeply cares about the national debt, especially not on his watch.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/finance/o...se-e2-80-98i-wont-be-here-e2-80-99/ar-BBQzvg2

 

[KLATTU]

I wonder about this debt .

Everybody predicts gloom- nothing ever happen.
People tend to ignore hypotheticals until something really bad happens, then the tendency is to over-react to 'correct' it.

 

[Bullseye]

Obama's deficits came under Republican Congresses...

Uh, only partially and they subsided quickly once gop got a foothold. 2009, and 2010 were full Dem controlled congresses and deficits far north of one trillion. 2011 and 2012 were split with Dems holding Senate.

 

[Bullseye]

Are you simply uninformed?

In 2000, the Federal government ran a $243 billion surplus in 2000, a $128 billion surplus in 2001, and a $157 billion deficit in 2002.

If so, you have no business making statements such as the ones i'm quoting.

The discussion was about GOP and DEFICITS. Oh, and those surpluses ALSO were under GOP control of Congress. Oh, you do know that that a huge portion of each of those surpluses was because of Social Security surplus, right?

 

[JasperL]

Uh, only partially and they subsided quickly once gop got a foothold. 2009, and 2010 were full Dem controlled congresses and deficits far north of one trillion. 2011 and 2012 were split with Dems holding Senate.

Of course the Great Recession Bush handed off collapsed revenues and played a big role in those deficits, but I'm sure you will find a way to blame that on the Democrats as well. It's how you guys roll.

What you were touting, the $160B deficit in 2007 under Bush, was in fact unsustainable because the revenues were rooted in the biggest bubble this country has seen in generations. And when bubbles burst, as they always do and did, revenues collapsed. So what's instructive to me is the "growth" fueled by the Bush II tax cuts was a bubble, in fact, and even with that massive bubble, we still couldn't balance the books at the Bush era tax rates.

 

[Winston]

Of course the Great Recession Bush handed off collapsed revenues and played a big role in those deficits, but I'm sure you will find a way to blame that on the Democrats as well. It's how you guys roll.

He's got his ass handed to him on the budget 1,000 times, it's pointless to continue.

 

[Kushinator]

The discussion was about GOP and DEFICITS.

Ahhh, you are uncomfortable with math. Probably a good idea to steer clear of these discussions.

Oh, and those surpluses ALSO were under GOP control of Congress.

Just like the past 8 years of deficits?? :roll:

Oh, you do know that that a huge portion of each of those surpluses was because of Social Security surplus, right?

You know that if you factor in the social security trust fund, there were still surpluses in 2000 and 2001.

So... do yourself a favor and delete your account. There is no reason for you to be here.

 

[Bullseye]

Ahhh, you are uncomfortable with math. Probably a good idea to steer clear of these discussions.



Just like the past 8 years of deficits?? :roll:

Except Clinton's policies, particularly in his second term moved to the center and he WORKED with the GOP Senate and House. Obama never did. Oh, and except for two years Obama had a Dem senate.

You know that if you factor in the social security trust fund, there were still surpluses in 2000 and 2001.

Of course. How much did congress OR the president's policies affect FICA?

So... do yourself a favor and delete your account. There is no reason for you to be here.

Classic lib BS.

 

[Kushinator]

Except Clinton's policies, particularly in his second term moved to the center and he WORKED with the GOP Senate and House. Obama never did. Oh, and except for two years Obama had a Dem senate.

Your rationalization is not a justification for ignorance. Why not just admit you have been wrong?

Of course. How much did congress OR the president's policies affect FICA?

So you knew their were surpluses regardless of S.S. contribution to the Trust Fund, but made a statement that ignored this fact... only to agree with it later? I'm not surprised.

Classic lib BS.

If nothing you state ads value to the discussion, you're getting called out for lying, ignorance, etc... on a pretty consistent basis, and you're clearly not learning, why do you want to be here?

