The debt limit, and deficits for the past 60 years

[kallend 1,635]

Lyndon Baines Johnson (D)
     Assumed office November 1963: $5 billion deficit
     Left office January 1969: $3 billion surplus
     Reduced the deficit by $8 billion

Richard Nixon (R)
     Assumed office January 1969: $3 billion surplus
     Left office August 1974: $6 billion deficit
     Increased the deficit by $9 billion

Gerald Ford (R)
     Assumed office August 1974: $6 billion deficit
     Left office January 1977: $54 billion deficit
     Increased the deficit by $48 billion

Jimmy Carter (D)
     Assumed office January 1977: $54 billion deficit
     Left office January 1981: $79 billion deficit
     Increased the deficit by $25 billion

Ronald Reagan (R)
     Assumed office January 1981: $79 billion deficit
     Left office January 1989: $153 billion deficit
     Increased the deficit by $74 billion

George H.W Bush (R)
     Assumed office January 1989: $153 billion deficit
     Left office January 1993: $255 billion deficit
     Increased the deficit by $102 billion

Bill Clinton (D)
     Assumed office January 1993: $255 billion deficit
     Left office January 2001: $128 billion surplus
     Reduced the deficit by $383 billion

George W. Bush (R)
     Assumed office January 2001: $128 billion surplus
     Left office January 2009: $1.4 trillion deficit
     Increased the deficit by $1.5 trillion

Barack Obama (D)
     Assumed office January 2009: $1.4 trillion deficit
     Left office January 2017: $665 billion deficit
     Reduced the deficit by $735 billion

Donald Trump (R)
     Assumed office January 2017: $665 billion deficit
     Left office January 2020: $3.7 trillion deficit
     Increased the deficit by $3 trillion

Joe Biden (D)
     Assumed office January 2021: $3.7 trillion deficit
     Fiscal year 2022: $2.775 trillion deficit
     Fiscal year 2023: $1.376 trillion deficit
     Reduced the deficit by $2.3 trillion (so far)

So in the past 60 years, only one Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, had a larger budget deficit in his last year in office than he inherited from his predecessor. All six Republican presidents had larger deficits in their last budgets than they were handed at the start of their term.

 And yet so many gullible voters have swallowed the GOP line that it's the Democrats who are spendthrifts, the basis for McCarthy's current threat to refuse to pay the nation's bills -- something Republicans never did as Trump was adding $8 trillion to the national debt in just four years.  Hypocrites!

[Phil1111 913]

Voters like the spending policies of democrats. Voters like the tax policies of republicans.

[gowlerk 1,915]

17 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Voters like the spending policies of democrats. Voters like the tax policies of republicans.

That right there explains a lot of politics.

[billvon 2,405]

22 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Voters like the spending policies of democrats. Voters like the tax policies of republicans.

Sadly republicans don't spend _less_ than democrats; indeed they usually spend more.  But they spend on different things, primarily the military.

[JerryBaumchen 1,050]

54 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Voters like the spending policies of democrats. Voters like the tax policies of republicans.

Hi Phil,

Mitch McConnell rails against all the pork spent by Congress Critters.  But, don't you dare talk about the tobacco subsidies for those Kentucky farmers.

Jerry Baumchen

[Phil1111 913]

59 minutes ago, billvon said:

Sadly republicans don't spend _less_ than democrats; indeed they usually spend more.  But they spend on different things, primarily the military.

Agree and both parties are to blame for fostering this debt on your children. i.e. the children of all Americans.

Shameful.

[Phil1111 913]

28 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Phil,

Mitch McConnell rails against all the pork spent by Congress Critters.  But, don't you dare talk about the tobacco subsidies for those Kentucky farmers.

Jerry Baumchen

Farm Subsidy Payments Between Program Years 2014 and 2020 aka the trump years.

"The majority of payments went to just eight states – Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas. Farmers in those states received more than $41 billion, or 51 percent of the total. "

Oh Jerry, it goes way beyond tobacco. So many still believe vote buying doesn't happen.

[gowlerk 1,915]

42 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Oh Jerry, it goes way beyond tobacco. So many still believe vote buying doesn't happen.

Maybe so. The Farm Bill does indeed buy a lot of votes. But not just in farm states because more than 75% of the spending under it goes to SNAP. It is among the grandest of grand compromises.

[JoeWeber 2,315]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Maybe so. The Farm Bill does indeed buy a lot of votes. But not just in farm states because more than 75% of the spending under it goes to SNAP. It is among the grandest of grand compromises.

