President Trump- The Implications

[cannon_fodder]

Remember when we passed those big tax cuts and most economists said they were not targeted well to actually help the middle class and the CBO said that it would balloon the deficit, but then we were told that cutting taxes always means more revenue for the government (which is why Kansas and Oklahoma always have budget surpluses)?

$1 Trillion Deficits To Return, National Debt To Rise, Projects CBO

Shockingly, the early signs seem to indicate that economists and budget experts were right and the right wing politicians were wrong:

Despite Strong Economy, Federal Deficit Soars

In the next six months we will borrow more money than Obama did in his entire last year in office.  The new annualized rate (if projections hold at $1.5 Trillion) would be more than any year under Obama other than year one. In fact, he may have a higher annual deficit than any year other than the two great "bail out" years (last year of Bush, first of Obama).   The numbers are truly astounding:

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

This is really bad because things are going well at the moment and have been going well for a while now. If things  are going well at work and you're getting raises, but your spending is always increasing faster than your income...  it doesn't take a genius to realize that ends poorly. Many factors go into why a deficit may exist, but the trend under a GOP administration really makes it hard to argue for "fiscal responsibility." Carter - small deficit.  Reagan - record deficits.  Bush 1 - large deficits.  Clinton - deficit almost hits zero.  Bush II - record deficits.  Obama - deficit shrinks back slightly.  Trump - deficit shoots back up.

But what the heck, lets sling a an extra billion here, there, everywhere.  Money for everyone!
$80 billion more on defense. $21 billion more on infrastructure. $5 billion to homeland security (build that wall!). $10 billion to the opiod crisis. How about another $100 Billion tax cut for the wealthiest?

We can always cut Medicare, Social Security, medicaid, and various safety net programs, right?  Sell off some federal park land.  Maybe sell Alaska back to Russia...

[swake]

The housing market is slowing down a lot. That's always a good sign, right?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mortgage-rates-climb-as-housing-market-loses-its-mojo-2018-08-02

[heironymouspasparagus]

Remember when we passed those big tax cuts and most economists said they were not targeted well to actually help the middle class and the CBO said that it would balloon the deficit, but then we were told that cutting taxes always means more revenue for the government (which is why Kansas and Oklahoma always have budget surpluses)?

In the next six months we will borrow more money than Obama did in his entire last year in office.  The new annualized rate (if projections hold at $1.5 Trillion) would be more than any year under Obama other than year one. In fact, he may have a higher annual deficit than any year other than the two great "bail out" years (last year of Bush, first of Obama).   The numbers are truly astounding:

All those sites post numbers and talk about 'stuff', but really are not the whole story.  I have posted this site before - it has the real, official numbers.  Back to the beginning.   One example of particular interest shows the difference in philosophy - 9/30/2008 to 9/30/2009 and 9/30/2009 to 9/30/2010.  

2008-2009 was Bush's last year (his budget in action) - debt went up about $1.9 Trillion.  

2009-2010 was Obama's first year (his budget in action) - debt went up about $1.6 Trillion.  

Significant decrease of the deficit even while dealing with the Bush depression - the worst economic collapse since 1929.  Clearly shows what the correct tax cuts can do, and how it helps when they end - equally critical, as we have known for decades!!   Got us out of recession in less than 6 months.

And all but one of his years was decreasing for the rest of his term.  And Obama's last one adds about $650 billion.  Now along comes Trump - his first is on pace to be somewhere near $800 billion and next years over $1 Trillion.  With so much ignorant mouthing in the extremist right about "tax and spend", it just shows that they cannot do simple addition and subtraction and do not understand what their own jingoism really means and leads to in the economy.  Something the majority of people learned in 4th grade...

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

[heironymouspasparagus]

"Best Economy in Years..."     Leaves you with less in your pocket than 1 year ago.  That is reality.   Of course, except for Trump....


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/a6eb1701-2c39-3afa-9689-8638bb9de222/ss_trump%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98best-economy-in.html

[Red Arrow]

Remember when we passed those big tax cuts and most economists said they were not targeted well to actually help the middle class and the CBO said that it would balloon the deficit, but then we were told that cutting taxes always means more revenue for the government (which is why Kansas and Oklahoma always have budget surpluses)?