 

[MTAtech]

Oh, well, if the Daily Beast says it, you can take it to the bank. :roll: Oh, and by the way the lowest deficit in this century came under GWB - a mere $160 billion, yes billion with a "b".

Except Clinton had four years of surpluses. There can be no smaller deficit than a surplus.

 

[MTAtech]

The discussion was about GOP and DEFICITS. Oh, and those surpluses ALSO were under GOP control of Congress. Oh, you do know that that a huge portion of each of those surpluses was because of Social Security surplus, right?

The "small" deficit under Bush also included Social Security receipts.

 

[JasperL]

Except Clinton's policies, particularly in his second term moved to the center and he WORKED with the GOP Senate and House. Obama never did. Oh, and except for two years Obama had a Dem senate.

Of course. How much did congress OR the president's policies affect FICA?

Classic lib BS.

OBRA 1993 which got zero GOP votes and was signed by Clinton removed the Medicare cap and increased the maximum amount of SS subject to tax from 50% to 85%.

 

[JasperL]

Except Clinton had four years of surpluses. There can be no smaller deficit than a surplus.

You missed some posts. Apparently surpluses don't count, and besides the GOP did all the work for those surpluses, Clinton was a mere bystander, because of course....

It's odd how good GOP propaganda is. I had this argument with another poster on the same subject - that Clinton didn't do much to generate the surpluses, that it was the Gingrich GOP Congress that's responsible. It's fact free, of course, the tax increases were by far the biggest driver of the deficit reduction into surplus (along with a good economy), but in a weird way you have to hand it to GOP propaganda. They've managed to feed this narrative that the same GOP who took the Clinton surplus and under Bush II lit a fire to it with two tax cuts, wars, new entitlements and increased spending across the board were responsible for the Clinton budget results.

 

[JoanDavis]

That's funny stuff there. Surpluses don't count!! :lamo

And the 2002 deficit of $158B < $160B deficit in 2007.

I also get a kick out of Republican math. For example, the Obama deficits with a GOP Congress for last 6 of 8 years are presumably Obama's fault, but the Clinton surpluses with a GOP Congress for the last 6 of 8 years are actually the GOP surpluses!

BTW, I added to my post a bit to point out the problem of cheering a $160B deficit at the top of the biggest bubble in generations.

Didn't you know the global financial crisis was caused by President Obama? Even though he wasn't President at the time!!!

And the strong economy and low unemployment is all due to trump! And when the Dow Jones went down 800 points the other day - yep, all Obama's fault.

Simple rule. When the economy is strong - it is all due to the republicans. When we have a recession - blame the democrats!!!

 

[JoanDavis]

Argue the numbers all we like folks but the President of the United States just said he doesn't give a damn.

No parsing that.

Why would trump give a damn about the debt? He and the republicans will just blame the democrats for it. Heck they are still blaming President Obama for the global financial crisis. The recession started when dubya was president but the republicans still blame the guy they think is a muslim who was born in Kenya.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So no one so far has parsed his statement, which was in response to questions about 2021 and maybe wondered if there was possibly a deeper meaning?

"I won't be here" ????

I thought Trumpsters were convinced he was going to rule all the way through 2024.
If that's the case, why wouldn't he "be here" in 2021?

 

[jdog21]

Republicans can be very inconsistent when it comes to the federal deficit, downplaying the importance of rising deficits under President George W. Bush or President Ronald Reagan but declaring that the federal deficit under President Barack Obama would surely be the United States’ downfall. This pattern has continued in the Trump era, with Trump showing little or no concern for how much the deficit will increase under his watch. And when he was reminded how unwieldy the deficit could become in the future after he leaves office—whether that’s in early 2021 or early 2025—his flippant response was, “Yeah, but I won’t be here.”

Trump, according to the Daily Beast, made that comment in early 2017 during a discussion on how high the federal deficit would ultimately become. Rather than focus on tax hikes for the 1%—which he is vehemently opposed to—or spending cuts, Trump seemingly believes that growth alone can reduce the deficit. And even some conservatives are concerned over the indifference he has expressed where the United States’ growing debt is concerned.

