The national debt continues to rise

[selmaborntidefan]

Interesting. Congress got a spine at a point where it looked like Trump was done.

Now that he's not done, the spine turned to jelly.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the second half of his second term.

Yes, there's a lot of "courage" when one thinks there's no retribution coming. That's why I snickered when Al Franken was pushed out - because there is approximately a 0% chance that happens if Tim Pawlenty is the governor who will appoint his replacement rather than Democrat Mark Dayton. Same with "oh, Bob Menendez needs to resign." Not if Chris Christie was still governor, of course. But it permits phony politicians to take a chicken crap "stand" and call it morality.

Of course, while I used Democratic Senators to make the point, they have little on the jellyfish Republicans and Emperor Don Dorito.

 

[some_al_fan]

By the way - and I had heard this years ago, but this shows it in black and white - while it is true that we ran a surplus for four years under Clinton, here's the other truth: the national debt STILL INCREASED in those four years. So even the surplus didn't do much except keep the debt from rising as quickly as it had been. Granted, it grew by slightly less than 100B per year, but it still grew.

U.S. Budget Deficit by Year

YEAR - DEFICIT - DEBT INCREASE
1998 - (69B surplus) - 113B
1999 - (126B surplus) - 130B
2000 - (236B surplus) - 18B
2001 - (128B surplus) - 133B

Absolute debt or budget deficit numbers are meaningless.
The proper way to measure debt (or budget deficit) is as % of GDP:

Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

View the ratio of federal debt to the economic output of the U.S., which can indicate economic health and the sustainability of government borrowing.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Debt did decrease during the years that you’ve mentioned.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Great - let's go back and live like they did in 1835!!!

Maybe 1970? Giving the government the ability to inflate the value of the dollar away via fiat currency hasn't been great.

 

[Tidewater]

Absolute debt or budget deficit numbers are meaningless.
The proper way to measure debt (or budget deficit) is as % of GDP:

View attachment 53603

Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

View the ratio of federal debt to the economic output of the U.S., which can indicate economic health and the sustainability of government borrowing.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Debt did decrease during the years that you’ve mentioned.

Debt ≠ deficit, if that what you are arguing.
Deficits contribute to debt, but the debt is the accumulated deficits (minus surpluses which are scarce as hen's teeth) over the past. We need to run a budget surplus of $370 billion for 100 years to pay this debt off. Figure the odds of the scum in Congress agreeing not to spend if they inherited a $370 billion surplus.
We could run a Weimar Germany kind of inflation for a couple of decades and inflate this away, but they might bring about some unfortunate developments (like it did in Germany). Might not be fun.

 

[some_al_fan]

Debt ≠ deficit, if that what you are arguing.
Deficits contribute to debt, but the debt is the accumulated deficits (minus surpluses which are scarce as hen's teeth) over the past. We need to run a budget surplus of $370 billion for 100 years to pay this debt off. Figure the odds of the scum in Congress agreeing not to spend if they inherited a $370 billion surplus.
We could run a Weimar Germany kind of inflation for a couple of decades and inflate this away, but they might bring about some unfortunate developments (like it did in Germany). Might not be fun.

I am arguing that absolute numbers are meaningless.
If we are running a 2% GDP budget deficit and have 3% GDP growth, we are not actually accumulating debt; we are “paying it off”. Actual values are not relevant.

For example, in 1925, 100 years ago, our national debt was $20.5 billion. That number is a chump change today. However, it was ~31% of GDP back in 1925.

Inflation is one way to reduce debt (and that is what has happened under Carter). Another way is to increase growth.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Maybe 1970? Giving the government the ability to inflate the value of the dollar away via fiat currency hasn't been great.

I don't know the answer to any of this, although I assume the timing of your reference is Nixon taking us off the gold standard in 1971. But that was also a response to the actions other nations angry at us took (and had been threatening to take) for years, so was Nixon right or wrong given the eventuality of a "global economy?"

