Donald Trump Would Push Debt To Highest Level In U.S. History, Report Says

Lakhota

Diamond Member
Jul 14, 2011
158,966
74,556
2,330
Native America
Making America great again — by running up huge IOUs.

Donald Trump’s policy agenda would quickly push the national debt to its highest level in history, according to a new report.

The analysis, which the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budgetpublished Sunday evening, represents one of the first serious efforts to assess how electing Trump or his chief rival for the presidency, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, might affect federal finances over time.

Rather than focusing on individual policy initiatives — like Trump’s call to abolish theestate tax, or Clinton’s pledge to help working parents pay for child care — this new analysis takes into account all of the candidates’ proposals to date, in order to assess how they would alter the federal budget and, ultimately, the amount of debt that the public holds.

It was not an easy task for the committee’s researchers, because Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, barely talks about policy. When he does, he’s frequently vague or inconsistent. But the few proposals that Trump has actually described publicly made it possible to construct a rough analysis and compare his agenda with the more detailed proposals from Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

The resulting contrast was stark. As the report demonstrates, the election doesn’t simply present Americans with a choice between a politician who disparages entire ethnic and religious groups and a politician who preaches the virtues of diversity. It also offers a choice between a candidate who’d create vast new deficits for the sake of some highly questionable tax cuts — and one proposing a more modest agenda of expanded government programs, with added revenue that would cover nearly all of their cost.

5770277b1500002b0073ca5f.jpeg

COMMITTEE FOR A RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL BUDGET
Debt as a percentage of GDP, for the two major presidential candidates and under current law.

The centerpiece of Trump’s agenda is a series of proposed tax cuts, including new breaks for businesses and reductions in individual rates, that past studies have shown would disproportionately benefit wealthy Americans. The committee’s researchers, working from estimates by the (also nonpartisan) Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, determined that, taken together, the tax cuts would add something like $9.25 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years. (For these and other projections, committee researchers produced three separate estimates to generate a range of possibilities and then used the one in the middle for their main analysis.)

Other items on Trump’s agenda, including his promises to overhaul veteran services and repeal the Affordable Care Act, would add a few hundred billion dollars to that total. With no significant new revenues or spending cuts to offset these costs, and with the higher interest payments that so much new borrowing would require, the cumulative impact of Trump’s agenda would probably be around $11.5 trillion in additional federal debt over 10 years, the committee’s researchers found.

The number itself doesn’t mean a whole lot. The U.S. has carried significant debt going all the way back to the 1790s — when, at the urging of Alexander Hamilton, the fledgling federal government assumed liabilities that the states had incurred during the American Revolution and its aftermath.

What matters, instead, is the size of the debt relative to the rest of the economy, measured as Gross Domestic Product. That figure indicates how many resources society must divert from current priorities, like education or defense or retirement programs, in order to pay for past borrowing.

And it’s debt-to-GDP ratio where the impact of Trump’s agenda may be most arresting. According to the committee’s researchers, Trump’s agenda, if enacted, would push the ratio of federal debt to GDP from its current level of 75 percent all the way up to 127 percent.

The previous peak was around 110 percent, and that was during the 1940s — when the necessities of fighting a world war called for unusually large borrowing. Trump has yet to explain why his agenda would justify so much additional debt.

Of course, Clinton would also add liabilities to the federal ledger. Specifically, she has proposed an array of new programs, including tax credits to offset out-of-pocket medical costs and new federal assistance with college tuition, that would significantly expand the size and scope of the federal government. All told, according to the committee’s analysis, Clinton’s agenda would have the federal government laying out an additional $1.4 trillion in new spending over the next decade.

But the amount of federal money Clinton would commit to these new programs is just a fraction of the amount of federal money that Trump would dump into his tax cuts. Many of Clinton’s proposals, including the ones that focus on early childhood, hold out the promise of much greater economic returns in the future. Last but not least, Clinton has actually called for raising taxes on the wealthy — and has identified enough specific increases to raise $1.25 trillion in revenue and offset most of her new spending initiatives.