JFK cut taxes with good results.  The Reagan tax rate cuts generated more income (according to a TW article years ago) but spending went up even faster.  There is the law of diminishing returns though which many people forget about.

Carter - small deficit.

But remember double digit inflation. Not all Carter's fault but it still happened on his watch.  As a "hangover" from the Carter days, my new car loan with the Credit Union in early 1981 was at 13.8%.

Reagan - record deficits.

The "fall" of the USSR and the Berlin Wall may have been worth it.

Bush 1 - large deficits.

The Gulf War may have been a player.  He did raise taxes which probably led to his being a one term President.

Clinton - deficit almost hits zero.

Probably cut spending (especially Defense) too much.  Carter could have also ridden the Dot.com bubble to the top.  Domestic manufacturing was also on the way down.  I almost voted for Algore so the Democrats would get proper credit for the impending slow down in the economy.  I just couldn't force myself to do it though.  I lost my job in manufacturing shortly after 9/11.

Bush II - record deficits.

Yep, might have been different without 9/11.  No need to debate the correctness of the Iraq police action here. It happened.

Obama - deficit shrinks back slightly.

Obama was dealt a bad hand, no question, as was Reagan.  Recovery was slow.  I might have been able to retire by now if the recovery had be a bit better.

Trump - deficit shoots back up.

I am not a Trump fan.

[erfalf]

All those sites post numbers and talk about 'stuff', but really are not the whole story.  I have posted this site before - it has the real, official numbers.  Back to the beginning.   One example of particular interest shows the difference in philosophy - 9/30/2008 to 9/30/2009 and 9/30/2009 to 9/30/2010.  

2008-2009 was Bush's last year (his budget in action) - debt went up about $1.9 Trillion.  

2009-2010 was Obama's first year (his budget in action) - debt went up about $1.6 Trillion.  

Significant decrease of the deficit even while dealing with the Bush depression - the worst economic collapse since 1929.  Clearly shows what the correct tax cuts can do, and how it helps when they end - equally critical, as we have known for decades!!   Got us out of recession in less than 6 months.

And all but one of his years was decreasing for the rest of his term.  And Obama's last one adds about $650 billion.  Now along comes Trump - his first is on pace to be somewhere near $800 billion and next years over $1 Trillion.  With so much ignorant mouthing in the extremist right about "tax and spend", it just shows that they cannot do simple addition and subtraction and do not understand what their own jingoism really means and leads to in the economy.  Something the majority of people learned in 4th grade...

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Context means nothing to you. During the "Bush Jr" years, roughly half a trill was added his first six years (including years surrounding 9/11 and the Iraq war). Only in 2007/08 did they spike up over a trillion. What was going on there? Housing crash. What do governments do when the economy is tanking? They spend money. In this specific time period TARP was passed (you know the almost 1 Trillion spending bill that Obama was for, yeah that one). This has far FAR less to do with tax policy than it does with spending policy. What tax policy could have limited all those foreclosures? None. It was lending policies that lead to that. But you know that. Still doesn't stop you from posting drivvel like that though, that basically does nothing to prove the point you intended to make.

Oh, and Obama's numbers do not fully reflect the increases deficit spending. Quantitative Easing essentially "hid" a good chunk of debt on the Government's balance sheet, as opposed to being in the hands of treasury bill holders.

Bush had the dotcom bust as he entered office, 9/11, Iraq and the housing bubble to deal with. Obama essentially had the remnants of the housing bubble to deal with. Yet still did a stellar job of "padding" the outstanding treasury count.

[swake]

Bush didn't have Iraq to deal with. That was a war of choice. He CHOSE to attack Iraq and wrong or lying, his premise for war was incorrect. That war with thousands of lives lost and trillions of dollars spent was completely pointless.

[Hoss]

Bush didn't have Iraq to deal with. That was a war of choice. He CHOSE to attack Iraq and wrong or lying, his premise for war was incorrect. That war with thousands of lives lost and trillions of dollars spent was completely pointless.

And keep in mind Bush kept that war 'off the books' so to speak.  Why?

[erfalf]

And keep in mind Bush kept that war 'off the books' so to speak.  Why?

Please elaborate.

And I must have missed the part where Bush did an end around of Congress in regards to Iraq, and just did that all by his little lonesome.

[Hoss]

Please elaborate.