I don't know the answer to that. Politicians in their first term usually take actions designed to make sure the economy is expanding come re-election time and then they try to play for the history books in the second term, when they're safe from voter repudiation.

 

[some_al_fan]

in the second term, when they're safe from voter repudiation.

What about the third term, aka Trump-2028?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

What about the third term, aka Trump-2028?

Don't even joke about that......

Thing is: don't be surprised if Vance gets put in his place on January 21, 2027 or later, when he'll be eligible to run for two terms.

 

[some_al_fan]

Don't even joke about that......

Thing is: don't be surprised if Vance gets put in his place on January 21, 2027 or later, when he'll be eligible to run for two terms.

I will be surprised by it. Trump is not going to give up power easily.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I will be surprised by it. Trump is not going to give up power easily.

So would I normally.

You call him in and say, "You have a choice. Either you resign now for health reasons, Vance gives you a full and unconditional pardon for everything so you don't go to the place you fear most, or this picture of you with the topless teens goes out to every news organization. We've already taken the vote of the Cabinet to remove you otherwise, in which case you will then be arrested. For once in your life, pull your head out of your (backside), and go peacefully, either to Mar-A-Lago or jail."

This is not nearly as far-fetched any longer as I would have thought. Congressmen can go back to sleeping at night, the GOP can attempt a fresh start, and they aren't saddled with explaining Trump in the next election.

These dictator-wannabes who set up the things he has aren't perfect, and they always make a mistake that undoes them. Trump is hardly a disciplined person, he's governed by fear. Reduce the fear in house, reduce the power.

 

[some_al_fan]

So would I normally.

You call him in and say, "You have a choice. Either you resign now for health reasons, Vance gives you a full and unconditional pardon for everything so you don't go to the place you fear most, or this picture of you with the topless teens goes out to every news organization. We've already taken the vote of the Cabinet to remove you otherwise, in which case you will then be arrested. For once in your life, pull your head out of your (backside), and go peacefully, either to Mar-A-Lago or jail."

This is not nearly as far-fetched any longer as I would have thought. Congressmen can go back to sleeping at night, the GOP can attempt a fresh start, and they aren't saddled with explaining Trump in the next election.

These dictator-wannabes who set up the things he has aren't perfect, and they always make a mistake that undoes them. Trump is hardly a disciplined person, he's governed by fear. Reduce the fear in house, reduce the power.

It is impossible to predict what Trump will do in response to such a demand.
He could go scorched-earth and try to sack Vance and others who try to do that.

 

[some_al_fan]

Don't even joke about that......

I am not the only one talking about it:

"Trump 2028" talk is ramping up among Republicans

Steve Bannon said there are “many different alternatives” that would allow Trump to serve a third term as president.

www.newsweek.com

Our messiah:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1976075377459200092

 

[92tide]

I am not the only one talking about it:

"Trump 2028" talk is ramping up among Republicans

Steve Bannon said there are “many different alternatives” that would allow Trump to serve a third term as president.

www.newsweek.com

Our messiah:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1976075377459200092

i can't wait to hear how ackshually this is the democrats' fault

 

[crimsonaudio]

I am not the only one talking about it:

"Trump 2028" talk is ramping up among Republicans

Steve Bannon said there are “many different alternatives” that would allow Trump to serve a third term as president.

www.newsweek.com

Our messiah:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1976075377459200092

Zero chance Trump is elected again, there's no gray area in 22A. I don' think he'd even try to run - as one scholar said in the article you posted, this is most likely his way of avoiding being viewed / treated as lame duck POTUS.

That said, nothing is shocking anymore.

 

[Crimson1967]

Yes, there's a lot of "courage" when one thinks there's no retribution coming. That's why I snickered when Al Franken was pushed out - because there is approximately a 0% chance that happens if Tim Pawlenty is the governor who will appoint his replacement rather than Democrat Mark Dayton. Same with "oh, Bob Menendez needs to resign." Not if Chris Christie was still governor, of course. But it permits phony politicians to take a chicken crap "stand" and call it morality.