As a result, the committee’s analysis finds, Clinton’s agenda would place the ratio of debt-to-GDP at around 87 percent by 2026. This is more or less where that ratio is headed anyway: If current policy stays exactly the same, the debt-to-GDP ratio would reach about 86 percent by 2026, projections suggest.

The committee’s report was careful to point out that at 87 percent, the debt-to-GDP ratio after 10 years would still be higher than its present level of 75 percent. That’s a big problem, the committee says, given that an aging population is likely to push the cost of government services, particularly health care programs, much higher in the future.

Current projections suggest that if the government’s fiscal trajectory does not change, debt-to-GDP ratio could exceed 130 percent by 2040 — a level that would also be well above the previous historic peak.

“To date,” the report says, “neither former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nor businessman Donald Trump has put forward a plan to address the national debt.”

But fiscal projections beyond the immediate future are notoriously unreliable, and mainstream economists disagree over precisely what constitutes an ideal debt-to-GDP ratio, or whether an ideal ratio even exists. A lot depends on how much of the debt is financing current needs, rather than investments that will (hopefully) yield a more productive economy in the future.

Meanwhile, the report makes clear which of the two major candidates would require vast new borrowing and which one wouldn’t. “Mr. Trump’s proposals would massively increase the debt,” the report says.

On that, there isn’t much debate among mainstream experts.

“The difference between [Clinton and Trump] is indeed stark,” Henry Aaron, a widely respected Brookings economist who did not work on the committee’s analysis, told The Huffington Post Sunday. “One candidate shows determination to, at least, keep debt under control. The other is utterly indifferent to it.”

Donald Trump Would Push Debt To Highest Level In U.S. History, Report Says

Trump even brags about being the king of debt. Just imagine what he would do to the U.S. economy and world standing. How could any foreign country ever trust us - on anything.

Trump: 'I'm the king of debt' - POLITICO
 
I repeat from the OP:

“The difference between [Clinton and Trump] is indeed stark,” Henry Aaron, a widely respected Brookings economist who did not work on the committee’s analysis, told The Huffington Post Sunday. “One candidate shows determination to, at least, keep debt under control. The other is utterly indifferent to it.”
 
What I am concern about is the reality that he will do this and cut infrastructure, science, r&d and education as he is doing it. Republicans seem to spend a lot of money that I for the goddamn life of me can't figure wtf it want.

Republicans are only for cutting shit that help Americans and promote our country to remain a first world country. I think someone pocketing the trillions of dollars the crooks are spending otherwise.
 
Remember, Bill clinton didn't cut a cent from infrastructure, science, r&d and education but managed to balance the deficit. Republicans have a long history from Reagan and Bush of growing it and fucking America out of everything.
 
What I am concern about is the reality that he will do this and cut infrastructure, science, r&d and education as he is doing it. Republicans seem to spend a lot of money that I for the goddamn life of me can't figure wtf it want.

Republicans are only for cutting shit that help Americans and promote our country to remain a first world country. I think someone pocketing the trillions of dollars the crooks are spending otherwise.

Trump has already made it clear that there will be tax cuts - and they will disproportionately benefit the rich. Sounds like more trickle-down voodoo economics.

f_96b2b44610.jpg
 
What I am concern about is the reality that he will do this and cut infrastructure, science, r&d and education as he is doing it. Republicans seem to spend a lot of money that I for the goddamn life of me can't figure wtf it want.

Republicans are only for cutting shit that help Americans and promote our country to remain a first world country. I think someone pocketing the trillions of dollars the crooks are spending otherwise.

Trump has already made it clear that there will be tax cuts - and they will disproportionately benefit the rich. Sounds like more trickle-down voodoo economics.

f_96b2b44610.jpg

Our middle class started collapse after Reagan applied his stupid trickle down crap on our society. Cut, slash and burn everything that benefits America hasn't worked.
 
The game they are playing with low interest rates on bonds, allows our government to think that borrowing is a low cost advantage..yet they need to be paying down the debt..Once controls are lifted, inflation will follow...
 