We all saw Kallends numbers, positive against negative and a net. Of course it goes both ways. Most folks, me excluded, fret over the national deficit. Of course, the complaint is that we’re leaving debt to our kids. Fair enough. But to all who so worry I ask what are you doing for your heirs that you think government should be doing first? That is to ask: have you really busted your ass to accumulate wealth to pass on? Have you really done your best to help your kids regardless of what government does?  Because if you haven’t then you have even more difficult questions to ask.

[gowlerk 1,915]

18 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Have you really done your best to help your kids regardless of what government does?  

I paid for their education. So yes, I have. The guys with the tall foreheads keep saying that the national debt is not at all like a household debt. I'm not convinced either. Roughly the same thing is going on in Canada. One big reason that sovereign debt can be pushed off into the future somewhat is that here in both our counties both the economy and the population is expanding through immigration. This gives us a huge advantage over more mature societies with shrinking and aging populations. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by gowlerk

[JoeWeber 2,315]

19 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I paid for their education. So yes, I have. The guys with the tall foreheads keep saying that the national debt is not at all like a household debt. I'm not convinced either. Roughly the same thing is going on in Canada.

I wasn’t thinking of you but rather about debt complainers generally. National Debt for sure isn’t like household debt. I have EU real estate denominated in Euros and US real estate denominated in dollars. I’m never sure who I’m rooting for. But it’s easy to notice that a 5% drop in the buck changes the debt equation.

Edited May 18, 2023 by JoeWeber

[gowlerk 1,915]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

But it’s easy to notice that a 5% drop in the buck changes the debt equation.

As does a 5% increase. The Loonie has ranged from near par with the greenback since to about 75 cents or so today. And even bigger ranges that I remember in my lifetime. It has a strong effect on the price of aviation and parachutes as you well know.

[Phil1111 913]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I wasn’t thinking of you but rather about debt complainers generally. National Debt for sure isn’t like household debt. I have EU real estate denominated in Euros and US real estate denominated in dollars. I’m never sure who I’m rooting for. But it’s easy to notice that a 5% drop in the buck changes the debt equation.

Generally speaking those who understand macro economics. Are the ones who will leave generous legacies for their loved ones. Its the lower income people who don't own real estate. Don't have estates to leave. So their children will be worse off than their parents. Worse off than this generation. Because they have the dual specter of huge national debts to service. Plus climate change.

Its equally argued that the creation of legacy wealth of the current generation. Was raised at the expense of the less well off. Due to capital gains exemptions for homes, business,etc. All as a result of selfish tax laws for the better off.

Well debt is a concern. The current levels are sustainable as long as inflation and its associated high interest rates. Are kept low and under control. Canada 89.7%, US 107%  are entirely manageable. But Ken's statement about ageing populations is important. Its hard to keep old, rich, old people working in factories.

[ryoder 1,390]

The last paragraph of Heather Cox Richardson's letter last night is fascinating:

Interestingly, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has indicated he’s on board with the idea of Biden invoking the Fourteenth Amendment. “I think if I were president, I would be tempted” to use the Fourteenth Amendment, Hawley said. “Because I would just be like, ‘Listen, I’m not gonna let us default. So end of story. Y’all will do whatever you want to do.’ But I’m not necessarily giving him that advice. It’s against my interest.” Hawley’s defense of the idea suggests that Republicans are eager to find a solution to the crisis that does not involve them, so that they can then condemn the Democrats for whatever they do.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/may-17-2023

[kallend 1,635]

3 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Generally speaking those who understand macro economics. Are the ones who will leave generous legacies for their loved ones. Its the lower income people who don't own real estate. Don't have estates to leave. So their children will be worse off than their parents. Worse off than this generation. Because they have the dual specter of huge national debts to service. Plus climate change.

Its equally argued that the creation of legacy wealth of the current generation. Was raised at the expense of the less well off. Due to capital gains exemptions for homes, business,etc. All as a result of selfish tax laws for the better off.

Well debt is a concern. The current levels are sustainable as long as inflation and its associated high interest rates. Are kept low and under control. Canada 89.7%, US 107%  are entirely manageable. But Ken's statement about ageing populations is important. Its hard to keep old, rich, old people working in factories.

Your over generous use of periods makes your posts harder to read than is necessary.

[Phil1111 913]

18 minutes ago, kallend said:

Your over generous use of periods makes your posts harder to read than is necessary.

Sorry about that.