And I must have missed the part where Bush did an end around of Congress in regards to Iraq, and just did that all by his little lonesome.

You could look it up yourself, you know.

He used emergency appropriations to keep it off the books.

Google.  It's. Your. Friend.

[heironymouspasparagus]

JFK cut taxes with good results.

So much out of context with discussions like this...


JFK cut taxes with good results.    

As has been done repeatedly since WWII, tax cuts are used to stimulate economic activity and increases put a lid on runaway inflation.  He didn't raise taxes because he didn't live long enough.  Johnson did that for him, in about the proper time context...as much as I hated it...   The other huge part of that was a serious change overall - lowering the top rate from 91% to 65% - BUT...and here is the missing context - the deductions took a huge amount of income off the table before even starting to calculate taxes.  Ended up 65% was not that much difference from 91% since the 91%'ers got so many deductibles.

The Reagan tax rate cuts generated more income (according to a TW article years ago) but spending went up even faster.  There is the law of diminishing returns though which many people forget about.

Don't forget that he had "record" tax cuts according to the propaganda, but he also had record tax hikes - because he at least understood enough to know that big deficits were even worse.  And he STILL had massive increases in his 8 yrs.   See the debt history link I posted the other day.

But remember double digit inflation. Not all Carter's fault but it still happened on his watch.  As a "hangover" from the Carter days, my new car loan with the Credit Union in early 1981 was at 13.8%.

Double digit inflation started in 1974 at over 10%.  Then slumped a little but stayed high for many years.  And that episode started as a direct result of Nixon wage and price controls from 1971 because inflation was over 6% until the 1972 recession, when it dropped just a bit.  I know you remember that.

The "fall" of the USSR and the Berlin Wall may have been worth it.

Worth it for Trump - opened up things so he could make new buddies...  didn't really change much else for real people.


The Gulf War may have been a player.  He did raise taxes which probably led to his being a one term President.

Going to the whole idea of trying to slow down the increases in debt...used to be something Republicans talked about....but also just kept on raising and raising and raising...


Probably cut spending (especially Defense) too much.  Carter could have also ridden the Dot.com bubble to the top.  Domestic manufacturing was also on the way down.  I almost voted for Algore so the Democrats would get proper credit for the impending slow down in the economy.  I just couldn't force myself to do it though.  I lost my job in manufacturing shortly after 9/11.

Loss of jobs in manufacturing wasn't due to lower Fed spending or foreign trade - it is due to automation.   As for cuts in defense, he did what every President did - went with the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs.   Reagan didn't - he went all Star Wars on us, and that is a big part of the insane mess he made during his Alzheimer's years!  

Yep, might have been different without 9/11.  No need to debate the correctness of the Iraq police action here. It happened.

Should always be discussed.  If ya don't have a knowledge of history, and an understanding of how/why it was screwed up, it will repeat.  As Trump has been spewing about...with Korea and Iran.

Obama was dealt a bad hand, no question, as was Reagan.  Recovery was slow.  I might have been able to retire by now if the recovery had be a bit better.

Obama's really wasn't all that slow - averaging about 2.5% per year.  Trumps first year - about the same.  This year - will be about the same.  The stock market has gone on and on and on...and did MUCH better during Obama's time than it has the last year and half.   Reagan - well there was so much wrong with that, it is almost to complicated to deal with.

What HAS been slow is wage growth - and that goes directly to Republicans fighting increases in minimum wage every step of the way.  That's why today's min wage is about 40% less in real terms than it was in 1968.


I am not a Trump fan.

I have tremendous hope for you.!!   As for retirement, ya may never get what you want - just gotta jump off that cliff.   Maybe do some consulting or start your own business - you have enough interest in vintage cars or airplanes, there has to be a niche there somewhere that needs filling....

[heironymouspasparagus]

Please elaborate.

And I must have missed the part where Bush did an end around of Congress in regards to Iraq, and just did that all by his little lonesome.

Really??   Where were you during those years??   You have said you are old enough to remember them, so why don't you??


And yeah, Congress was knee deep in the hoopla, too.   Remember who controlled Congress during that time?   And most of the time since then....