The game they are playing with low interest rates on bonds, allows our government to think that borrowing is a low cost advantage..yet they need to be paying down the debt..Once controls are lifted, inflation will follow...
Hillary says Trump will bankrupt the USA? didnt Bambi already do that?
 
The game they are playing with low interest rates on bonds, allows our government to think that borrowing is a low cost advantage..yet they need to be paying down the debt..Once controls are lifted, inflation will follow...
Hillary says Trump will bankrupt the USA? didnt Bambi already do that?
At this point in time, we are passed the point already.....One major recession will doom us all because of no reserves...
 
Making America great again — by running up huge IOUs.

Donald Trump’s policy agenda would quickly push the national debt to its highest level in history, according to a new report.

The analysis, which the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budgetpublished Sunday evening, represents one of the first serious efforts to assess how electing Trump or his chief rival for the presidency, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, might affect federal finances over time.

Rather than focusing on individual policy initiatives — like Trump’s call to abolish theestate tax, or Clinton’s pledge to help working parents pay for child care — this new analysis takes into account all of the candidates’ proposals to date, in order to assess how they would alter the federal budget and, ultimately, the amount of debt that the public holds.

It was not an easy task for the committee’s researchers, because Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, barely talks about policy. When he does, he’s frequently vague or inconsistent. But the few proposals that Trump has actually described publicly made it possible to construct a rough analysis and compare his agenda with the more detailed proposals from Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

The resulting contrast was stark. As the report demonstrates, the election doesn’t simply present Americans with a choice between a politician who disparages entire ethnic and religious groups and a politician who preaches the virtues of diversity. It also offers a choice between a candidate who’d create vast new deficits for the sake of some highly questionable tax cuts — and one proposing a more modest agenda of expanded government programs, with added revenue that would cover nearly all of their cost.

5770277b1500002b0073ca5f.jpeg

COMMITTEE FOR A RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL BUDGET
Debt as a percentage of GDP, for the two major presidential candidates and under current law.

The centerpiece of Trump’s agenda is a series of proposed tax cuts, including new breaks for businesses and reductions in individual rates, that past studies have shown would disproportionately benefit wealthy Americans. The committee’s researchers, working from estimates by the (also nonpartisan) Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, determined that, taken together, the tax cuts would add something like $9.25 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years. (For these and other projections, committee researchers produced three separate estimates to generate a range of possibilities and then used the one in the middle for their main analysis.)

Other items on Trump’s agenda, including his promises to overhaul veteran services and repeal the Affordable Care Act, would add a few hundred billion dollars to that total. With no significant new revenues or spending cuts to offset these costs, and with the higher interest payments that so much new borrowing would require, the cumulative impact of Trump’s agenda would probably be around $11.5 trillion in additional federal debt over 10 years, the committee’s researchers found.

The number itself doesn’t mean a whole lot. The U.S. has carried significant debt going all the way back to the 1790s — when, at the urging of Alexander Hamilton, the fledgling federal government assumed liabilities that the states had incurred during the American Revolution and its aftermath.

What matters, instead, is the size of the debt relative to the rest of the economy, measured as Gross Domestic Product. That figure indicates how many resources society must divert from current priorities, like education or defense or retirement programs, in order to pay for past borrowing.

And it’s debt-to-GDP ratio where the impact of Trump’s agenda may be most arresting. According to the committee’s researchers, Trump’s agenda, if enacted, would push the ratio of federal debt to GDP from its current level of 75 percent all the way up to 127 percent.

The previous peak was around 110 percent, and that was during the 1940s — when the necessities of fighting a world war called for unusually large borrowing. Trump has yet to explain why his agenda would justify so much additional debt.

Of course, Clinton would also add liabilities to the federal ledger. Specifically, she has proposed an array of new programs, including tax credits to offset out-of-pocket medical costs and new federal assistance with college tuition, that would significantly expand the size and scope of the federal government. All told, according to the committee’s analysis, Clinton’s agenda would have the federal government laying out an additional $1.4 trillion in new spending over the next decade.