In the Daily Beast, an anonymous Trump Administration senior official is quoted as saying that Trump “doesn’t really care” about the “crisis” of a huge deficit and chooses, instead, to focus on “jobs and growth, whatever that means.”

The Daily Beast also quotes a former Trump Administration official as saying that

Trump “isn’t a doctrinaire conservative who deeply cares about the national debt, especially not on his watch” and that the deficit is “not actually a top priority for him.”

AlterNet, December 5, 2018

Why is every lefty upset about the deficit, I thought the American people didn't want their welfare programs to be cut? You cant reduce the deficit without reducing the spending on social security and medicare/Medicaid and welfare.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Why is every lefty upset about the deficit, I thought the American people didn't want their welfare programs to be cut? You cant reduce the deficit without reducing the spending on social security and medicare/Medicaid and welfare.

Are you saying that Social Security is a contributor to the deficit?
Are you saying that Medicare and Social Security are welfare programs?

 

[jdog21]

Are you saying that Social Security is a contributor to the deficit?
Are you saying that Medicare and Social Security are welfare programs?

US government spending, Here are the top 5 most exspensive items
Pensions inc. SoSec $1.45 trillion
Health care $1.69 trillion
Education $1.13 trillion
Defense $0.95 trillion
Welfare $0.45 trillion
Equals 5.67 trillion out of a total spending of 7.56 trillion, that's 75% of the budget right there. With a deficit of -0.779 trillion.
So where do you want to make the cuts, Health care which is Medicaid and medicare. Social security, welfare, or Education

 

[MTAtech]

You missed some posts. Apparently surpluses don't count, and besides the GOP did all the work for those surpluses, Clinton was a mere bystander, because of course....

It's odd how good GOP propaganda is. I had this argument with another poster on the same subject - that Clinton didn't do much to generate the surpluses, that it was the Gingrich GOP Congress that's responsible. It's fact free, of course, the tax increases were by far the biggest driver of the deficit reduction into surplus (along with a good economy), but in a weird way you have to hand it to GOP propaganda. They've managed to feed this narrative that the same GOP who took the Clinton surplus and under Bush II lit a fire to it with two tax cuts, wars, new entitlements and increased spending across the board were responsible for the Clinton budget results.

Yes, you touched on a salient point -- the GOP likes to take credit and affix blame always to its advantage -- when there is a surplus, it's because of the GOP Congress, who passes the budget. But, when there is a deficit, it's "Obama's deficit."

 

[MTAtech]

US government spending, Here are the top 5 most exspensive items
Pensions inc. SoSec $1.45 trillion
Health care $1.69 trillion
Education $1.13 trillion
Defense $0.95 trillion
Welfare $0.45 trillion
Equals 5.67 trillion out of a total spending of 7.56 trillion, that's 75% of the budget right there. With a deficit of -0.779 trillion.
So where do you want to make the cuts, Health care which is Medicaid and medicare. Social security, welfare, or Education

What you are "forgetting" is that Social Security and Medicare have dedicated taxes. You can't call them an expense and neglect the revenue that they generate. Obamacare also has/had it's own funding source. However, the GOP last year did away with that tax so the richest Americans could get a tax-cut.

 

[JasperL]

Why is every lefty upset about the deficit, I thought the American people didn't want their welfare programs to be cut? You cant reduce the deficit without reducing the spending on social security and medicare/Medicaid and welfare.

Well, sure you obviously CAN reduce the deficit without cutting entitlement spending - raise taxes, or cut other spending, like defense spending or spending for Trump's SS detail to take him on a golf outing every weekend.

Revenues minus expenditures = surplus (deficit). Anything that impacts the amount of revenues or expenditures impacts the deficit. The GOP tax cuts made projected deficits far worse, for example. Reversing them would reduce deficits below current projections.