And as for everyone voting to go to war...well, that was due to lies told to them to rationalize and justify it.  Even some of the Repubs have recanted since.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Context means nothing to you. During the "Bush Jr" years, roughly half a trill was added his first six years (including years surrounding 9/11 and the Iraq war). Only in 2007/08 did they spike up over a trillion. What was going on there? Housing crash. What do governments do when the economy is tanking? They spend money. In this specific time period TARP was passed (you know the almost 1 Trillion spending bill that Obama was for, yeah that one). This has far FAR less to do with tax policy than it does with spending policy. What tax policy could have limited all those foreclosures? None. It was lending policies that lead to that. But you know that. Still doesn't stop you from posting drivvel like that though, that basically does nothing to prove the point you intended to make.

Oh, and Obama's numbers do not fully reflect the increases deficit spending. Quantitative Easing essentially "hid" a good chunk of debt on the Government's balance sheet, as opposed to being in the hands of treasury bill holders.

Bush had the dotcom bust as he entered office, 9/11, Iraq and the housing bubble to deal with. Obama essentially had the remnants of the housing bubble to deal with. Yet still did a stellar job of "padding" the outstanding treasury count.

Awww... I knew you couldn't go long without a 'projection' moment...   Context is everything to me - as I have pointed out the entire time I have been here.  When has it ever entered into your psyche?? 

$3.2 Trillion was added to the debt in Baby Bush's first 6 years.   Review your 4th grade math book under 'Subtraction'.   Perhaps you meant half a trillion per year?   That's closer...but since you wan't to pick nits, it was actually closer to $600 billion per year average...

The numbers at that link are the numbers - totally isolated from any policy tricks or games being played throughout any given time.  The debt at end of fiscal year, every year, is what it is.



Dot.com bust - popcorn fart compared to what Obama had to deal with.  DOW from about 17,000 down to 10,500.

Bush efforts gave us a DOW that went from 17,000 to about 6,500.

You don't think it's odd that Bush had to fake the need for a war that cost us more than 4,000 of our kids, and several $ Trillion of our wealth??   Just normal stuff to you??   And yet, Obama didn't...and you go along with all those who try to demonize him daily??    Still hearing the "Doors" song...


Again, leaving aside anything I have ever said here - pretend I never signed up or made any comment about anything - exactly what value system is it that allows you to rationalize, excuse, and condone, any of this??  Especially the Trump part of late...

[erfalf]

You could look it up yourself, you know.

He used emergency appropriations to keep it off the books.

Google.  It's. Your. Friend.

Emergency Appropriations do not equal does not get counted in spending. It was only "off the books" of the pentagon's budget. I was young, so I understand I may have missed things. But this by no means that the spending somehow didn't count. It was just a budgeting gimmick, to essentially spread the cost of the war over other departments, thus misleading the true cost of the war. I promise you though, it's all still there in some budget somewhere.

[erfalf]

Awww... I knew you couldn't go long without a 'projection' moment...   Context is everything to me - as I have pointed out the entire time I have been here.  When has it ever entered into your psyche??  

$3.2 Trillion was added to the debt in Baby Bush's first 6 years.   Review your 4th grade math book under 'Subtraction'.   Perhaps you meant half a trillion per year?   That's closer...but since you wan't to pick nits, it was actually closer to $600 billion per year average...

The numbers at that link are the numbers - totally isolated from any policy tricks or games being played throughout any given time.  The debt at end of fiscal year, every year, is what it is.



Dot.com bust - popcorn fart compared to what Obama had to deal with.  DOW from about 17,000 down to 10,500.

Bush efforts gave us a DOW that went from 17,000 to about 6,500.

You don't think it's odd that Bush had to fake the need for a war that cost us more than 4,000 of our kids, and several $ Trillion of our wealth??   Just normal stuff to you??   And yet, Obama didn't...and you go along with all those who try to demonize him daily??    Still hearing the "Doors" song...


Again, leaving aside anything I have ever said here - pretend I never signed up or made any comment about anything - exactly what value system is it that allows you to rationalize, excuse, and condone, any of this??  Especially the Trump part of late...

I actually did mean per year, I didn't overlook, just mistyped. It's not a coincidence that the exact figure was 1/6th the first six years cumulative deficit spending.

You misleadingly used the worst year of Bush to make comparison's to Obama. And we could argue till we are blue in the face about which things were more difficult and expensive to deal with, there will be no winner (except in your diluted mind).