But the amount of federal money Clinton would commit to these new programs is just a fraction of the amount of federal money that Trump would dump into his tax cuts. Many of Clinton’s proposals, including the ones that focus on early childhood, hold out the promise of much greater economic returns in the future. Last but not least, Clinton has actually called for raising taxes on the wealthy — and has identified enough specific increases to raise $1.25 trillion in revenue and offset most of her new spending initiatives.

As a result, the committee’s analysis finds, Clinton’s agenda would place the ratio of debt-to-GDP at around 87 percent by 2026. This is more or less where that ratio is headed anyway: If current policy stays exactly the same, the debt-to-GDP ratio would reach about 86 percent by 2026, projections suggest.

The committee’s report was careful to point out that at 87 percent, the debt-to-GDP ratio after 10 years would still be higher than its present level of 75 percent. That’s a big problem, the committee says, given that an aging population is likely to push the cost of government services, particularly health care programs, much higher in the future.

Current projections suggest that if the government’s fiscal trajectory does not change, debt-to-GDP ratio could exceed 130 percent by 2040 — a level that would also be well above the previous historic peak.

“To date,” the report says, “neither former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nor businessman Donald Trump has put forward a plan to address the national debt.”

But fiscal projections beyond the immediate future are notoriously unreliable, and mainstream economists disagree over precisely what constitutes an ideal debt-to-GDP ratio, or whether an ideal ratio even exists. A lot depends on how much of the debt is financing current needs, rather than investments that will (hopefully) yield a more productive economy in the future.

Meanwhile, the report makes clear which of the two major candidates would require vast new borrowing and which one wouldn’t. “Mr. Trump’s proposals would massively increase the debt,” the report says.

On that, there isn’t much debate among mainstream experts.

“The difference between [Clinton and Trump] is indeed stark,” Henry Aaron, a widely respected Brookings economist who did not work on the committee’s analysis, told The Huffington Post Sunday. “One candidate shows determination to, at least, keep debt under control. The other is utterly indifferent to it.”

Donald Trump Would Push Debt To Highest Level In U.S. History, Report Says

Trump even brags about being the king of debt. Just imagine what he would do to the U.S. economy and world standing. How could any foreign country ever trust us - on anything.

Trump: 'I'm the king of debt' - POLITICO
since when do you care about the debt going up?

respond with the knowledge that we all recall you claiming it was racist to be against increased spending.
 
The game they are playing with low interest rates on bonds, allows our government to think that borrowing is a low cost advantage..yet they need to be paying down the debt..Once controls are lifted, inflation will follow...

We can't afford the wars and the tax breaks for the super rich.
They are still paying for the last wars..History has shown that great superpowers with a huge military is a drain on economies in the long run....The only thing beneficial is some of the technology developed by military means...
 
What I am concern about is the reality that he will do this and cut infrastructure, science, r&d and education as he is doing it. Republicans seem to spend a lot of money that I for the goddamn life of me can't figure wtf it want.

Republicans are only for cutting shit that help Americans and promote our country to remain a first world country. I think someone pocketing the trillions of dollars the crooks are spending otherwise.

Trump has already made it clear that there will be tax cuts - and they will disproportionately benefit the rich. Sounds like more trickle-down voodoo economics.

f_96b2b44610.jpg

"When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases, and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.

Our true choice is not between tax reduction on the one hand and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low. And the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

President John F Kennedy
 
What I am concern about is the reality that he will do this and cut infrastructure, science, r&d and education as he is doing it. Republicans seem to spend a lot of money that I for the goddamn life of me can't figure wtf it want.

Republicans are only for cutting shit that help Americans and promote our country to remain a first world country. I think someone pocketing the trillions of dollars the crooks are spending otherwise.

Trump has already made it clear that there will be tax cuts - and they will disproportionately benefit the rich. Sounds like more trickle-down voodoo economics.

f_96b2b44610.jpg
I see your "Faculty of economics" and up you a

Socialists-Hayek-512-300x280.jpg


Nobel prize winner of economics and also Professor or Economics.
 

Forum List

Back
Top