Of course, while I used Democratic Senators to make the point, they have little on the jellyfish Republicans and Emperor Don Dorito.

Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts when John Kerry was running for president. This scared the Democrats there to push through a law that called for an immediate special election for a Senate vacancy and kept the governor from appointing an interim. Romney vetoed it but was overridden. He said he supported a special election but didn’t want the state to not have a Senator for a time.

When Ted Kennedy died it suddenly became a problem and they scrambled to change the law.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts when John Kerry was running for president. This scared the Democrats there to push through a law that called for an immediate special election for a Senate vacancy and kept the governor from appointing an interim. Romney vetoed it but was overridden. He said he supported a special election but didn’t want the state to not have a Senator for a time.

When Ted Kennedy died it suddenly became a problem and they scrambled to change the law.

Look, I absolutely love when these "let's change the rules" folks get their comeuppance if only temporarily. In all honesty, it's why I'm hoping the Republicans have blown both feet off with their Texas (and elsewhere) gerrymandering efforts in the middle of the decade.

It's also why I think the Democratic desire to "abolish the filibuster" is misguided (you sure don't see them proposing that vote NOW, do you?), and the brutal truth is that more than just Manchin and Sinema were opposed to it, but they had an out (just like I have no doubt more Republicans deep down were opposed to Kavanaugh, but Murkowski got to take the principled position).

I see expanding the Supreme Court ending the exact same way. Oh and also the so-called National Popular Vote Compact.

 

[75thru79]

I am arguing that absolute numbers are meaningless.
If we are running a 2% GDP budget deficit and have 3% GDP growth, we are not actually accumulating debt; we are “paying it off”. Actual values are not relevant.

For example, in 1925, 100 years ago, our national debt was $20.5 billion. That number is a chump change today. However, it was ~31% of GDP back in 1925.

I agree that absolute numbers are not as revealing as relative percentages but comparing the national debt, which is US Government debt, not individuals, to GDP, which is the entire economic output of the nation, is not that great either. Sure, if government spending were always at a set level of GDP then it might make sense. However, government spending as a percent of GDP has been consistently going up. A better analysis is the year over year look at government spending versus tax receipts. We have to shore that up first before we can tackle the hole we've been digging. What's past is past and there is no way to change it. We need to run surpluses. No more federal tax dollars for gender transition surgery. No more economic aid tied to progressive social causes. No more money wasted on futuristic weapons with little potential impact for good. No more tax cuts.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

i can't wait to hear how ackshually this is the democrats' fault

Well, I mean, they did lose to him twice.......

Definitely their fault.....

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Zero chance Trump is elected again, there's no gray area in 22A. I don' think he'd even try to run - as one scholar said in the article you posted, this is most likely his way of avoiding being viewed / treated as lame duck POTUS.

That said, nothing is shocking anymore.

That's been on Twitter this morning, too.

And a number of people are pointing out, "You know, this supposed shamelessly biased in his control SCOTUS ruled against him in pretty much every frivolous election 2020 case unanimously, and there's no wiggle room on this."

Just remember that Reagan, I mean Clinton, er, I mean Dubya, I mean Obama, I mean Trump is gonna declare martial law to stay in office. Only the latter sorta tried it, and even he failed.

But I'll grant when it comes to this guy, we can never say never, too.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

That's been on Twitter this morning, too.

And a number of people are pointing out, "You know, this supposed shamelessly biased in his control SCOTUS ruled against him in pretty much every frivolous election 2020 case unanimously, and there's no wiggle room on this."

Just remember that Reagan, I mean Clinton, er, I mean Dubya, I mean Obama, I mean Trump is gonna declare martial law to stay in office. Only the latter sorta tried it, and even he failed.

But I'll grant when it comes to this guy, we can never say never, too.

No, you can't. I think he's in the process of trying to form a senior officer corps which would support martial law. Whether that can be done is anyone's guess...