[JoeWeber 2,315]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Generally speaking those who understand macro economics. Are the ones who will leave generous legacies for their loved ones. Its the lower income people who don't own real estate. Don't have estates to leave. So their children will be worse off than their parents. Worse off than this generation. Because they have the dual specter of huge national debts to service. Plus climate change.

Its equally argued that the creation of legacy wealth of the current generation. Was raised at the expense of the less well off. Due to capital gains exemptions for homes, business,etc. All as a result of selfish tax laws for the better off.

Well debt is a concern. The current levels are sustainable as long as inflation and its associated high interest rates. Are kept low and under control. Canada 89.7%, US 107%  are entirely manageable. But Ken's statement about ageing populations is important. Its hard to keep old, rich, old people working in factories.

Right across the board. However, the facts are that a strong work ethic and a willingness to sacrifice your time and desires for transient material pleasures is strongly correlated to not being piss broke in your old age. More than any other reason that is why woke is the right play on a macroeconomic societal level: give everyone the same tools now and pay for fewer poor people later. Maybe if the anti-woke woke up and realized it was a purely selfish thing to do they'd hit the streets with signs in support.

[Phil1111 913]

25 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

... More than any other reason that is why woke is the right play on a macroeconomic societal level: give everyone the same tools now and pay for fewer poor people later. ...

Agree, IMO AI will enable expanded education opportunities at reduced costs, if not free. As long as the technology doesn't destroy everything and everybody before that. Imagine educating the poor, the prison populations, the elderly and the young.

Why...Why! the GOP would be put out of business!

[wmw999 2,126]

3 hours ago, ryoder said:

Hawley’s defense of the idea suggests that Republicans are eager to find a solution to the crisis that does not involve them, so that they can then condemn the Democrats for whatever they do.

This is it, in a nutshell.

Asshole. There are plenty of them.

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,405]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Maybe if the anti-woke woke up and realized it was a purely selfish thing to do they'd hit the streets with signs in support.

That's not a bug for them; that's a feature.  To the anti-woke, if trans people gets the same rights they have, they lose that priviledge.

[wmw999 2,126]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

That's not a bug for them; that's a feature.  To the anti-woke, if trans people gets the same rights they have, they lose that priviledge.

How do you know you're superior if you don't know who you're superior to?

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,405]

13 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

How do you know you're superior if you don't know who you're superior to?

Exactly.  As long as there's someone downhill from you, you can shit on them and feel better about your station in life.

When I was 10 or so I lived near another kid whose father was a firefighter.  He was always saying things like "don't pick that up, a black man might have peed on it!"  and "well that's really white of you" and "at least he's not a darkie" (referring to an annoying schoolmate.)  He, fortunately, overcame that influence from his father later in life.  But a lot of people can't.

I sometimes think about what went on in that basement bar under the fire station, which for years they managed to keep all white.  Those same people were in their 60's when Obama was elected.  And when I see someone lashing out against blacks or trans people or immigrants or whatever I think about those people, who have slowly and steadily seen their all-white all-straight all-cis all-American clubhouse eroded by the advancement of human rights in the US.

[JoeWeber 2,315]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

That's not a bug for them; that's a feature.  To the anti-woke, if trans people gets the same rights they have, they lose that priviledge.

Lets not deny any anti-wokers the privilege to be trans. That would be bad.

[billvon 2,405]

31 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Lets not deny any anti-wokers the privilege to be trans. That would be bad.

Well, heck, the most virulent anti-gay politicians and preachers out there were hiring gay hookers on the side; why should anti-woke be any different?

[grimmie 176]

On 5/18/2023 at 11:57 AM, billvon said:

Exactly.  As long as there's someone downhill from you, you can shit on them and feel better about your station in life.

When I was 10 or so I lived near another kid whose father was a firefighter.  He was always saying things like "don't pick that up, a black man might have peed on it!"  and "well that's really white of you" and "at least he's not a darkie" (referring to an annoying schoolmate.)  He, fortunately, overcame that influence from his father later in life.  But a lot of people can't.

I sometimes think about what went on in that basement bar under the fire station, which for years they managed to keep all white.  Those same people were in their 60's when Obama was elected.  And when I see someone lashing out against blacks or trans people or immigrants or whatever I think about those people, who have slowly and steadily seen their all-white all-straight all-cis all-American clubhouse eroded by the advancement of human rights in the US.

The next time we are together in person I will explain that to you. The firehouse talk. Way too complicated to type out here. It’s multi level issues.